SKorea court to rule on probe into president
Legal World
The Constitutional Court will issue a ruling this week on whether the scheduled special investigation into President-elect Lee Myung-bak's alleged involvement in a 2001 financial scam is unconstitutional or not.
President Roh Moo-hyun appointed Chung Ho-young, a former chief of the Seoul High Court, as special counsel Monday to lead the probe of the President-elect. But the launch of an investigation, which is expected to start Jan. 14, depends on the court's ruling.
Chung, 60, currently serves as a lawyer for the Seoul-based law firm, Bae, Kim & Lee LLC.
Under a special bill initiated by the pro-government United New Democratic Party (UNDP) and approved by the National Assembly last month, Chung is to conduct an investigation into allegations of the alleged past misdeeds of Lee until shortly before his inauguration on Feb. 25.
Hours after the appointment, the Ministry of Justice submitted its opinion to the Constitutional Court that the law on special investigation of Lee contained unconstitutional clauses.
But the Supreme Court, which was also asked to submit am opinion on the probe, has declines to do so, court officials said, citing possible conflicts of interest.
Last week, six plaintiffs, including the President-elect's brother and brother-in-law, filed a petition with the Constitutional Court, claiming that the scope of the law contravenes the Constitution.
Two days before his election on Dec. 19, the prosecution cleared the CEO-turned presidential candidate of any wrongdoing, but pro-government and minor opposition party lawmakers passed a bill requiring an independent investigation into the allegations.
The Justice Ministry said that the law goes against the Constitution, which bans multiple investigations into the same allegations against a suspect.
It also said the law, which empowers the chief judge of the Supreme Court to name a special prosecutor, could be unconstitutional, citing the principle of the separation of power between the judiciary and the prosecution.
Constitutional Court officials said no schedule for a verdict has been fixed yet. ``But considering the urgency of the issue, we have decided to issue a ruling as early as possible,'' an official said.
Cheong Wa Dae downplayed the ministry's petition. ``Is there any past case that the Justice Ministry supported a special probe? Some critics have always called the planned special probe unconstitutional,'' Roh's spokesman Cheon Ho-seon said.
Asked about the next move of the presidential office under a possible ruling of ``unconstitutional,'' the spokesman said, ``We will state our official position if the court declares it to be so.''
Cheon added that the presidential office's internal belief was that the investigation was legitimate.
Related listings
-
US law firms: overpaid, over here and taking over?
Legal World 01/08/2008Among her 300 million citizens, America finds room for 2.2 million prisoners, half a million soldiers — and 1.1 million lawyers, increasing numbers of whom find their way across the Atlantic. From Park Lane to Mincing Lane, US law firms now deploy 3,...
-
China aims to replace shooting with lethal injection
Legal World 01/03/2008China, which executes more people each year than any other country, will expand the use of lethal injections instead of gunshots for death sentences, a state-run newspaper reported Thursday.Half of the country's 404 Intermediate People's Courts, whic...
-
Consumers Allowed Class Action from Next Year
Legal World 12/26/2007Come 2008, consumers in Korea will be able to take class action to curb illegal activities by corporations. The government has designated 13 organizations, including nine consumer groups and four economic institutes, such as the Federation of Korean ...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.