The team supporting Kim Sung-won, a nominee for the Minister of Food and Drug Safety, has asserted that a recording presented as evidence in allegations of a drug lobbying scandal is a “fabricated, false recording.” The recording in question is reportedly a conversation between broker Yang Mo-ssi and former Cheong Wa Dae senior secretary Choi Jae-sung. Representative Han Dong-hoon, who initially disclosed the recording, countered by stating that the nominee’s team’s position merely highlights the seriousness of the issue.
Dispute Over Recording Authenticity
The preparation committee for Kim Sung-won’s confirmation hearing issued a statement on the 10th, directly addressing Representative Han Dong-hoon. They argued that Han’s repeated claims, based on what they deem a fabricated recording, are unfounded. The committee further stated that their review indicated that the nominee’s actions, which involved requesting a fair review from the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, should not be considered improper solicitation, even when presented with this alleged fabrication.
To support their claim, the committee released what they described as the original transcript of a conversation between Yang and Choi from October 8, 2010, alongside the version disclosed by Representative Han. Yang is currently under scrutiny for allegedly soliciting approval for a GenCell drug’s clinical trial from Kim Sung-won in 2021, with related legal proceedings underway.
Key Discrepancies in Transcripts
The original transcript, as presented by Kim’s team, reportedly includes Yang stating: “Our professor’s (GenCell CEO Kang Mo-ssi) company is currently awaiting approval from the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. Regarding COVID. Once that is approved, the chairman can attract investment. It would be good if approval came quickly. But the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety said, ‘Wow, the numbers came out really well,’ but the person in charge changed, so there was a bit of a delay.”
In contrast, the recording disclosed by Representative Han’s office allegedly omits the part where Yang mentions the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety’s positive feedback on the numbers. Kim’s team contends that this selective omission distorts the conversation’s meaning.
The nominee’s preparation committee argued that Yang’s simple request for confirmation was misrepresented as a solicitation for approval. They further criticized Representative Han for selectively releasing parts of a confidential investigation record. According to the committee, Han’s actions create the impression that Kim Sung-won improperly pressured the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety for approval based on Yang’s solicitation, and that Yang had promised a reward from CEO Kang in return.
“The disclosed recording is deliberately misinterpreting the meaning of the conversation,” the committee stated.
Further Allegations and Counterarguments
The original transcript released by Kim’s team also reportedly contains content where Yang mentions being warned by GenCell CEO Kang Mo-ssi: “Don’t ever talk about this stuff in the future, it could even become a national investigation target.” Yang apparently inferred from this that Kim Sung-won had relayed a warning to him through Kang.
Representative Han, however, refuted these claims, stating that the content about Kim Sung-won knowing Yang would receive a commission if the drug was approved, and advising him to remain silent to avoid a national investigation, was not something he had disclosed. Han characterized Kim’s team’s assertions as a “self-serving stance” that questions the judgment of Kim Sung-won, suggesting that Kim might believe such actions are beneficial.
The core of the dispute lies in the interpretation of the conversation. Kim’s team maintains that Yang was merely seeking confirmation and that any suggestion of improper influence or quid pro quo is a misrepresentation. They argue that the selective editing of the recording by Representative Han’s office serves to create a false narrative.
Context of the Drug Lobby Allegations
The allegations center around a period when GenCell was seeking approval for its drug. Yang Mo-ssi, a broker, is accused of facilitating lobbying efforts. The controversy involves whether Kim Sung-won, in his capacity at the time, was involved in improperly influencing the approval process. The existence and content of the recording are crucial to these claims.
Kim’s team’s strategy appears to be discrediting the evidence presented against their nominee by highlighting alleged alterations and misinterpretations. They are emphasizing that the original, unedited conversation does not support the narrative of improper solicitation or influence peddling.
Representative Han, on the other hand, insists that the recording, even with the alleged omissions, points to serious issues that warrant further investigation. His team’s counterargument is that the nominee’s team is attempting to deflect from the substance of the allegations by focusing on the technicalities of the recording’s presentation.
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding the drug lobby allegations and the disputed recording highlights a significant conflict between the nominee’s camp and the political opposition. The authenticity and interpretation of the recorded conversation remain central to the ongoing confirmation process and any potential legal scrutiny. Both sides are presenting their versions of the facts, with Kim’s team aiming to clear the nominee’s name by discrediting the evidence, while Representative Han’s side seeks to underscore the gravity of the accusations.
