![]() |
Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong walks out of the Seoul Detention Center in Uiwang, Gyeonggi Province, Thursday, after the Seoul Central District Court dismissed the independent counsel team's request for a warrant to arrest him. / Yonhap |
By Jung Min-ho
A Seoul court rejected a special prosecutor's request to arrest Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong, Thursday, citing insufficient evidence to charge him with bribery and embezzlement.
Lee, the Samsung Group's de facto leader, walked out of the Seoul Detention Center early in the morning after the Seoul Central District Court dismissed the independent counsel team's request to arrest him on charges of bribery, embezzlement and perjury. He had been held there overnight on the court's instructions.
Presiding Judge Cho Eui-yeon said it was unnecessary to arrest Lee based on the evidence provided to date, after an 18-hour review of a hearing between special investigators and Samsung's legal representatives.
"It is hard to find a reason, necessity and justification for an arrest at this current stage. There is room for dispute as to whether the donation was in pursuit of favors," the judge said in the court's ruling.
In response, Lee Kyu-chul, spokesman for special prosecutor Park Young-soo who leads the independent counsel investigation, expressed strong regret over the decision, saying, "We will nevertheless continue to search for more evidence."
He said investigators have not decided whether to apply for an arrest warrant again.
The court decision was a great relief for Lee, who would have otherwise become the first business tycoon to be arrested over the massive corruption and influence-peddling scandal that has engulfed the Park Geun-hye administration.
As he left the detention center in Uiwang, Gyeonggi Province, he refused to answer the torrent of questions from reporters.
About one hour after Lee left the center, Samsung Group welcomed his release, issuing a short statement that the case should be investigated without the necessity of detaining him.
The special investigation team said it will question President Park as planned regardless of the court's decision not to allow the prosecution to arrest Lee on charges that he bribed her.
"We will not change our plan to question President Park in person in early February," the spokesman said.
Investigators alleged that Samsung offered a total of 43 billion won ($37 million) in bribes to President Park's confidant Choi-Soon-sil in the guise of donations, to take advantage of their relationship.
In return, they say, the President later allegedly pressured the National Pension Service (NPS) to vote for a merger of two Samsung units in 2015 — a crucial move for the Samsung heir to tighten his control over group management.
NPS Chairman Moon Hyung-pyo has already been indicted on charges of abuse of power and perjury. He is accused of pressuring the fund, a key shareholder of the Samsung units — Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries — to vote for their merger in 2015 when he was minister of health and welfare.
To indict Lee on bribery charges, investigators had to prove a link between the company's support and the merger, which they failed to do clearly. The court reportedly cast doubt on the order of what investigators called a "backdoor deal," in which Samsung gave money to Choi-related businesses first before a private meeting between Lee and President Park on July 25, 2015.
Investigators reportedly claimed at the hearing that the President promised to support the merger in advance, but the judges did not accept this.
Samsung's legal representatives have insisted that Lee was a victim — not an accomplice — in the scandal, saying the company made "donations" without expecting to receive anything in return.
Earlier, the investigation team's spokesman said the bribes given to Choi were tantamount to bribes to President Park, saying evidence shows the two have shared "economic interests." As the court did not accept this allegation, it may prove difficult for investigators to indict the President on bribery charges.
Concerns have now been raised that the court's decision may undercut the independent counsel team's investigation momentum.