[ad_1]
As a result of the hearing of the “ Samsung Compliance Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Compliance Committee) ” conducted on the recommendation of the Samsung Electronics Vice President Lee Jae-yong’s bribery court, the succession issue of the Supervisor’s management was inadequate enough from the investigation. He has not been able to make use of the recommendation of the Judiciary that “it must be an effective organization that scares the gunman to prevent it from happening again.”
Seoul High Court Criminal Chamber 1 (Deputy Judge Jung Joon-young), which was in charge of reversing this case, held a ninth trial at 2 p.m. on the 21st, and heard a special prosecutor and Samsung’s position on the report of the results of the professional judges of the Compliance Committee presented on the 14th.
Both interpretations were divided into a single report. The Office of the Special Prosecutor negatively assessed that the limitations of both the effectiveness and sustainability of the Compliance Committee were clear. Samsung’s lawyers said the company’s effectiveness has been strengthened and sustainability can be expected.
Total number of crimes of private interest, clear limits of internal containment
The core of the psychology is whether the Compliance Committee can prevent and monitor misconduct related to the succession of management rights by top management. This is because the gist of the case was that Vice President Lee gave bribes in connection with the succession of management rights. Former Constitutional Judge Kang Il-won, who drafted the report, also said that, as a central task of the Compliance Committee, “it should organize possible violations related to succession of management rights by type, and whether possible violations are identified , the facts must be investigated, reported and taken in a timely manner. ” .
There are 18 inspection items organized under the premise of this. In addition to the elements organized by the judges, the judges reflected both the elements compiled by the Special Prosecutor’s Office and the views of Samsung in the on-site inspection. While the report was being written, the two items were combined into 16 items, and Judge Kang made some adjustments, and the final 18 items were specified in the report.
There are a total of 9 items related to the total number of problems. The nine inspection results were insufficient. The special prosecutor who insisted on this said: “When the interests of the total number and the affiliates, shareholders, etc. collide, can a decision be made independently of the total number of interests?” Two judges did not issue an opinion and one said: ‘There are no measures such as institutional arrangements. “I concluded that,” he said.
Measures to prevent the recurrence of violations related to management succession were also subject to inspection, but the Compliance Committee did not classify or organize the violations or review items for evaluation and inspection accordingly. It has not been confirmed that the ‘affiliate compliance officer’ can prevent or monitor violations as the total number. “The authority of the compliance officers for the affiliates was strengthened and they were aware of their duties,” but there was no real prevention and monitoring system.
Regarding the illegal merger between Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries, the core of the case, the Samsung Electronics Compliance Officer did not take any action, including non-investigation of executives, including Vice President Lee. For this reason, there is no report to the Compliance Committee and the Board of Directors. The hearing committee asked Samsung Electronics and Samsung’s C&T Compliance Officer about the expenses of the attorneys involved in this matter, but did not investigate properly and the Compliance Committee took no action. The same can be said for whether public relations expenses were spent illegally in connection with the succession of management rights, another item.
The role of the TF in supporting the project, which was recently established after the abolition of the Office of Future Strategy, was not adequately understood by either the compliance officers or the Compliance Committee. Judge Kang said, “The compliance officer replied that ‘it was not related to the unprecedented courtroom,’ but the actual role could not be confirmed by data investigation and interview investigation alone,” Judge Kang said. “The Compliance Committee has never identified the facts or requested an inspection of the affiliates.” Said.
A special prosecutor who listed the facts said: “For the Compliance Committee to become an advantageous sentencing factor, it must be verified not whether more progress has been made than the existing system, but whether the ‘effectiveness and sustainability in the extent to which the total number is feared. ‘ Unless there was a supplementation or verification of the system, this was not clearly met. ”
“Lee Jae-yong-It should be like a normal commoner, a legal standard”
The Special Prosecutor believes that the general review of the report is almost negative. It is noted that, focusing on 18 items, which are the criteria, former judge Kang evaluated ‘9 insufficient, 7 somewhat insufficient, 1 positive’. The other made no comment. Accountant Hong Soon-Tak, a member of the special counsel’s recommendation, concluded that 14 were insufficient and four were somewhat insufficient. Lawyer Kim Kyung-soo, recommended by Samsung’s special prosecutor’s office, said that 3 were insufficient, 7 were somewhat insufficient and 4 were positively evaluated and the remaining 4 were not reviewed.
The special prosecutor said: “Regardless of whether only the final judgment is considered or the evaluation of individual items is considered, in no case can the effectiveness and sustainability of the Compliance Committee be positively evaluated.” He said: “There is concern that there is criticism that sentiment has thus far been abusing the Compliance Committee as an act of catering for the purpose of caring for the chaebol, rather than being fair and balanced.”
The special indictment concluded: “Recently, university professors chose ‘Ashitabi’ as the dead word of the year. It has the same meaning as the commonly used ‘naeronambul’. It is the opposite of the rule of law that standards apply to me and you are different, and standards must apply equally to everyone, “he said.” By applying the same legal standards as ordinary executives and employees of Samsung Electronics to top Korean corporate executives, the court is the foundation of the rule of law. I hope he makes a decision. ”
Samsung “The statement of the special prosecutor is irrational, it must be interpreted correctly”
Samsung responded by saying that the 18-item assessment was a “rational analysis.” The attorneys said: “Some members establish different inspection items to get results, and the importance of each item is different.” The effectiveness of the compliance monitoring system is like the O · X problems, adding several positive evaluations and several negative evaluations. Solution Cannot derive a synthesis result. A general assessment is necessary and only then will a full analysis be possible. ”
Samsung’s side focused on the overall findings written by each committee member and insisted that former Judge Kang positively evaluated the Compliance Committee. It is the opposite of what the special prosecutor claims. If the special prosecutor’s office emphasized the facts, the lawyers weighed clues and circumstances. For example, regarding the ‘withdrawal of the compliance agreement from the subsidiary and the possibility of action by the Compliance Committee’, Judge Kang said: “There is no way to avoid withdrawal” and “It is actually difficult to withdraw due to negative public opinion, but a device is needed to limit it. ” . The special prosecutor said: ‘It is insufficient because no other measures can be taken for the withdrawal, but Samsung is in a position where it cannot be seen as a dichotomy.
Judge Kang said the effectiveness of the Compliance Committee was also “there is no means for mandatory implementation other than public disclosure” and “depends on the willingness to comply with senior management.” At the same time, it was also opined that “the synergy effect of actively monitoring activities by organically connecting with other compliance organizations complements my limits” or “It is clear that illegal acts have become more difficult than in the past”. The lawyers thought that if all the opinions were put together, former judge Kang positively assessed that “the effectiveness has been strengthened more than before.”
The lawyers said: “Judge Kang assessed that there would be no problem with sustainability either. Attorney Kim Gyeong-soo said that the three interactions between the affiliate’s compliance officer, the compliance officer, and senior management’s commitment to compliance are effective and sustainable. ”
The attorneys said, “We need to understand the members’ own assessment” and “while we provide the findings and supplementary opinions together, at least the content of the compliance committee improvement promised by the defendant and Samsung is sincere, not a flimsy shell . It was confirmed that it was an effort ”.
At the 10th trial, which will take place at 2 pm on the 30th, a special prosecutor, Samsung’s final defense, and the defendants’ final statements will be ongoing.
Copyright © Media Today, unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.
[ad_2]
