Samsung's boss walks free, prosecutors still on his case

Jay Y. Lee, Samsung Group's Vice Chairman and de facto head, was freed from jail today, as a South Korean court dismissed the arrest warrant against him. Lee was sent behind bars for one night, after it was found that he was involved in the bribery scandal that got the South Korean President, Park Geun-hye, impeached. He spent the time in jail, as he awaited court's decision on whether the arrest warant against him should be granted.

In a statement on his ruling, the judge that dismissed the warrant said: “After reviewing the contents and the process of the investigation so far … it is difficult to acknowledge the necessity and substantiality of an arrest at the current stage.”

Needless to say, South Korean prosecutors are not happy with the judge's decision. The special prosecutor's office said it would be continuing its investigation, but it has yet to decide if it will push for the arrest warrant again, at this point in time. Officials also explained that Lee's release will not change their plans to investigate other conglomerates, suspected to be involved in the bribery scandal.

Spokesman Lee Kyu-chul said that prosecutors don't believe Lee's statement that he was a victim of coercion due to pressure from President Park. He also explained that another Samsung Vice Chairman, Choi Gee-sung, is also suspected for the same crime, but didn't provide additional details. Two more Samsung officials are currently being investigated – Choi's deputy, Chang Choong-ki, and Samsung Electronics executive Park Sang-jin.

Lee Jung-jae, a lawyer and former prosecutor, told Reuters that he doesn't believe that special prosecutors will push for Lee's detention. “They probably already have as much evidence as they could gather,” he explained. “They will indict him eventually, but without detention.”

Samsung, on the other hand, said in a statement that it appreciated “the fact that the merits of this case can now be determined without the need for detention.” Others are not so appreciative of the judge's decision, as some members of the public are outraged. Reuters cited people on the South Korean web portal Naver, one of them saying that “the law is not equal for all.”

Following Lee's release, key Samsung Group shares rose. Samsung Electronics gained 1.5%, while Samsung C&T rose by 0.8%. Some investors still fear that Lee might be send behind bars, though. “The only thing that has changed is that he won't be detained now,” said Park Jung-hoon, a fund manager at HDC Asset Management, adding that nothing was certain just yet.

via Reuters



1. ibend

Posts: 6747; Member since: Sep 30, 2014

this news again :-/ it's not about smartphone or tech news, why did this topic even here? :-/

2. aegislash

Posts: 1495; Member since: Jan 27, 2015

It's negativity against Samsung...PhoneArena knows the comment section will erupt into feuds which equals clicks which equals $$$.

3. kiko007

Posts: 7493; Member since: Feb 17, 2016

To be fair, I doubt ibendover would be as reticent to convey such statements had Tim Cook been the guilty party. Having said that, this is just a normal day in South Korean society. Corruption runs rampant throughout the nation in everything from the educational system, to the sewage management agencies. In short, those with status in that country can do just about whatever they deem fit (aside from murder I suppose...). The president of the country was impeached for sharing classified documents and government funding with a dead cult leader's daughter over spiritual nonsense (I can't make this s**t up if I tried.....). This is hogwash compared to that fiasco lol.

4. aegislash

Posts: 1495; Member since: Jan 27, 2015

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I can think of plenty of users who would be screaming with excitement and begging for more news had this article been about Apple instead. Though I just can't help but feel like the authors on this site purposely post things that they know will get arguments going, in hopes of generating revenue...but alas...Adblocker. ;)

12. pendragon0202

Posts: 164; Member since: Feb 23, 2015

So you are commenting based on in-depth knowledge on current situation? The arrest warrant was rejected by the judge since the persecutors failed to provide enough evidence for the bribe allegations. There are millions of people protesting against these persecutors who are trying to impeach the pro US president who are hated by pro China/NorKor politicians. Samsung is saying the money was donated in a good will to support Korean Equestrians and even requested for receipt and transferred money by bank account. What kind of moron would do that if the money was indèed a bribe?

13. kiko007

Posts: 7493; Member since: Feb 17, 2016

"What kind of moron would do that if the money was indèed a bribe?" The kind of moron who could get away with it.

16. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

But this alleged corruption was by a person, not his company. Unlike Apple who as a COMPANY has been caught up in some pretty nasty and terrible things. Like price fixing.

15. medicci37

Posts: 1361; Member since: Nov 19, 2011

It's news get over it!

10. mikehunta727 unregistered

It's about the vice chairman of Samsung..... Lol...iBend again with another just silly comment

5. Plasticsh1t

Posts: 3106; Member since: Sep 01, 2014

S-sheep rejoice. The power of s-corruption is above all.

14. tedkord

Posts: 17356; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

Awwwwwwww. Need a binky?

6. Settings

Posts: 2943; Member since: Jul 02, 2014

7. joey_sfb

Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 2012

They want to arrest him for paying express fee to speed up the transfer of power from Dad to him whom is sick. I really don't get what the fuss is about.

