I'm currently doing research with students from South Korea, this surprised no one. They actually have a saying about "Keeping in touch with a cousin's cousin if they work at Samsung." In SK you're considered well off/rich if you or any family works there because it's the main tech business. After Choi Soon-sil the government is seen as corrupt through and through, in glad they're doing something about it, as most of the population (95%) disapprove.
I had a business conflict with Samsung about a decade back. In the end, it cost us nearly a million dollars and probably many times more than that in opportunity cost.
I found them to be extremely dishonest and, by reason of sheer size, very aware of the fact that they are able to virtually exist above the law. What I mean by that is that they have no problem whatsoever throwing their weight and money around to cause so much damage that you'd rather take the abuse and the loss instead of fighting them.
In our case, they had one of their top three US executives blatantly lie in court. I could not believe it. This guy repeatedly lied under oath and his attorney (a Samsung attorney) did the same.
Could we have won? Absolutely. It would have required a million dollars cash (on top of the damage they caused my business) and probably two years of being buried under an intense legal campaign designed to cause damage at every possible turn.
Here's an example of what they did: They filed for a broad TRO (temporary restraining order) to keep us from talking to any of their competitors at a time when they breached a contract and discontinued components we designed into a line of products over a period of about ten months of work. Components the top Samsung executives in the US helped select and vouch for.
The TRO covered getting within a certain radius of a trade show attended by Samsung as well as every single one of their competitors. The radius was such that we couldn't even park a car within walking distance of the convention center, much less come in and go talk to alternative component sources. A few weeks later the judge who oversaw the TRO chewed-out the Samsung attorney for resorting to such a nasty destructive approach. Still, the damage was done. You'd have to fly all over Asia to see the people we could have seen in a couple of days at the conference.
So, yeah, I've seen one side of this beast and it's nasty. Nearly killed my manufacturing company. I don't generally think of large corporations as evil but in this case I could be convinced to make an exception.
This is basically payback time for Korean people. Lee is partly paying for sins of his father and grandfather.
In the 60s, his grandfather got slapped on the wrist for major tax evasion charges.
In 2000s, his father basically got off scot-free for tax evasion and having $4 billion in political slush fund.
And just like his Dad and Grandfather, he also 'almost' got away with bribery charge, when presiding judge unexpectedly kibosh-ed the case a few weeks ago, much to chagrin of special prosecutors that brought charges against him.
National wide outrage ensued, and then the appeal followed. Now he is in the slammer awaiting trial.
People are so pissed off, even if his hands were completely clean, they may have to put him away. (figure of speech)
What is being done to prevent future Chaebol [1] from having state-anointed corporate protection? I hope this isn't theatrical punishment while the problem of persists.
She's currently in a jail in Denmark, fighting extradition requested by Korean prosecutors. In addition to tripping Lee, she also got multiple professors in Ewha Womans University arrested for corruption. (Yay?)
To be fair, her dad was an infamous "shaman-esque pseudo-Christian cult leader" who was the mentor to the former President and used his friendship to solicit bribes.
And her and her mother are accused of laundering $1 billion. At only 20 years old, it'd be fascinating to hear her philosophy/perception of business and life.
A serious question: Could this happen in the U.S.? Has a CEO of one of the largest companies in the nation (and world) ever been arrested? I think the odds are that someone, some time, has deserved it (though I'm not at all advocating arresting CEOs to meet a quota).
It's similar to another practice I've noticed: Other countries will arrest and imprison heads of state and other high officials, including Israel and France. It's hard to imagine that happening in the United States: Has a President or cabinet-level official ever been arrested?
In what seems like a corrupt practice to me, in the U.S. they get off with a slap on the wrist. For example, Nixon was pardoned for the sake of the nation. Why is it that other nations can handle it?
Jeffrey Skilling, former Enron CEO is serving 24 years.
However, there is a strong argument to be made that ever since Enron, the SEC has been defanged.
Taking a brief look at their list of accomplishments, it seems that these days, they just levy fines, instead of jailing criminals. [2][3] (Contrast the punishments for the financial crisis, vs low-level insider trading. The companies involved in the former pay fines, the people involved in the latter go to jail.)
