South Korea's top court clears Samsung chairman Lee
The Supreme Court's verdict on Thursday permanently removes a long-running legal distraction for Lee as Samsung plays catch-up in a global race to develop cutting-edge AI chips.
The Supreme Court upheld an appeals court's ruling dismissing all the charges in the case involving the merger a decade ago between two Samsung affiliates, Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries, which prosecutors said was designed to cement Lee's control of the tech giant.
A lower court last year had also cleared Lee of the charges.
Samsung's lawyers said they were "sincerely grateful" to the court for its decision and added in a statement that the ruling confirmed that the merger was legal.
Samsung Electronics shares were little changed after the ruling, up 1.7 per cent.
The Supreme Court ruling was widely expected, but comes at a critical moment for Lee, who has faced mounting questions about his ability to lead Samsung Electronics - the world's top memory chip and smartphone maker - as it grapples with growing competition and playing catch-up in artificial intelligence chips.
For nearly a decade, Lee has faced legal challenges, including those from the merger that paved the way for his succession after his father, Lee Kun-hee, had a heart attack in 2014 that left him in a coma.
South Korea's top court has upheld a not guilty verdict for the chairman of Samsung Electronics Jay Y Lee, backing two lower court rulings clearing him of accounting fraud and stock manipulation related to an $US8 billion ($A12 billion) merger in 2015.
The Supreme Court's verdict on Thursday permanently removes a long-running legal distraction for Lee as Samsung plays catch-up in a global race to develop cutting-edge AI chips.
The Supreme Court upheld an appeals court's ruling dismissing all the charges in the case involving the merger a decade ago between two Samsung affiliates, Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries, which prosecutors said was designed to cement Lee's control of the tech giant.
A lower court last year had also cleared Lee of the charges.
Samsung's lawyers said they were "sincerely grateful" to the court for its decision and added in a statement that the ruling confirmed that the merger was legal.
Samsung Electronics shares were little changed after the ruling, up 1.7 per cent.
The Supreme Court ruling was widely expected, but comes at a critical moment for Lee, who has faced mounting questions about his ability to lead Samsung Electronics - the world's top memory chip and smartphone maker - as it grapples with growing competition and playing catch-up in artificial intelligence chips.
For nearly a decade, Lee has faced legal challenges, including those from the merger that paved the way for his succession after his father, Lee Kun-hee, had a heart attack in 2014 that left him in a coma.
South Korea's top court has upheld a not guilty verdict for the chairman of Samsung Electronics Jay Y Lee, backing two lower court rulings clearing him of accounting fraud and stock manipulation related to an $US8 billion ($A12 billion) merger in 2015.
The Supreme Court's verdict on Thursday permanently removes a long-running legal distraction for Lee as Samsung plays catch-up in a global race to develop cutting-edge AI chips.
The Supreme Court upheld an appeals court's ruling dismissing all the charges in the case involving the merger a decade ago between two Samsung affiliates, Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries, which prosecutors said was designed to cement Lee's control of the tech giant.
A lower court last year had also cleared Lee of the charges.
Samsung's lawyers said they were "sincerely grateful" to the court for its decision and added in a statement that the ruling confirmed that the merger was legal.
Samsung Electronics shares were little changed after the ruling, up 1.7 per cent.
The Supreme Court ruling was widely expected, but comes at a critical moment for Lee, who has faced mounting questions about his ability to lead Samsung Electronics - the world's top memory chip and smartphone maker - as it grapples with growing competition and playing catch-up in artificial intelligence chips.
For nearly a decade, Lee has faced legal challenges, including those from the merger that paved the way for his succession after his father, Lee Kun-hee, had a heart attack in 2014 that left him in a coma.
South Korea's top court has upheld a not guilty verdict for the chairman of Samsung Electronics Jay Y Lee, backing two lower court rulings clearing him of accounting fraud and stock manipulation related to an $US8 billion ($A12 billion) merger in 2015.
The Supreme Court's verdict on Thursday permanently removes a long-running legal distraction for Lee as Samsung plays catch-up in a global race to develop cutting-edge AI chips.
The Supreme Court upheld an appeals court's ruling dismissing all the charges in the case involving the merger a decade ago between two Samsung affiliates, Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries, which prosecutors said was designed to cement Lee's control of the tech giant.
A lower court last year had also cleared Lee of the charges.
Samsung's lawyers said they were "sincerely grateful" to the court for its decision and added in a statement that the ruling confirmed that the merger was legal.
Samsung Electronics shares were little changed after the ruling, up 1.7 per cent.
The Supreme Court ruling was widely expected, but comes at a critical moment for Lee, who has faced mounting questions about his ability to lead Samsung Electronics - the world's top memory chip and smartphone maker - as it grapples with growing competition and playing catch-up in artificial intelligence chips.
