The ongoing dispute between ADOR CEO Min Hee Jin and HYBE is heating up as HYBE takes the matter to the police, elevating it to a criminal case.
The crux of the matter lies in the allegations of “embezzlement” against CEO Min and the potential legal ramifications. Several key points are under scrutiny.
According to police reports on April 28, HYBE lodged a complaint on the 26th at the Yongsan Police Station in Seoul against CEO Min and an executive from ADOR, accusing them of embezzlement.
The police are now reviewing the complaint and will proceed with formal investigations.
HYBE claims that under CEO Min‘s leadership, ADOR sought financial investors with the intention of seizing control, eventually leading to the sale of ADOR and attempts at independent share acquisition.
They cite entries in the business journal spanning “several months” as evidence of ongoing discussions aimed at “seizing control.”
Despite CEO Min‘s assertion that these were merely discussions, HYBE points to entries like “ultimately exiting” and “this should be handled as a private discussion” as evidence.
However, legal experts suggest that the chances of prosecution for embezzlement are slim based on the available information. Embezzlement under criminal law is challenging to prove without actual execution, and preparatory acts alone are insufficient.
Even if minor actions were taken or there was a risk of harm to the company, the evidence is currently insufficient. Attorney Ahn Joo Young explained that criminal law only punishes preparatory acts for “serious crimes,” and embezzlement requires actual acts for prosecution.
Proving the accusations against CEO Min, especially regarding the usurpation of management rights, is considered difficult. Despite HYBE‘s claims, factors such as CEO Min’s 18% stake in ADOR and the possibility of a non-compete agreement with HYBE make attempted embezzlement unlikely.
Lawyer Yoon Yong Seok pointed out that CEO Min‘s actions may reflect dissatisfaction rather than criminal intent.
Some speculate that HYBE‘s legal action is aimed at undermining CEO Min‘s leadership rather than addressing management issues. There are suspicions that HYBE chose to file the complaint at a local level to regain control over CEO Min‘s minority shareholder rights.
Lawyer Park Hoon suggested that the dispute revolves around control rather than criminal activity.
However, new issues may arise during the police investigation, such as whether CEO Min‘s contract was leaked. HYBE suspects that confidential documents were leaked during the process of attracting external investment.
Lawyer Yoon noted that additional evidence could spark a debate on violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Law, but further analysis is needed.
Source: [1]
