Legal Experts Believe HYBE Would Struggle To Accuse ADOR CEO Min Hee Jin With A Crime

Legal experts believe HYBE would struggle to accuse ADOR CEO Min Hee Jin with a crime

The ADOR CEO Min Hee Jin-HYBE feud shows no signs of ending. HYBE reported CEO Min to the police, turning the incident into a crime.

CEO Min’s “embezzlement” claims and criminal fines are at stake. Several disagreements were discussed.

On April 26, HYBE filed a complaint at the Yongsan Police Station in Seoul against ADOR CEO Min and executive Mr. A for embezzlement. The police are analyzing the complaint and will investigate after comprehending it.

HYBE claims that CEO Min’s ADOR management sought financial investors to grab control, sell ADOR, and acquire independent shares. They say that business journal logs from “several months” corroborate continuous discussions about “seizing control.” HYBE cites business journal posts like “ultimately exiting” and “this should be handled as a private discussion,” refuting CEO Min’s claim that there were discussions.

Based on public knowledge, embezzlement prosecution is unlikely in the legal community. Criminal embezzlement is difficult to prove based on preparatory acts without execution. There is inadequate information to warrant modest actions or actions that could hurt the company. An & Park attorney Ahn Joo Young noted, “Like former legislator Lee Suk Ki’s conspiracy or preliminary activities for treason, the criminal law only punishes’serious offenses.’ Property crimes like embezzlement require actual acts to prosecute. Thus, plotting in online chat rooms would make charges tough.”

Realistically, showing CEO Min’s seizure of management rights is difficult. CEO Min terminated the exclusive deal with NewJeans to nullify managerial rights, according to HYBE. CEO Min’s ADOR holding is merely 18%, making it impossible to purchase shares without HYBE’s authorization, and HYBE and CEO Min may have a non-compete agreement, making embezzlement unlikely. According to Hyunmyung Law Office lawyer Yoon Yong Seok, “Based on the revealed content, it seems more like (CEO Min) was expressing dissatisfaction with HYBE’s operational direction than criminal activity,” making it difficult to classify as a crime.

Some believe HYBE’s legal action is intended to damage ADOR’s internal operations by attacking CEO Min. For this reason, HYBE may have filed the case locally rather than with the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, which investigates big economic offenses. Labor law expert Park Hoon said, “HYBE seemed to want to regain or tighten control over CEO Min’s minority shareholder rights, while CEO Min seemed to be trying to increase those rights, which seemed like an attempt to seize control.”

The police inquiry may uncover fresh issues, such as CEO Min’s contract leak. HYBE believes ADOR’s management leaked contracts to seek outside investment. Yoon said, “If additional evidence regarding contract leaks is submitted, it could spark debate on violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Law,” and, “Even so, it’s necessary to delve into complex issues such as whether the leaked content constitutes trade secrets or significant business assets, and whether there is a causal relationship between profit acquisition and the leaks.”