The Fate of Lee Jae-yong in the Hands of Ordinary Citizens... Decision on Convening the 'Investigation Deliberation Committee' to Be Made Today (Comprehensive)

Today Afternoon, the Committee on Referral Review Held at Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office

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 morning of the 8th. Photo by Kang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] Whether to hold the Prosecutor's Investigation Deliberation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Investigation Deliberation Committee), convened at the request of Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong (52) and others, will be decided on the 11th by randomly selected ordinary citizens from among the prosecution citizen committee members.

In a situation where the arrest warrant requested by the prosecution was dismissed, the prosecution and Samsung side will once again clash through written opinions over the necessity of referring the case to the Investigation Deliberation Committee. Regardless of what conclusion the Investigation Deliberation Committee will reach in the future, the very act of submitting the validity and necessity of prosecution of this investigation for deliberation is inevitably a burden for the prosecution.

The Referral Deliberation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Referral Deliberation Committee), composed of 15 prosecution citizen committee members from the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office and the Southeast, Northwest, and Finance and Economy Prosecutors' Offices, will hold a meeting in the afternoon to decide whether to refer the case involving Vice Chairman Lee and others to the Investigation Deliberation Committee established at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office.

Unlike the Investigation Deliberation Committee, which is composed of experts from various fields such as lawyers, professors, and accountants with knowledge and experience in the judicial system, the Referral Deliberation Committee members are selected from prosecution citizen committee members consisting of ordinary citizens such as taxi drivers and self-employed individuals.

◆What procedure will be followed= The members will conduct a closed meeting based on approximately 120 pages of written opinions, including 30 pages each submitted by Vice Chairman Lee, former Samsung Future Strategy Office Strategy Team Leader Kim Jong-jung (64), Samsung C&T, and the prosecution. Afterward, they will vote on whether to refer the case to the Investigation Deliberation Committee. Unlike the Investigation Deliberation Committee, oral statements are not permitted in the Referral Deliberation Committee.

If the referral to the Investigation Deliberation Committee is approved by a majority of attending members, a request to convene the Investigation Deliberation Committee will be sent to Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol through the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Policy Planning Division. The Prosecutor General must convene the Investigation Deliberation Committee if a request is made. The results of the deliberation are expected to be disclosed late in the afternoon.

If the referral is approved, the Investigation Deliberation Committee will form a current affairs committee of 15 members through random selection. More than 10 members will deliberate on the matter and then prepare a deliberation opinion report to be sent to the chief prosecutor.

During the meeting, opinions regarding the court's dismissal of the arrest warrant and the rationale behind the dismissal decision are also expected to be exchanged. The prosecution and Samsung have presented completely opposing interpretations on this matter.

◆Prosecution appeals to “prevent abuse of the system”= The prosecution is known to have emphasized in its written opinion that the criminal charges against Vice Chairman Lee and others are clear and that related physical evidence has been secured, so there is no need to review the decision to prosecute at the Investigation Deliberation Committee.

In particular, contrary to the original purpose of the system, the prosecution appealed to prevent suspects who are certain to be prosecuted from abusing the system as a means to avoid arrest or prosecution, as stated in the written opinion.

Regarding the reasons for the dismissal of the warrant, the prosecution's position appears to be that the court's statement, “The basic facts have been established. It is appropriate to determine responsibility and its extent through sufficient debate and examination during the trial process,” implies that the criminal facts have been proven and that prosecution is naturally expected, with specific responsibility to be determined at trial.

◆Samsung: “The system’s purpose is to prevent superficial prosecution”= On the other hand, Vice Chairman Lee’s side is known to have emphasized in its written opinion that this case is one that has attracted social attention and that, given the legal disagreements, deliberation by the Investigation Deliberation Committee is absolutely necessary.

They reportedly stressed that the prosecution itself introduced the system to receive external expert evaluation on the legitimacy of the investigation, and that it is unacceptable to request an arrest warrant and avoid deliberation when the party involved has applied for it.

Regarding the court’s reasons for dismissing the warrant, they reportedly argued that the phrase “lack of evidence for the criminal facts” was a euphemistic expression and that the purpose of the Investigation Deliberation Committee system is to prevent superficial prosecution when sufficient evidence has not been established.

In the legal community, given that the arrest warrant requested by the prosecution was dismissed, the prevailing view is that a majority of members will express the opinion that “it is necessary to refer the case to the Investigation Deliberation Committee for deliberation,” and thus the referral is expected to be approved.

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