In other words, it can be interpreted that it was very cautious in taking this as the reason for reducing the amount of money in that it could deliver a’wrong message’ that companies can only introduce or strengthen the compliance monitoring system if they are found guilty.
◇”In relation to succession of management rights, possible risks by type should have been defined”
According to Vice Chairman Lee’s ruling released on the 18th, the judiciary said, “The circumstance that the compliance system has been strengthened only after the occurrence of a corporate crime can be taken into account of the sentence, and its effectiveness must be very strictly verified.”
According to the US federal sentencing standards, regulations related to the compliance monitoring system provide incentives to reduce responsibility when the criminal responsibility of an organization such as a company is a problem, provided that the company has an appropriate compliance system and is effectively operating it. It is intended to encourage and promote.
The judge said, “If you think that the possibility of punishment or detection of a cotton bat is low even though a company has committed illegal acts, there is no reason to voluntarily operate the compliance system even at the expense of incurring expenses.”
He said, “If the punishment is commuted based on the compliance system, which is not guaranteed to be effective, there is a concern that the premise itself of strict punishment for illegal acts will be damaged.”
Based on this, the court judged that it was difficult to admit that the Samsung Group’s compliance monitoring system met the standards of effectiveness. He emphasized that in order to effectively prevent possible misconduct related to’management succession’ through the compliance monitoring system, possible misconduct △by type △anticipate as much as possible in advance and △define possible legal risks.
The Ministry of Justice said, “The Samsung Group’s reinforced compliance monitoring system has focused on the illegal acts in this case, such as external sponsorships and internal transactions, in addition to routine compliance monitoring activities.” “(But) a new type of risk that may arise in the future. It doesn’t seem to be too early to define and take preemptive risk prevention and monitoring activities.”
◇”There was no countermeasure for the unlawful act of the war room”
The court also mentioned the areas that need to be supplemented in the future. He pointed out that this was not specifically presented.”
According to the ruling, attorney Kim Kyung-soo, a professional hearing committee member of Samsung, said, “Illegal and corruption cannot be completed without practical activities such as spending external sponsorships and buying or selling stocks for a merger. “It is possible to conduct practical monitoring activities of the top management, so we can filter out huge clues of illegality and corruption by the top management.”
The Ministry of Justice said, “If the top management wants to commit an illegal act for the purpose of succession of management rights, the company has no choice but to mobilize the organization within the company. It seems to be more difficult than in the past to act.”
However, the judiciary said, “Samsung Compliance Committee is monitoring only Samsung Electronics, Samsung C&T, Samsung SDI, Samsung Electro-Mechanics, Samsung SDS, Samsung Life Insurance, and Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance among its affiliates.” It can also happen in companies other than that.”
In the end, in order to control illegal activities related to the succession of management rights at the stage of execution, effective monitoring must be carried out on most of the affiliates of the Samsung Group, but the current compliance committee is considered to be unreasonable.
In addition, in order to prevent the Compliance Committee from investigating the merger of Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries, and to prevent bribery from being offered to political power, the judiciary should effectively monitor the creation of slush funds. I heard on the grounds that it is not enough to strengthen the screening process.
The court pointed out that “Samsung needs to analyze how the slush fund was raised in the past bribery cases to Presidents Chun Doo-hwan, Roh Tae-woo, Lee Myung-bak, and Park Geun-hye and prepare a response plan.”
In addition, the’legal risk’ that Samsung has to manage should not be limited to the existing risk, but should include the holding of borrowed stocks mobilized by employees as a “legal risk to be managed”.