For nearly a decade, Lee has faced legal challenges, including those from the merger that paved the way for his succession after his father, Lee Kun-hee, had a heart attack in 2014 that left him in a coma.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
11 hours ago
- Perth Now
Four men guilty of murdering refugee in drug robbery
Four men have been found guilty of the bashing murder of an Albanian refugee during the robbery of a cannabis crop. The men had faced a retrial after the High Court overturned their convictions in the death of Urim Gjabri at his suburban rental property in Adelaide in 2018. In the South Australian Supreme Court on Wednesday, Justice Julie McIntyre found Benjamin John Mitchell, Alfred Claude Rigney, Matt Bernard Tenhoopen and Aaron Donald Carver guilty of murder. Mr Gjabri was discovered by a friend at his Para Vista home in a pool of dried blood. The 46-year-old had been hit over the head at least once and possibly twice, and according to forensic evidence initially survived the attack. Evidence suggested he had lived for at least another 35 minutes and possibly up to 24 hours. On the crown case, each of the accused were party to a plan to commit a home invasion or robbery because they went to Mr Gjabri's home and emerged with his cannabis crop. The court was told that police found the DNA of two of the accused inside the dead man's house. They also found the DNA of a third defendant on the steering wheel of Mr Gjabri's car. However, the prosecution could not say who actually killed the victim or how many blows he suffered. The men were previously found guilty in 2020 and were each sentenced to at least 20 years' jail. At the first trial, it was argued that as part of an extended joint criminal enterprise, each of the accused had foreseen that one of them might have perpetrated an intentional act of violence. In such circumstances, the trial judge directed the jury that the prosecution could establish a pathway to murder. However, the High Court quashed their convictions in 2023 after finding that such provisions could not be relied on and therefore the jury had not been properly instructed. Justice McIntyre remanded the men in custody and ordered pre-sentencing reports. They will return to court in August to start the sentencing process.
ABC News
13 hours ago
- ABC News
Foreign workers reflect on life at Auski Roadhouse in WA's Pilbara
Auski Roadhouse is not the kind of place featured in Australia's multi-million-dollar tourism campaigns. Temperatures at the remote fuel stop, 1,368 kilometres north of Perth along the Great Northern Highway, routinely hit the mid-40s in summer. Flies swarm anything moving and the nearest town is more than 150km away. For its mostly foreign workforce, it can be a daunting gig. Something acknowledged by its manager, Lee Beaton, who shared the story of one Italian worker's first day. "She said, 'It's isolated. There's no shops. Where can I buy things? Where can I get coffee?' "And she ended up staying for 14 months and just loved it." The roadhouse's 22 foreign staff enable it to stay open 16 hours a day, keeping valuable trucks and road trains on the move. Auski has the only fuel between Newman and Port Hedland, a stretch of road linking some of the country's most valuable iron ore mines with its largest export terminal. Vietnamese-born cashier and barista Han Nguyen described her first summer at the roadhouse as like entering an inferno. "It's hot like hell," she said. Like many of her peers, working here wasn't a dream, but a necessity. Ms Nguyen was living in Sydney on a one-year working holiday visa, and was keen to stay in the country longer. That meant working somewhere remote to help the federal government's efforts to address labour shortages. "So I just posted on a Facebook group chat that I was looking for a job," she said. "And the HR manager [for the roadhouse] saw my post and contacted me." Five months on, the 32-year-old, dubbed "Han Superdry" by the Australian staff, said she had no regrets. "I take it as a moment for me to reflect and go back to myself," she said. "I need some time to think further for my plan." For others, the predictable patterns of roadhouse life were a blessing and a curse. "Every day is kind of the same and not much changes," Slovakian receptionist Katarina Virgovicova said. "It forces you to confront things because you have that time to yourself, I guess. Maybe too much time." Some of that time is spent reflecting on the lives of the truck drivers who pass through every day. "Sometimes I would compare the truck drivers to pirates," she said. "Like Pirates of the Caribbean. They're kind of travelling everywhere and they have no home. French cashier Celia Guzman was well aware there were more glamorous work options for travellers in Australia, having lived in Queensland and the Northern Territory. But the gig at Auski was a chance to earn more and burn less. "In Australia, you can earn a lot of money, but you can spend also a lot of money," Ms Guzman said. Staff at Auski pay only a modest weekly rent for their rooms and are provided with all their meals. "I think it's a good time for us to make money," Ms Guzman said. And at times, the 28-year-old saw being confined to the roadhouse as an escape from her responsibilities back home. "Now I have this time only for me and I don't have a choice to stay here. So [my attitude is] let's do it," she said. "I have no excuse to do everything I have to do, like thinking of my future or even something on my computer [that is stressful]." When asked whether she would recommend the roadhouse experience to others, Ms Virgovicova said it depended on one's appetite for adventure. "The environment is so special and so strange that you can't really compare this to anywhere else in the world. Maybe only somewhere like Antarctica," she said "If you want to experience something cool and something that not everyone does, then you should try it. Mr Beaton is just glad there are enough people game enough to try. "They do a wonderful job for us, a wonderful job," he said. "I'm very pleased to have them."
