Seungri has been forwarded to the prosecution for seven charges.

On June 25, the Metropolitan/Provincial Special Detective Division of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency revealed that Seungri has been forwarded to the prosecution on charges of solicitation of prostitution and prostitution mediation, occupational embezzlement of Burning Sun funds, occupational embezzlement of attorney’s fees, instigating destruction of evidence, violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and violation of the Food Sanitation Act.

The police found several instances of Seungri having mediated prostitution from December 2015 through January 2016.

In terms of embezzlement, police investigation has found him to have embezzled a total of 1.12 billion won (approximately $969,000). Seungri and Yoo In Suk used a borrowed-name bank account managed by Madam Lin’s Korean assistant Ahn, pretended to hire a club MD (merchandiser), and embezzled 566 million won (approximately $490,000) as supposed pay for the MD. Seungri and Yoo In Suk also embezzled an additional 528 million won (approximately $457,000) of Burning Sun funds with the pretext of expenses for using the Monkey Museum brand. Seungri also embezzled 22 million won (approximately $19,000) of Monkey Museum funds with the pretext of personal attorney expenses.

The charge on the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes is for sharing illegally filmed content in a KakaoTalk chatroom with Jung Joon Young, Choi Jong Hoon, and more. He has also been charged for instigating the members of the chatroom to destroy evidence by changing their phones.

The violation of the Food Sanitation Act was found for the operation of Monkey Museum.

However, he was forwarded to the prosecution with recommendation for non-indictment regarding suspicions of prostitution mediation at his birthday party in Palawan in December 2017. A source of the police explained, “Considering the flight and hotel expenses, it was not a large amount of money, and only a small part of the attendees were involved in sexual activity. It is not possible to view as solicitation of prostitution on a juridical level.”

Source (1) (2)

Top photo credit: Xportsnews