Lee Jae-yong's Side Submits Opinion to Prosecution Citizen Committee: "Reason for Warrant Dismissal Is Not a Judgment on Indictment Matters"

Lee Jae-yong, Vice Chairman of Samsung Electronics, who is under prosecution investigation for allegations of unfair succession of management rights related to the merger of the former Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries, as well as allegations of accounting fraud at Samsung Biologics, is entering the courtroom to attend the warrant hearing held at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul on the 8th. Photo by Kang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

[Asia Economy Reporter Ki-min Lee] The legal team of Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong (52) submitted a statement a day before the Prosecution Citizen Committee’s referral review committee meeting, stating that “the prosecution’s claim that the court acknowledged the indictment based on the reasons for the warrant dismissal distorts the true intention of the warrant judge.”

On the 10th, Lee’s legal team argued in the statement submitted to the Prosecution Citizen Committee that “the purpose of dismissing the arrest warrant was simply due to insufficient evidence for detention, and it does not mean that the case should be prosecuted.”

They added, “The core content of the reasons for the warrant dismissal is that while it is understood that the ‘basic facts’ regarding the (Samsung C&T - Cheil Industries) merger and Samsung BioLogics’ accounting treatment existed, it is unclear whether the suspect (Vice Chairman Lee) bears criminal responsibility,” emphasizing that “this is a euphemistic way of expressing ‘insufficient evidence of criminal facts.’”

Lee’s legal team further pointed out, “The prosecution’s claim that the court acknowledged the indictment based on the reasons for the warrant dismissal distorts the true intention of the warrant judge.”

Regarding critical voices about Vice Chairman Lee’s request to convene the Prosecution Investigation Review Committee, they rebutted, “The Samsung case fits best with the purpose of the investigation review system, which is to have public participation in reviewing whether to prosecute in cases that attract social attention. If this case is not reviewed, then what case can be reviewed?”

They continued, “The purpose of this system is to prevent filing charges merely to evade responsibility in cases where maintaining prosecution is impossible,” and questioned the prosecution, “If the party requested the review but still filed an arrest warrant and even avoided the review, then why was such a system created in the first place?”

Earlier, Vice Chairman Lee and Samsung requested the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office on the 2nd to convene the Investigation Review Committee to examine the appropriateness of the investigation and prosecution. When a suspect or their legal team applies for convening the Investigation Review Committee at the jurisdictional Prosecution Citizen Committee, the committee forms a referral review committee with 15 citizen prosecutors, and based on written opinions submitted by the lead prosecutor and the suspect or related parties, deliberates whether to refer the case to the Investigation Review Committee.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.