This may come as a surprising, but the US is actually pretty far ahead in terms of the fight against corruption.
For example, until just a few years ago, many countries (Germany being the one I know specifically) allowed corporations to deducted bribes paid abroad from their taxes. That was changed only under pressure from the US.
There's a lot to complain about regarding the willingness of US courts to assume jurisdiction, the willingness of the US government to dictate international norms etc. But it seems that in this regard, it worked out well because the US legal system was always going to be ahead of /some/ competitors, so it became advantageous for US corporations (and, by extension, the government) to root out corruption: it was the one game they had no chance of winning.
One recent example is VW, and another recent development may be a strengthening of similar mechanisms in the EU, which may in due course be very helpful, even for the US.
It seems that nowadays the problem in the US isn't vast conspiracies where bags of money are secretly handed to politicians. It's that there's so much activity that in any other country of similar level of development, or any other time in the US, would have been regarded as a major corruption – but is now somehow regarded as not just completely legal but also morally sound.
I mean: there are (many) companies who give to both presidential candidates each election. There is simply no logical reason to do that except the expectation of getting access. (For donations to parties, I could at least imagine some argument about how donations allow them to do meaningful work on the local level etc. Can't say the same about the presidential level).
The article only mentions bribery (and other unspecified corruption). In the US, we call it a campaign donation (or free speech) and it's hard to prosecute.
That said, it does happen - Ted Stevens (Alaska Senator) and Bob McDonnell (Virgina Governor) were convicted of corruption only to see it overturned. And pretty much every governor of Illinois ends up in prison.
The Iran Contra people probably helped initiate our present quagmire in the Middle East during Bush II's term:
Elliott Abrams served as served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs and then Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy during Bush II's term.
John Marlan Poindexter got a job on Bush II's DARPA.
Duane Clarridge got involved as Ben Carson's foreign policy advisor during his presidential run. So these people are still tied to the White House to this day.
This seems paradoxical, but I believe it's less likely in the USA becasue our companies are less "corrupt".
What I mean by that, is Samsung is so big it's like a feudal kingdom. There aren't clear lines between the government, other aspects of life, and samsung. That means any sort of power stuggle has to involve all those different aspects. The head of samsung stands in the way of ambitious people in the whole society, not just ambitious people in that company.
Compare that with the USA. If there is a power struggle in a company you don't have to attack the head person with such intensity to advance yourself. It's even possible to advance by moving to another company in the same industry.
Well there's a matter of cultural differences wrt to legal enforcement too. For example in the US we tend to bring lawsuits with large fines to piraters (i.e. large scale distributors of pirated content), but in Japan they just arrest them right away.
So an arrest in one country isn't really equivalent to an arrest in another country, because what that arrest actually means can be quite different.
Looking at Hillary, no it can't happen in the US because there are so many ways to not make it worth the while of whoever would have to do it. Maybe the population density of Seoul is relevant; I'm not sure...
Yes. My college roommate (from Korea) once told me that Samsung is "above the government", when I asked him whether Samsung influences the government.
But naturally they must have enemies within the system. And as a country modernizes, it becomes harder and harder to maintain that tight control. So perhaps the enemies are striking as hard as they can to dethrone Samsung. One consideration is whether the enemies are also Cheabols though.
This is merely a symbolic gesture. People are pissed off. They want to see blood. CEO of Samsung is an easy target.
In reality, he'll be out once the whole situation simmers down and people forget.
This has how it has always worked. Chaebol CEOs are untouchable and they are fully aware of their position in society and abuse it to maximize their interests.
I'm not even remotely surprised by the anecdotal experiences of dealing with Samsung. Don't forget about SNES cartridges that used to be sold in Korea.
I wonder what impact (if any) this will have to Samsung's vast customer base. Somehow I think there would be contingency plans in place from risk management perspective.
Samsung is a large competitor in many industries and that on its own benefits even those who are not their customers.
In the long run it could hopefully be a good thing, if better corporate governance results in Samsung improving its operations and becoming even more innovative.
