Prosecutors in Seoul said on Monday that they would pursue an arrest warrant for former South Korean President Park Geun-hye, who was unseated from office earlier this month by the Constitutional Court. The Seoul District Court will examine the prosecutors’ request in a hearing scheduled for Thursday morning. If the request is granted, Park, 65, would be the first president to be jailed since the 1990s, when the former military dictators Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo were arrested on charges of sedition and mutiny.

Impeached in December and formally removed from office on March 10, Park is accused of bribery, extortion, and abuse of office. In a statement, the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office said Park “abused the mighty power and position and president to take bribes from companies and infringed upon the freedom of corporate management and leaked important confidential official information.”

Last fall, hundreds of thousands across the country began demanding Park’s ouster, as she was accused of conspiring with her longtime friend Choi Soon-sil to extort millions of dollars from South Korea’s largest business conglomerates, including Samsung, in exchange for political favors. Choi, an unelected, largely secretive presence inside Park’s inner circle of advisers, is in custody, along with the Samsung executive Lee Jae-yong. Both are being investigated on charges of corruption.

Park has publicly apologized for the allegations against her, but has consistently denied any legal wrongdoing. The prosecutors’ office, in its statement on Monday, said “there is a danger of her destroying incriminating evidence if she is not arrested.”

As president, Park was immune from a criminal investigation, but now, as a private citizen, she does not enjoy the same protection. If the judge in Seoul grants the prosectors’ request, Park will be held behind bars for up to 20 days, during which time the prosecutors will continue the investigation. A spokesman for Park’s Liberty Korea Party called the prosecutors’ request for an arrest warrant “regrettable.” The main opposition faction, the Democracy Party, called it “historic.” An early election will take place on May 9.

South Korea is facing a critical time in its young democracy: North Korea is firing off ballistic missile tests every few weeks, and relations with China are declining because of a defense shield the U.S. began deploying to South Korea earlier this month. Beijing views the missile defense system, or THAAD, as a threat to its own missile program. Park, for her part, is steadfast in denying any wrongdoing. “It will take time, but I am sure that the truth will be known,” she said a few days after her ouster from office.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post South Korean Prosecutors Seek Arrest Warrant for Former President Park Geun-hye appeared first on Law Street.

Lee Jae-yong, the vice chairman of Samsung, was indicted on charges of bribery and embezzlement on Tuesday. Lee is the most powerful South Korean business leader to be ensnared in the country’s longstanding corruption issues, which have reached the highest levels of the government, including President Park Geun-hye, who was impeached in December.

Lee, 48, is accused of giving a $38 million donation to Choi Soon-sil, an unofficial aide to Park who has been detained for months for funneling government funds to her private coffers. The special prosecutor that indicted Lee said in exchange for his donation, Park co-signed a highly controversial merger in 2015 that ultimately consolidated Lee’s hold on the company, and increased Samsung’s stock value by $758 million. Lee has been Samsung’s de facto leader since 2014, when his father suffered a heart attack.

“Samsung was directly linked to the influence-peddling scandal and was essential to the special prosecutor’s investigation,” said a spokesman for the special prosecutor that indicted Lee. “The indictment describes in detail the private conversation between Lee and President Park Geun-hye.”

South Korea’s economy is run by chaebols: family-run business conglomerates. In fact, the 10 largest chaebols account for 80 percent of the country’s GDP. Samsung is the largest chaebol; its products make up 20 percent of South Korea’s exports. For decades, chaebol leaders have been embroiled in corruption. Six of the top 10 chaebol leaders have been convicted of white-collar crimes, but have avoided jail time. 

Lee’s indictment comes at a moment of political tumult and a newfound hunger for cleaning up corruption in South Korea’s business and political worlds, which are often intertwined. Lee denies currying political favors with his donations to Choi. Four other Samsung executives were indicted on Tuesday; three of the four immediately resigned.

Lee is also being indicted on perjury charges, regarding a parliamentary hearing in December. At the hearing, Lee said he was unaware that Samsung’s donations ended up in Choi’s pockets. “President Park asked us to support the development of culture, sports and tourism,” Lee said at the hearing. “I wasn’t aware of Samsung’s payment to the two foundations, and I was only briefed after the fact.” The prosecutor apparently found evidence that Lee was fully cognizant of where his money was headed.

For the past few months, Samsung has been enmeshed in controversy. Last October, the company recalled two million Galaxy Note 7 phones, which had a tendency to burst into flames. And Park has been suspended since her December impeachment. Her case is being reviewed by the Constitutional Court, which will decide, likely in the next few weeks, whether to reinstate her or permanently remove her from power.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Vice Chairman of Samsung Indicted on Corruption Charges appeared first on Law Street.

Prosecutors in South Korea named Samsung Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong as a suspect in a bribery investigation that has rocked the country’s business and political establishment over the past few months. Lee will respond to questions from prosecutors on Thursday. Lee faced public questioning before parliament in early December, a rare public rebuke in a country where a handful of corporate elites hold sway and, before the bribery scandal came to light, were rarely in the public eye.

