“We were all quite surprised,” one of the members said, asking not to be named since he wasn’t authorised to talk about their discussions. “We had a heated debate but not every member exposed their thinking. It was really hard to tell.”

The recommendation provoked an immediate backlash from corporate governance activists and lawmakers, who urged prosecutors to seek Lee’s indictment anyway.

But if they decide to ignore the panel, officials risk angering a populace that regards Samsung – the world’s largest maker of smartphones, memory chips, and appliances – as critical to reviving the country’s economy after the coronavirus outbreak.

Lee’s lawyers said they are “thankful” for the panel’s involvement and “respect the decision.” Representatives for the prosecutors’ office declined to comment when contacted for this story.

Before Lee’s request, few outside legal circles had even heard of the civil panel option, which was created in 2018. Now, it’s influencing a case that has spurred nationwide controversy, pitting the country’s most powerful chaebol, or conglomerates, against government agencies that have pledged to diminish their influence and cosy ties to the president’s administration and his Blue House.

In most legal systems of the developed world, public prosecutors decide which cases to pursue, with judges or juries acting as a check by determining the ultimate verdict.

Friday’s panel thus served as a barometer for how the public views the Samsung heir as well as the chief prosecutor, who is appointed by the president.

Their meeting started at 10:30am. Prosecutors gave a presentation for about 75 minutes, then a Q&A session for another 90. Following a half-hour boxed lunch, Lee’s lawyers took their turn.

During the discussions, the panellists pored over 50 pages of densely worded legal statements, plus a lengthy filing from a liberal, civil organisation that explained the allegations against Lee, which included stock and accounting manipulation.

There followed a final, two-hour long, freewheeling debate, during which the 13 openly expressed their views, one of them said. At one point, a reporter texted one of the members – whose identities had been kept under wraps – causing a bit of a stir.

A second panellist said he expected a close vote considering the polarised public opinion. A third member said he was disheartened about the subsequent controversy over the decision, given they tried their best to be impartial. But he acknowledged one or two members raised the question of the economic impact of Samsung’s legal crisis. “This is an ideological war surrounding a chaebol company behind the scenes,” one of the panellists said.

Prosecutors accused Samsung of providing horses and other payments to a confidante of Park’s, to win support for his succession.

Lee was found guilty, but then freed after about a year after the court suspended his sentence – a controversial decision that the Supreme Court has since reversed, raising the prospect of a retrial.

The case discussed on Friday was related and centres on whether Lee and Samsung used illegal means to help him take control of the conglomerate founded by his grandfather.

While one of the panellists broached the bigger political and economic ramifications, they got bogged down in highly technical details.

Members said the biggest hitch in deliberations was how to interpret Article 178 – the prohibition of unfair trading – of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and whether Lee violated the clause.

Prosecutors suspect Samsung Biologics intentionally violated accounting rules to justify a more favourable merger ratio between Biologics’ major owner, Cheil Industries, and Samsung C&T.

That in turn helped bolster the value of the heir’s stake in Cheil and his influence at Samsung Group.

Prosecutors also allege that Lee was involved in stock price manipulations during the 2015 merger, which Samsung and Lee’s lawyers have denied. The panel was divided on whether Samsung complied with financial law during the deal, and on whether Samsung had a clear motive to execute the merger for Lee.

One of the members said some were of the opinion that prosecutors had so far failed to produce a “smoking gun”, a strong persuasive argument that crimes were committed. But another member who said he voted against Lee said there were ample documents to support a case against the executive, including records of phone calls and emails that appeared to show Lee was aware of the alleged scheme. He did not elaborate, citing legal confidentiality.

The ball is now in the prosecutors’ court, another of the members said. Prosecutors have mostly abided by previous recommendations, but no panel has ever reviewed such a high-stakes case. Officials may decide that they’ve invested years in their investigation and seek to make an example of Lee. If they decide to proceed, an indictment may tie up Samsung’s chief in trials for another three years.

“Apart from Lee’s personal responsibility, I believe this should be a chance to uphold financial market law and order,” one of the members said. “Our society has to become transparent and fair for our future generations.”