The Korea Herald

소아쌤

Samsung heir denies knowledge of controversial merger

By Ock Hyun-ju

Published : Aug. 2, 2017 - 18:49

    • Link copied

Lee Jae-yong, widely perceived as the de facto chief of the Samsung Group, on Wednesday denied his part in the top conglomerate’s key decisions, in his defense against bribery charges.

During his trial at a Seoul court, Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee shifted responsibility for controversial decisions -- ranging from a merger of the group’s two affiliates to an alleged donations-for-favors deal with former President Park Geun-hye -- to Choi Gee-sung, former vice chairman of Samsung Group and head of the firm’s future strategy office.

“From the beginning, I belonged to Samsung Electronics. I have never been part of the future strategy office. Some 95 percent of my work was related to Samsung Electronics and the group’s other affiliates,” Lee said.

Samsung Group’s heir apparent, who is on trial for bribery, embezzlment and perjury, testified for the first time since the trial began on April 7, claiming innocence at the Seoul Central District Court.

Lee was accused of offering bribes to former President Park and her longtime friend Choi Soon-sil in return for the Park administration’s backing of a controversial merger of its two affiliates, Cheil Industries and Samsung C&T, in 2015.

A special counsel saw the merger as a crucial step for Lee to smooth the transfer of power from his ailing father, Samsung Group Chairman Lee Kun-hee.

Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong (Yonhap) Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong (Yonhap)

As for the controversial merger, Lee distanced himself from the decision, saying he did not know much about the management of the two firms.

“I asked Choi Gee-sung whether it was really okay to push for the merger (in the face of the opposition from activist hedge fund Elliot). He said again it would be better to do so. I didn’t know about it very well, so I just followed it.”

Samsung Group was accused of providing some 43.3 billion won in bribes to two foundations allegedly controlled by Choi Soon-sil. A part of it was a sponsorship for Chung Yoo-ra, Choi’s daughter and a dressage player, to help her buy expensive horses and receive equestrian training in Europe.

Choi Gee-sung admitted that he had been the final decision maker for Samsung Group, saying Samsung Group’s heir apparent had no idea about any wrongdoings including dubious financial support for the Choi family.

“I decided myself whether to support Chung Yoo-ra’s equestrian training in August 2015 and I did not report it to Lee Jae-yong,” Choi Gee-sung said. “Ex-President Park Geun-hye asked for support for the equestrian activities, but she did not (specifically) tell us to support Chung Yoo-ra.”

“Now I regret, thinking to myself that we would have not got here if I had reported it to Lee and if Lee had stopped it saying, ‘We should not do such a thing,’” Choi Gee-sung said.

Choi said it was also his order to dissolve the powerful organ of the firm, the future strategy office, in February after the corruption scandal involving the firm’s de-facto chief, ex-president Park and her friend surfaced.

Five of Samsung’s former and current ranking officials testified in the courtroom from Monday to Wednesday, all maintaining their innocence and saying they had no choice but to offer donations to Choi Soon-sil because of her reputation and power.

A special counsel sought to question ex-President Park as a witness Wednesday at Lee’s trial in the fourth attempt, but she refused to testify at the hearing, citing health reasons.

Park is undergoing her own trial on a total of 18 charges including abuse of power and bribery in connection with the corruption scandal which led to her arrest and removal from office.

The special counsel and Lee’s lawyers will make final arguments over key points in the courtroom Thursday and Friday. The counsel is set to make a sentence demand for Lee and Samsung’s other officials during the final hearing Monday. The ruling is expected at the end of August.

It is not yet decided whether the verdict hearing will be televised. According to a recent change in the court rule, it is now possible to broadcast live sentencing hearings deemed crucial for the public interest.

By Ock Hyun-ju (laeticia.ock@heraldcorp.com)