It just dawned on me that the president of South Korea is female. Its even more surprising when you realize that most korean families think very conservatively when it comes to the female role in a family household.
She's also a daughter of the former president(dictator) who modernized South Korea. Her father was the main reason why people either voted or didn't vote for her. When she was elected it came as a shock to most liberal people just like when Trump won.
[+] [-] lowpro|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rebootthesystem|9 years ago|reply
I found them to be extremely dishonest and, by reason of sheer size, very aware of the fact that they are able to virtually exist above the law. What I mean by that is that they have no problem whatsoever throwing their weight and money around to cause so much damage that you'd rather take the abuse and the loss instead of fighting them.
In our case, they had one of their top three US executives blatantly lie in court. I could not believe it. This guy repeatedly lied under oath and his attorney (a Samsung attorney) did the same.
Could we have won? Absolutely. It would have required a million dollars cash (on top of the damage they caused my business) and probably two years of being buried under an intense legal campaign designed to cause damage at every possible turn.
Here's an example of what they did: They filed for a broad TRO (temporary restraining order) to keep us from talking to any of their competitors at a time when they breached a contract and discontinued components we designed into a line of products over a period of about ten months of work. Components the top Samsung executives in the US helped select and vouch for.
The TRO covered getting within a certain radius of a trade show attended by Samsung as well as every single one of their competitors. The radius was such that we couldn't even park a car within walking distance of the convention center, much less come in and go talk to alternative component sources. A few weeks later the judge who oversaw the TRO chewed-out the Samsung attorney for resorting to such a nasty destructive approach. Still, the damage was done. You'd have to fly all over Asia to see the people we could have seen in a couple of days at the conference.
So, yeah, I've seen one side of this beast and it's nasty. Nearly killed my manufacturing company. I don't generally think of large corporations as evil but in this case I could be convinced to make an exception.
[+] [-] pcurve|9 years ago|reply
In the 60s, his grandfather got slapped on the wrist for major tax evasion charges.
In 2000s, his father basically got off scot-free for tax evasion and having $4 billion in political slush fund.
And just like his Dad and Grandfather, he also 'almost' got away with bribery charge, when presiding judge unexpectedly kibosh-ed the case a few weeks ago, much to chagrin of special prosecutors that brought charges against him.
National wide outrage ensued, and then the appeal followed. Now he is in the slammer awaiting trial.
People are so pissed off, even if his hands were completely clean, they may have to put him away. (figure of speech)
[+] [-] dmix|9 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaebol
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yongjik|9 years ago|reply
(Wow, that's a lot of "'s"'s...)
[1] For those who don't follow South Korean news closely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chung_Yoo-ra
She's currently in a jail in Denmark, fighting extradition requested by Korean prosecutors. In addition to tripping Lee, she also got multiple professors in Ewha Womans University arrested for corruption. (Yay?)
[+] [-] ithought|9 years ago|reply
And her and her mother are accused of laundering $1 billion. At only 20 years old, it'd be fascinating to hear her philosophy/perception of business and life.
[+] [-] hackuser|9 years ago|reply
It's similar to another practice I've noticed: Other countries will arrest and imprison heads of state and other high officials, including Israel and France. It's hard to imagine that happening in the United States: Has a President or cabinet-level official ever been arrested?
In what seems like a corrupt practice to me, in the U.S. they get off with a slap on the wrist. For example, Nixon was pardoned for the sake of the nation. Why is it that other nations can handle it?
[+] [-] vkou|9 years ago|reply
Jeffrey Skilling, former Enron CEO is serving 24 years.
However, there is a strong argument to be made that ever since Enron, the SEC has been defanged.
Taking a brief look at their list of accomplishments, it seems that these days, they just levy fines, instead of jailing criminals. [2][3] (Contrast the punishments for the financial crisis, vs low-level insider trading. The companies involved in the former pay fines, the people involved in the latter go to jail.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal
[2] https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/enf-actions-fc.shtml
[3] https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/insidertrading/cases.shtml
[+] [-] matt4077|9 years ago|reply
For example, until just a few years ago, many countries (Germany being the one I know specifically) allowed corporations to deducted bribes paid abroad from their taxes. That was changed only under pressure from the US.