8. willard12 unregistered

"Following Lee's release, key Samsung Group shares rose. Samsung Electronics gained 1.5%, while Samsung C&T rose by 0.8%." "In particular, they want to know whether the president exerted pressure on Korea’s national pension service to support the controversial merger of two Samsung Group companies, Cheil Industries Inc. and Samsung C&T Corp. " - Bloomberg "Neither one of you get it. Samsung is made up of independent companies that pay to use the Samsung name." -TechieXP1969 TechieXP1969 is going to have a lot of explaining to do on the show that he hosts on CNBC, "Techie Knows Business!".

9. kiko007

Posts: 7493; Member since: Feb 17, 2016

This made me laugh way harder than it should have...

11. Firenze91

Posts: 206; Member since: Nov 19, 2014


17. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

That's funny! I got a nice chuckle from that!

18. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

No matter how much you claim it, Samsung Limited does not own Samsung Electronics. Samsung Electronics has its own stock, and has to provide its own funding for its proiducts and services. This is what you still don't seem to understand. Pepsico owns Kentucky Fired Chicken and Taco Bell for example. If Taco Bell gets into legal or money issues, its parent company Pepsico will provide legal assistance to help protect its brand because if Taco Bell has an issue, Pepsico will have an issue too. If Samsung Electrics goes out of business or was on the verger of bankruptcy, they would get no help from Samsung Limited to help save them. Ultimately Samsung Electronics would simply lose value, and any of the other companies could simply buy them. Its liek Autogroups. There is a Auto Group here in Chicago called Napleton. He wons and sells cars from all types of brands. However his made company does not get involved in day to dat business and each local car lot has to be able to handle its own weight in sales. Many of these SSmasung company's were not Samsung company's before. Many fo them had other names and paid to use the Samsung name. There are many companies in this group who do not use the Samsung name yet are part of this group. That is fact not fiction.

19. willard12 unregistered

At some point, you're just gong to have to accept the loss on this one and move on. But, from your comment, at least I can diagnose your problem. You believe because a division or subsidiary is publicly traded, submits its own earnings reports, and has their own shareholders, then they have no parent company. Put your Pepsico analogy aside and let me give you one that you can understand. AT&T bought DirecTV. DirecTV also closed today at $52.47 on the NASDAQ. And yet, if DirecTV starts to struggle, AT&T will pour millions of dollars into it. You see TechieXP, "having your own stock" is not a factor in whether or not company is or is not independent. You are correct that Frito Lay is not publicly traded. But, that is irrelevant. If PepsiCo decides tomorrow to issue stock in Lays, PepsiCo would still be their controlling authority. They are just referred to as "wholly-owned" subsidiaries. But, as you can see from above, as long as Samsung Group maintains controlling authority over its subsidiaries, they make all decisons, financial and otherwise. So, now that Porsche is having the same issue with diesel standards as its parent Volkswagen, Volkswagen is also taking a hit. You see, Porsche, though traded on the stock market, is controlled by Volkswagen, also on then stock market. Porsche is not independent. Though Porsche "has stock", Volkswagen is liable. If Samsung Electronics loses money, then the guy pictured above walking out of jail loses money. If Samsung CTD makes money, then the aforementioned guy makes money. That guy also controls the number of shares avaible for public trading for the subsidiaries. And yes, if Cheil merges with Samsung CTD, he can create a monopoly and make money. You see, the guy in the picture has already decided that they will merge back in April of 2015 because he is in charge of them as the guy running Samsung Group.....their boss. His only issue is the government blocking him. He didn't spend $40 million because he really liked the 2 x independent companies (one of which bought the "Samsung" name according to you) because he really thinks it's in the best interest of the human race. He did it because he makes the decisions on them...though both, as you can clearly see from the article "have their own stocks." Since I'm not able to teach you in a comments section. So, I'm giving you homework: 1. Name the Samsung subsidiaries that just bought the name. 2. Does the chairman of Samsung Group make decisions for their subsidiaries? (This is open-book, refer to the article above). 3. Does having stock and being publicly traded make a company independent and mean they have no relationship with their parent or other subsidiaries (Ask Lily at AT&T how DirecTV discounts she's given the past 3 months).

20. willard12 unregistered

"No matter how much you claim it, Samsung Limited does not own Samsung Electronics" I've never claimed Samsung Limited owns Samsung Electronics. This might be because I have no idea who Samsung Limited is. But, through circular ownership, Samsung Group owns Samsung Electronics. Please feel free to post this chart from the link on the next episode of Techie Knows Business! Also, genius, pay special attention to this part that discusses the Lee family, "The chairman and family effectively control the group through their key five holdings in Samsung Everland, Samsung Life, Samsung C&T and Samsung Electronics. The de facto holding company of Samsung group is Samsung Everland, which OWNS Samsung Life and Samsung Electronics." Now, delete your account.

21. kiko007

Posts: 7493; Member since: Feb 17, 2016

This.....this is how you dismantle an idiot's argument. Kudos to you BTW. He's not gonna think about anything you've laid out here (because let's face it.....he's brain dead cult worshipper level stupid) but I learned something at least.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.