[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The prosecutorial scrutiny targeting Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, is now directly aimed at his neck.
Following the Seongnam FC case, Lee, summoned as a suspect in the Daejang-dong case, has actively defended himself by publicly releasing the statement he submitted to the prosecution. However, it remains difficult for him to avoid judicial processing or detention by the prosecution.
Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, is appearing on the 10th at the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office Seongnam Branch in Seongnam, Gyeonggi Province, to undergo investigation related to the 'Seongnam FC sponsorship fund suspicion' case. Photo by Joint Press Corps
Seongnam FC, Daejang-dong, Ssangbangwool Lawyer Fee Payment Allegations
Regarding the 'Seongnam FC sponsorship' allegations, Lee appeared at the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office Seongnam Branch on the 10th and was questioned for 12 hours. At that time, he submitted a written statement refuting the prosecution's application of the third-party bribery charge and reportedly used it to answer many of the questions. However, since the prosecution did not originally expect detailed testimony from Lee during the investigation, the evidence and testimonies already secured from related parties are sufficient for indictment.
The special preferential and corruption allegations related to the Daejang-dong and Wirye development projects, currently under investigation by the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, are also considered to have been sufficiently investigated to allow for Lee's indictment. Earlier, the prosecution indicted Lee's close aides, former Chief of Political Coordination at the party office Jeong Jin-sang and Kim Yong, deputy director of the Democratic Research Institute, on charges including bribery under the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act, acceptance of benefits after wrongdoing, and violations of the Anti-Corruption Act, but did not list Lee as a co-defendant in the indictment.
However, the prosecution has been investigating under the view that Lee, as the then mayor of Seongnam who exercised various permits and approvals, was deeply involved in the series of processes that allowed the private developers in Daejang-dong to reap enormous criminal profits. In other words, the prosecution sees Lee as having the hallmark of a joint principal offender through 'functional act control' by conspiring with them or at least performing certain roles while being aware of the issues through reports.
Adding to his troubles, Kim Sung-tae, former chairman of the Ssangbangwool Group, who is suspected of paying Lee's lawyer fees and of remitting funds to North Korea, was captured and repatriated after eight months of overseas evasion and is now under prosecution investigation. The Suwon District Prosecutors' Office immediately detained Kim upon his return through Incheon Airport and conducted an intense 13-hour interrogation. Kim testified that he did not know Lee, but during a trial held at the Suwon District Court the previous day, testimony from a former secretary general of Ssangbangwool Group indicated that the two were close.
Pretrial Detention Warrant Request Inevitable
Among those around the prosecution, the prevailing view is that requesting a detention warrant for Lee is an inevitable next step. Considering the amounts of sponsorship money deemed bribes by the prosecution in the Seongnam FC case and the profits earned by the Daejang-dong group (and the losses incurred by Seongnam City) in the Daejang-dong case, the warrant request is unavoidable.
Currently, it is believed that after the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office completes Lee's summons investigation regarding the Daejang-dong and Wirye allegations, the Seongnam Branch will likely request a detention warrant by combining it with the Seongnam FC case investigation.
Procedurally, a temporary measure could be to assign the prosecutor from the Seongnam Branch who investigated the Seongnam FC case as a deputy prosecutor at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office. However, to avoid controversy, it is more likely that the entire case will be transferred to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office before requesting the detention warrant. Lee's specific summons schedule has not yet been confirmed.
Before Lee's summons investigation, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office Anti-Corruption Investigation Division 1 and Division 3 consecutively summoned and investigated key figures in the Daejang-dong and Wirye cases, including former Chief Jeong and former Seongnam Urban Development Corporation director Yoo Dong-gyu, to solidify the charges.
Lee and the Democratic Party Launch All-Out Defense
The Democratic Party mobilized about ten current lawmakers, including Park Beom-gye, chairman of the Committee Against Prosecutorial Dictatorship and Political Oppression, Song Ki-heon, task force leader, Jin Sung-jun, floor deputy leader, Park Chan-dae and Seo Young-kyo, Supreme Council members, and Ki Dong-min and Lee Tan-hee, members of the Judiciary Committee, to visit the Supreme Prosecutors' Office in protest. They criticized the prosecution's investigation of Lee and called for an investigation into Kim Geon-hee, who is involved in the Deutsche Motors stock manipulation case, mounting a full defense for Lee.
Meanwhile, Lee publicly released on his Facebook page the statement he previously submitted to the prosecution regarding the 'Seongnam FC sponsorship' allegations. The statement contains arguments refuting the prosecution's logic for constituting the third-party bribery charge.
In the statement, Lee emphasized that he never personally gained private benefits related to the Seongnam FC sponsorship. However, the third-party bribery charge does not require that a public official personally benefit beyond the third party. Although Lee cited advertising expenses examples from other regional professional football teams, the core issue is whether the advertising fees or sponsorships were linked to 'improper solicitation,' which means his rebuttal logic is considered insufficient to deny the criminal charges.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