ABC News
17 hours ago
- ABC News
Legal experts cast doubt on Donald Trump's defamation case against Rupert Murdoch over alleged Epstein letter
US law experts say Donald Trump faces significant hurdles in his $10 billion case against Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal over reports he sent a birthday message to Jeffrey Epstein with a sexually suggestive drawing. The lawsuit, filed in the Florida Supreme Court, claims the Wall Street Journal "failed to show proof that President Trump authored or signed any such letter and failed to explain how this letter was obtained". But experts say defamation cases, brought forward by public figures, are notoriously hard to prove in the US, and they rarely make it to a jury. The paper has said it was prepared to "vigorously" defend its journalism. If the case does go to trial, Mr Trump may be forced to provide information about the nature of his relationship with the convicted paedophile and billionaire, and the Journal may be asked to show how it obtained the letter or proved its existence. So, how likely is it Mr Trump will get his day in court? Winning or settling a defamation case in the US can be difficult, mostly due to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment in the US Constitution. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. It is even more difficult for a public figure like Donald Trump to win a defamation lawsuit, said Harry Melkonian, a media lawyer and honorary associate at the United States Studies Centre. "It is extremely difficult and intentionally made so for public figures to bring defamation claims in the US," he said. "By definition, the US president is the most public of public figures." Shawn Trier, a constitutional law expert at Australian National University, agreed. "A case in the early 1960s during the civil rights movement found that even if you have factual information that's incorrect, unless you prove a term called actual malice — that you knew it was wrong or didn't care — it would be really hard for that to be proven," he said. Actual malice is knowledge that the material published was false, or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. "In the case of the Wall Street Journal, it would literally have to be the case that they knew the letter was false or knew it didn't exist or they had a really good reason to suspect it was forged but ignored it," Dr Tier said. Dr Melkonian said the Supreme Court set this standard for public figures to prevent self-censorship by the media. "They also felt that public figures are pretty well equipped to respond publicly to undo any harm, and Trump can get on TV any night and say this story is false, they made it up," he said. "So when you combine all those things, it makes for an extremely difficult case, and quite honestly, I've read the complaint and I think they will have difficulties even getting this complaint to court." In Australia, defamation law is "relatively straightforward", Dr Melkonian said. If a publisher prints something that a person says isn't true, the publisher must prove on the balance of probabilities that it is. But American law is the opposite, Dr Melkonian said; the public figure has to prove the story is false. "Trump has to prove they either knew it was false or they harboured serious doubts and did it anyway," Dr Melkonian said. "And he has to prove that by an exaggerated standard of proof." But US courts rarely find that actual malice exists, and there has only been one case, which was between Time Magazine and the Israeli defence minister in 1984. Court documents show that Mr Trump will argue that such a letter did not exist and the two journalists who wrote the story "possessed information and had access to information that showed their statements were false." It does not say, however, what that information was. "The mere fact that he told them 'it's false' before they printed it isn't enough because if that was, you could stop anything from being printed," Dr Melkonian said. From the legal documents, it appears Mr Trump will also argue that the circulation of the story created further damage to his reputation. "And given the timing of the defendants' article, which shows their malicious intent behind it, the overwhelming financial and reputational harm suffered by President Trump will continue to multiply," the court documents said. But Dr Melkonian said, "he's already said it's false, and he certainly has made more publicity saying it's false than the Wall Street Journal got with the article." Dr Melkonian said public figures sometimes took steps like Mr Trump's to "make it clear to the public that they believe the article is a falsehood". "Donald Trump has gotten a lot of publicity out of filing this case, and that may be the vindication that he wants now the public knows he is taking it to court to prove he didn't do it," he said. A $10 billion award would be the largest finding of defamation damages in history, dwarfing already-massive cases in recent US proceedings. These include a $1.5 billion judgement against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and Fox News's settlement with Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5 million. "It's unlikely he has a legal case against the Wall Street Journal, but it probably helped him politically," Dr Trier said. "He likes to do this a lot, to say 'look how I've been treated, it's so bad I'm suing.'" The Wall Street Journal has indicated it will defend itself. "We have full confidence in the rigour and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit," a spokesperson for publisher Dow Jones said in a statement. Yesterday, the White House removed the Wall Street Journal from the pool of reporters covering Trump's upcoming weekend trip to Scotland. "As the appeals court confirmed, the Wall Street Journal or any other news outlet are not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in his private workspaces," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to various US media outlets. "Due to the Wall Street Journal's fake and defamatory conduct, they will not be one of the 13 outlets on board. Every news organisation in the entire world wishes to cover President Trump, and the White House has taken significant steps to include as many voices as possible." While the Murdoch-owned media company has the power to fight such a case, many do not. "It could have an insidious effect on journalism and free speech," Dr Trier said. "There should be early dismissals [in defamation cases like these], but there are still costs, and smaller organisations that get threats like this are more likely to back down. "It raises a lot of concerns, and Trump has been very unique in using his office to carry out these retributions against the media."