There's a lot to complain about regarding the willingness of US courts to assume jurisdiction, the willingness of the US government to dictate international norms etc. But it seems that in this regard, it worked out well because the US legal system was always going to be ahead of /some/ competitors, so it became advantageous for US corporations (and, by extension, the government) to root out corruption: it was the one game they had no chance of winning.
One recent example is VW, and another recent development may be a strengthening of similar mechanisms in the EU, which may in due course be very helpful, even for the US.
It seems that nowadays the problem in the US isn't vast conspiracies where bags of money are secretly handed to politicians. It's that there's so much activity that in any other country of similar level of development, or any other time in the US, would have been regarded as a major corruption – but is now somehow regarded as not just completely legal but also morally sound.
I mean: there are (many) companies who give to both presidential candidates each election. There is simply no logical reason to do that except the expectation of getting access. (For donations to parties, I could at least imagine some argument about how donations allow them to do meaningful work on the local level etc. Can't say the same about the presidential level).
[+] [-] ksherlock|9 years ago|reply
That said, it does happen - Ted Stevens (Alaska Senator) and Bob McDonnell (Virgina Governor) were convicted of corruption only to see it overturned. And pretty much every governor of Illinois ends up in prison.
[+] [-] omegaworks|9 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair
The Iran Contra people probably helped initiate our present quagmire in the Middle East during Bush II's term:
Elliott Abrams served as served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs and then Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy during Bush II's term.
John Marlan Poindexter got a job on Bush II's DARPA.
Duane Clarridge got involved as Ben Carson's foreign policy advisor during his presidential run. So these people are still tied to the White House to this day.
[+] [-] refurb|9 years ago|reply
[1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/top-10-ceos-sent-to...
[+] [-] droopyEyelids|9 years ago|reply
What I mean by that, is Samsung is so big it's like a feudal kingdom. There aren't clear lines between the government, other aspects of life, and samsung. That means any sort of power stuggle has to involve all those different aspects. The head of samsung stands in the way of ambitious people in the whole society, not just ambitious people in that company.
Compare that with the USA. If there is a power struggle in a company you don't have to attack the head person with such intensity to advance yourself. It's even possible to advance by moving to another company in the same industry.
[+] [-] hkmurakami|9 years ago|reply
So an arrest in one country isn't really equivalent to an arrest in another country, because what that arrest actually means can be quite different.
[+] [-] equalarrow|9 years ago|reply
The short answer is: for conviction, no.
We'll see with Trump since he cares about hiding these connections even less than Bush did. He would probably even say they make America more winning.
[+] [-] daodedickinson|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] resonanttoe|9 years ago|reply
But hasn't it long been held/believed that Samsung has had a rather dominant political position from behind the scenes in South Korea?
[+] [-] hkmurakami|9 years ago|reply
But naturally they must have enemies within the system. And as a country modernizes, it becomes harder and harder to maintain that tight control. So perhaps the enemies are striking as hard as they can to dethrone Samsung. One consideration is whether the enemies are also Cheabols though.
[+] [-] joecool1029|9 years ago|reply
(probably)
[+] [-] LandoCalrissian|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brilliantcode|9 years ago|reply
In reality, he'll be out once the whole situation simmers down and people forget.
This has how it has always worked. Chaebol CEOs are untouchable and they are fully aware of their position in society and abuse it to maximize their interests.
I'm not even remotely surprised by the anecdotal experiences of dealing with Samsung. Don't forget about SNES cartridges that used to be sold in Korea.
[+] [-] sengork|9 years ago|reply
Samsung is a large competitor in many industries and that on its own benefits even those who are not their customers.
[+] [-] pzone|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fersho311|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peterjlee|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lostlogin|9 years ago|reply
I think that 'regressive' is a better word for that type of gender stereotyping.
[+] [-] b1gtuna|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] known|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fiatjaf|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] realusername|9 years ago|reply