Samsung founder's kid back at the wheel
Two-year tax-evasion penance served
Lee Kun-hee will return to head up Samsung Electronics, having resigned from the company in 2008 with a conviction for tax evasion - for which he's since been pardoned.
Lee Kun-hee won't be taking on all his previous responsibilities, just the Electronics part of the Samsung group and alongside a board of which he won't be chair, but his return should bring some stability to the company despite his assertion that "in the coming 10 years, businesses and products that represent Samsung today will mostly disappear".
Samsung is a very large company, one of the South Korean jaebeol - family-run conglomerates with close connections to the government. In 2008 Lee Kun-hee was forced to resign after being caught trading Samsung shares and stashing the dosh in employee's bank accounts to avoid paying tax.
Since then he's paid back the money and been given a pardon for his crimes, so he steps back into the company with a clean slate - assuming investors can forgive and forget his patchy past.
Samsung Electronics is riding high at the moment - the Wall Street Journal reckons the division will make more than the $10bn profit in 2010, and as long as Lee can sustain that kind of success few will bother muck-raking his past. ®
Shoot the rich.
Let the poor have some BBQ.
All right, i admit it! It's a joke in terrible taste. (Ow! Stop that!)
Tax is still robbery.
It may have its good points, hell it may even make for a better society if actually implemented correctly -- but it is still robbery.
Most people would manage quite alright just paying for what they use -- so for most people taxes are a drain.
Oh, and if I gave someone a TV so they could watch it and they used it as coffee table then I'd feel justified in either demanding it back or, at the least, not giving them anything else.
It's all about impact
Agreed - psychologically the impact of having your house broken into and your TV stolen is far worse than hearing on the news that some dude was evading taxes. It can be absolutely devastating to your confidence and ability to feel secure in your own home (I'm lucky enough to have never had it happen to me but I know people who are less fortunate).
I agree that in this case the treatment of the guy has been a bit of a joke but the OP shouldn't overlook the impact on wider-society of people being in fear in their own homes (or, to go a step further) on the streets.
To put it another way, if you offered people a choice between a world without burglars and muggers or white collar fraudsters of the type in this article, what do you think most people would plump for?