[Representation] Criminal

A case in which we obtain the dismissal of the prosecution’s request for issuance of an arrest warrant against Samsung Electronics’ former expatriate of an overseas subsidiary for the alleged violation (breach of duty) of the Act on Aggravated Punishment for Specific Economic Crimes

1. Overview and issues of the case

Samsung Electronics filed a complaint against two former expatriates and two current employees of an overseas subsidiary, alleging that they conspired to deliver tablet PC packages to a company in a foreign country in 2021 and embezzled approximately KRW 7 billion by providing the profits, which Samsung Electronics should have earned, to the vendor and being returned a portion of the profits from the vendor.

After filing the complaint, the prosecution secured evidence through seizure and search, and conducted direct investigations for several months. On March 20, 2024, the prosecution requested an arrest warrant for three people, including our client.

The client had retained other lawyers to respond to the investigation, but in September 2023, the client requested assistance from us, which have strong experience in anti-corruption investigations.

2. Our role

With the help of partner lawyers who are familiar with the prosecution’s anti-corruption investigations, we clearly identified factual information and submitted several opinion letters stating that there was no criminal offense in the entirety of the criminal allegations, and conducted face-to-face defense against the investigation line.

In the warrant court, we emphasized that (i) the client, who left the company in 2019, is not a co-culprit of the alleged crime of breach of duty because he was not involved in instigating the alleged criminal act or the alleged crime as a whole, even if we followed the prosecution’s argument; (ii) since the tablet PCs in the tablet PC packages were decided by the Dubai subsidiary and headquarters of Samsung Electronics, and the accessories were decided by the vendor in Egypt, the low-level employee had no influence on pricing the products, (iii) the company established by the client was a business that conducted normal trade transactions and was not a paper company as claimed by Samsung Electronics, (iv) contrary to the prosecution’s allegations, the client never engaged in equal distribution of profits, (v) the prosecution also admitted that half of Samsung Electronics’ accusations were false and the prosecution deleted them from the criminal facts of the seizure and search warrant and the arrest warrant; and (vi) Samsung Electronics’ accusations were based on the factual statements of the low-level employees, half of which the prosecution recognized as false and the other half of which were not credible because they were contradicted by objective evidence. We also clarified that given that the client argued his innocence, the client was not likely to attempt to run away and destroy evidence. The court dismissed the prosecution’s request for issuance of arrest warrants filed against three suspects, including the client.

3. Outcome and significance

This case is a case in which Samsung Electronics conducted an internal audit and appointed the largest law firm in Korea to sue its former and current executives and employees for violation of the Act on Aggravated Punishment for Specific Economic Crimes (Breach of Duty) amounting to approximately KRW 7 billion. If not handled properly, there was a strong possibility that an arrest warrant would have been issued.

However, by appointing Barun Law, which has excellent capabilities in handling anti-corruption investigations, the client was able to go to trial without being detained.

□ Attorneys in charge:?Cho Jae-bin, Lee Won-Keun, Son Young-Ho and Lee Yun-sang

?Attorney Cho Jae-bin's profile

?Attorney Lee Won-Keun's profile

?Attorney Son Young-Ho's profile

?Attorney Lee Yun-sang's profile