The scandal surrounding Samsung, and other South Korean conglomerates, runs from the top of the nation’s government to its leading business leaders. President Park Geun-hye was impeached last month, because of her relationship with an unofficial and highly influential advisor, Choi Soon-sil. Choi, the daughter of a religious cult leader, is accused of embezzling millions of dollars through her influence over the president. She is currently in prison.

Samsung, along with other multi-billion dollar companies, donated millions of dollars to two of Choi’s foundations. Prosecutors are investigating whether the payments were made to curry political favor with Park. Eight of South Korea’s top family-run businesses have reportedly donated 70 billion won ($60 million) to two foundations run by Choi. In a hearing before parliament last month, the business leaders denied that the payments amounted to bribery.

“President Park asked us to support the development of culture, sports and tourism,” Lee said in the hearing, referring to the payments he made to Choi’s foundations. “I wasn’t aware of Samsung’s payment to the two foundations, and I was only briefed after the fact.”

Samsung’s heir apparent Lee Jae-yong to be questioned over #ParkGeunhye‘s scandal https://t.co/esbajlESSE pic.twitter.com/1fGzBxicGX

— China Xinhua News (@XHNews) January 11, 2017

The investigation aims to determine whether Samsung’s payments were made to help secure the president’s support for a polarizing merger in 2015. Lee has denied that claim. In November, prosecutors raided Samsung’s headquarters in Seoul, pursuing an investigation into $3 million Samsung gave to one of Choi’s foundations; money that went toward her daughter’s equestrian training in Germany. Lee called that payment a “mistake.”

Park, whose relationship with Choi saw millions of South Koreans flood the streets in protest, was impeached last month. Her powers have been suspended while the case is being reviewed in South Korea’s Constitutional Court, which will either reinstate the embattled president, or officially remove her from office.

The bribery investigation comes in the middle of a rocky couple of months for Samsung. In October, the company recalled nearly two million Galaxy Note 7 smartphones, after customers reported their phones overheated, burned them and, in some cases, exploded.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post South Korean Prosecutors Name Samsung Exec as a Suspect in a Bribery Case appeared first on Law Street.

After a month of reports of exploding, smoking, or burning cellphones, the Samsung galaxy Note 7 will now be banned on all U.S. flights, starting Saturday. The Federal Aviation Administration and Department of Transportation released a statement on Friday afternoon saying the new rules will take effect on Saturday. This is sure to be inconvenient for passengers with already scheduled flights who rely on Samsung. But after almost 100 cases of overheating and fires, it’s better to be on the safe side.

“We recognize that banning these phones from airlines will inconvenience some passengers, but the safety of all those aboard an aircraft must take priority,” said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.

Starting Saturday, passengers won’t be allowed to bring their Note 7s aboard an airplane even if they are shut off. Trying to do so may lead to confiscation of the phone and fines for the passenger. If anyone would be foolish enough to try and pack the phone in the checked luggage to get around it, they would risk creating an accident and could face criminal charges. The Samsung Galaxy Note 7 is now considered a forbidden hazardous material under federal law.

FAA banning #Samsung #GalaxyNote7 from all flights https://t.co/WqLA1vl0W3 pic.twitter.com/RRFV0XwXQ4

— #Q13FOX (@Q13FOX) October 14, 2016

This news comes after two separate recalls of the Note 7 phones, the first one on September 15 and the second one on Thursday, which included the replacement phones that people could exchange their original ones for. The problem with the first edition was that the lithium ion battery cells were packed so tightly into a pouch that they barely fit inside the phone, leading to pinching of the batteries. This could easily break the thin plastic that separates the positive and negative sides of the battery, which could lead to a short circuit. This in its turn would heat up the flammable liquid inside enough to make the battery explode, and the replacements had similar issues.

The whole affair is estimated to cost the company $5.3 billion in lost profits. At least 13 people have reported being burned by their phones, there have been 96 reports of overheated batteries, and there are 47 registered cases of property damage. On October 5, a smoking phone led to the evacuation of a Southwest Airlines flight. Luckily that plane was still by the gate and no one was hurt. And with the new FAA rules, there will hopefully be no issues with fires caused by phones on airplanes.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FAA: Samsung Note 7s are Now Banned on U.S. Flights appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

No, All Chinese People Don’t Know Karate

On Monday night, the “O’Reilly Factor” showed reporter Jesse Watters on a mission to find out what people on the streets of Chinatown are thinking about the 2016 election. Instead he ended up making fun of Chinese people by using blatantly racist stereotypes. He asked people if they know karate (the Japanese martial art), or if he should bow while saying hello to them, if in China they call Chinese food just “food,” and he made fun of old people who didn’t speak English.

The segment was immediately criticized by a whole bunch of journalists and pundits as blatantly racist. Did Fox apologize? Of course not…instead, the network tweeted that it was “hilarious.”

Hilarious #WattersWorld: @JesseBWatters Goes Down to Chinatown to Find Out What They Think of @realDonaldTrump: https://t.co/HBQCGdHO01

— Fox Nation (@foxnation) October 4, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 6, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

What is really going on in the patent world these days?  Last week I told you about the allowance of Apple’s ban on Samsung’s imports of infringing products. The Obama administration proclaimed Samsung ban bad, Apple ban good. And the American Gods were pleased. But this week, there seems to be a different narrative in the loop.

