 |
|
| ▲ Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong, who was accused of bribing former President Park Geun-hye and Choi Seo-won, is present at the destructive and repatriation hearing held at the Seoul High Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul on the afternoon of the 18th. | |
| Ⓒ Yoo Seongho |
See related photos |
It was a reversal.
On the 18th, the vice chairman of Samsung Electronics, Lee Jae-yong, was sentenced to two years and six months in prison and immediately arrested in court on the 18th. Park Young-soo’s special prosecutor team, who investigated the case, was also unexpected. (Related article: Jae-yong Lee, jailed again after three years in ‘2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment… The sentence was cut in half http://omn.kr/1rqsb).
The judiciary did not consider it as a sentencing for the compliance system, why?
The key to the ruling on the day was the Samsung Group’s Compliance Committee, which was created at the request of the Vice Chairman Lee’s request for the revocation and repatriation trial. As Judge Jung Joon-young mentioned this system as “the core content of the corporate criminal sentencing standard,” there were pointed out that it is likely to act as an indulgence for Lee. The special prosecutor also criticized Judge Chung, and publicly criticized the proceeding of the trial with a conclusion that would give Vice-Chairman Lee a probation.
But the prediction was wrong. Justice Chung said in the court on the day that “unless the new Samsung compliance system does not meet its effectiveness criteria, we have come to the conclusion that it is not appropriate to take into account the sentence of sentence in this case” Went out.
Samsung’s compliance monitoring system, which served as a variable for Vice Chairman Lee’s trial until the end. Why didn’t the judiciary who ordered the establishment of the system finally consider it as a reason for taking into account the sentencing? <오마이뉴스>Reviewed the related details based on the decision of Vice Chairman Lee’s revocation and repatriation decision released on the day and the call with accountant Hong Soon-tak, who was a special reviewer of the compliance system of the special prosecutor.
“Samsung’s Compliance System Can’t Preemptively Prevent Risks in Companies”
It is necessary to be very cautious in reflecting the introduction or reinforcement of the compliance system as a positive factor in the sentencing…Especially in cases where the compliance system is reinforced only after the Supreme Court’s ruling for remanufacturing, such as this case, is sentenced. This is even more so, because if a guilty conviction is convicted after struggling with both factual and legal issues, the wrong message can be delivered to companies that they can introduce or strengthen the compliance system.
It is a part of the judgment of the judges stated in the judgment. Starting with the above explanation, the court referred to the’effectiveness of the compliance system’ throughout the judgment. ▲ Whether the current system can prevent crimes that will occur inside the company in the future, ▲ whether it is possible to monitor overall Samsung affiliates, and ▲ whether it is possible to control illegal acts by the top management was a requirement for determining the effectiveness.
The judge’s response was “not enough” negative. The Ministry of Justice said, “The current compliance system only defines new types of risks that may occur in the future, and preemptive risk prevention and monitoring activities cannot be performed.” It does not seem to be too early to take preemptive risk prevention and surveillance activities.”
 |
|
| ▲ Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong, who was accused of bribing former President Park Geun-hye and Choi Seo-won, is present at the destructive and repatriation hearing held at the Seoul High Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul on the afternoon of the 18th. | |
| Ⓒ Yoo Seongho |
See related photos |
There was also a judgment that, under the current system, “effective compliance monitoring for most of Samsung Group affiliates is difficult.” Currently, the Compliance Committee includes a total of 7 Samsung affiliates, and it is pointed out that unless other Samsung subsidiaries are included in the list, there is a concern that the top management may misbehave.
In addition, in the past, illegal acts that occurred in the Samsung Group have occurred in organizations that act as’control towers’ for companies such as the Future Strategy Office and the Restructuring Headquarters. did.
In addition, the judiciary explained that the current system was not sufficiently prepared for countermeasures to block bribery to the political power, and the issue of holding under-named stocks mobilized by executives and staff members and the need to be included in the subject of surveillance by the Compliance Committee were also explained as insufficient. .
Hong Soon-Tak “Predictable sentence results”
Accountant Hong Soon-Tak, who was a member of the Samsung Compliance Monitoring System at the Special Prosecutor’s Office, said, “There were many inadequate answers from Samsung’s attorneys on the effectiveness of the compliance system.” However, the returned answer was not only to admit that it was inadequate, but also to supplement it before the sentence in January. At the time, the judge said that it would not reflect Samsung’s response that it would make up later.”
In addition, “The court previously asked Samsung directly,’Are there any illegal activities that Samsung’s top management has taken out and tangible?’, but Samsung at the time said that there was no such thing as well.”
In addition, accountant Hong explained that not only the problems mentioned by the judiciary earlier, but also whether the recurrence prevention measures from the system could be applied to the actual top management was not clearly revealed.
He said, “Samsung argued that this compliance system could prevent the illegality of the top management within the Samsung Group. If so, it was important whether the procedures prepared when suspicion about the top management could be actually implemented.” As a result, very little was satisfied in this area.”
Accountant Hong said, “Looking at this trend revealed in the trial process, the conclusion of the judge was in fact predictable.” It can be seen as a clear grasp.”