Nokia, the maker of my first flirtation device, doesn’t seem to be having the same luck as Apple these days. InterDigital, a company that states they are in the market of developing and licensing wireless technology, brought a patent infringement suit against Nokia for the use of certain mobile phone technology. The International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled in Interdigital’s favor, and Nokia appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. And here’s where it gets juicy: among the arguments presented, Nokia asserts that the ITC shouldn’t even have jurisdiction in this case.

Nokia contends that the ITC should not hear a case if the company’s business is solely to patent troll. I agree! The ITC can prevent the import of products that infringe on a patent to the detriment of a U.S. business. But is patent trolling conducting business in the US?  I think not. The ITC is allowing itself to become a shopping mall for these patent mongrels that just acquire patents with the sole purpose of litigation them and collecting royalties. Of course, InterDigital contested this label by stating that they actually research and develop patents versus just buying them to defend or sell the rights. Some of our favorite companies – Amazon, Hewlett Packard, and Red Hat – filed briefs against InterDigital with supporting evidence to the contrary. But ultimately, the whole discussion proved to be futile as the ITC determined that a business with the purpose of patent collection is still a “US business” and, thus, may be protected by import bans imposed by the ITC.

Here’s what really chaps my cheeks: the purpose of the ITC is to “treat information quality as integral to its development, including creation.”  How are they furthering this purpose when they’re hindering innovation and promoting the procurement of patents, not as a means to protect creation but as a way to obtain licensing fees?  Why should InterDigital be able to stop the import of certain 3G devices when they aren’t even making any themselves?

Given our current economic deficit, you’d think we would refrain from sustaining unfair trade practices against our own businesses.  I’m not following the logic behind the rejection of this case when it’s an issue that so conspicuously needs further discussion.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [ngader via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Patent Trolls: Monsters vs. America appeared first on Law Street.

Apple recently requested an import ban against a few of Samsung’s products, including their smartphones and tablets. I doubt that this would come as a surprise to anyone familiar with Apple’s growing monopoly on mobile devices. But coming from a true Apple junkie, I cannot say that I stand by their grand scheme to overtake the technology market based on their keen ability to appeal to aesthetics.

The International Trade Commission had determined that Samsung violated two of Apple’s patents: one pertaining to the functionality of touch screen capability and another relating to headphone recognition.  The Korean company requested the ban be overturned on public policy grounds, which I agree is a suitable argument to make judging by the tit-for-tat activity that has been arisen between the two companies. But the kicker is, the Obama administration has decided that they will uphold this ban, resulting in a huge win for Apple.

Now, at first look, you may think ‘OK, what’s the problem?’ It is abnormal for the President to overturn the ITC’s decisions. And it’s worth noting that the ban will largely affect Samsung’s older products, and thus, will not result in a significant impact on the availability of Samsung’s current products.  So then why is Samsung arching its back over this decision if its newer products aren’t to be dramatically affected?

Well…

In August, the Obama Administration vetoed the ITC’s decision to ban certain Apple products, reasoning that the ban was incorrectly restricting the importation of products that were the result of standard essential patents — patents that cover inventions that must be utilized to meet technical standards. This is rarely done. It’s bad enough for Apple to be continuously rewarded for their litigious behavior, but to reverse a decision in favor of them? It almost screams political nepotism. Following this decision, the South Korean government voiced that it was “disappointed” by this ruling.  Needless to say, this determination furthers Apple’s powerful stance in the ongoing patent battles across the tech industry.

Amongst the accusations against Samsung that were not decided in Apple’s favor was an alleged violation of a design patent regarding the overall look of the iPhone. US Trade Representative Michael Froman has explained that the decision to uphold the ban is based on “policy considerations, including the impact on consumers and competition, advice from agencies, and information from interested parties.” Oh, that doesn’t leave a generic impression on me at all. -__- If anything, policy and competition considerations should instruct fairness in the industry so that one company isn’t granted extraordinary favors on account of their economic girth and geographic residence.

The juxtaposition of the two rulings may have given rise to trade implications, such as the favoring of a company’s national origin. These assertions were even raised by Samsung in their request to overturn the ban. However, Froman has stood firm in his position that the two scenarios were factually different and that nationality was not considered in the determination. Ehhh.

Again, even as the owner of an iPhone, iPad, iTouch, and Macbook (don’t judge me, you shouldn’t judge people with addictions), I can’t support the government’s efforts to thwart competition in any industry. While Apple showcases the “cool” status symbol our subcultures so anxiously desire, no one can negate the innovative choices that Samsung has brought to the table for consumers.

Hasn’t anyone had a discussion with a techie eager to explain why Droid is better than iOS? At this rate, we may be on our way to having more limited debates if manufacturers that license Droid are having the rug yanked from beneath them.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [renatomitra via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Samsung Ban Upheld: Why Apple Can’t Stop Won’t Stop appeared first on Law Street.