The ruling, delivered by the Seoul Central District Court in South Korea, adds to a series of cases involving the transfer of advanced chip know-how abroad.

The court found the 56-year-old man, identified by his surname Jeon, guilty of violating the Industrial Technology Protection Act.

Judges said he unlawfully obtained and used Samsung’s DRAM process technology after leaving the company and joining China’s ChangXin Memory Technologies (CXMT).

Jeon’s case centres on what authorities describe as national core technology. This includes Samsung’s DRAM production process and detailed manufacturing methods known in the industry as process recipes.

The development of the technology reportedly cost around 1.6 trillion won, or about $1.2 billion.

Prosecutors said the former Samsung Researcher worked with others after moving to CXMT and helped draw up a DRAM development plan for the Chinese firm. They also said he was involved in recruiting key personnel during the transition.

Over a period of about six years, he received around 2.9 billion won, or roughly $2.1 million, from CXMT. This included a sign-on payment and stock options.

CXMT is China’s first DRAM-focused semiconductor company. It was set up with large-scale support from local government funding, estimated at about 2.6 trillion won.

The firm has been expanding quickly as China pushes to reduce reliance on foreign chip suppliers.

Authorities in South Korea argued that the leaked information could have helped CXMT speed up development in high-bandwidth memory technology.

That type of memory is now widely used in artificial intelligence systems and high-performance computing.

Samsung Electronics did not comment on the ruling. CXMT also did not respond to requests for comment.

In its judgment, the court stressed the scale of the breach and its wider impact. The judges said, “He acquired core information developed by a major Korean company at enormous cost and had it used by a foreign entity. Because this inflicted losses not only on the company but also on the Republic of Korea, severe punishment is unavoidable.”

This case is not isolated as South Korea has dealt with several similar incidents in recent years involving advanced display and semiconductor technologies. In earlier cases, employees were found guilty of leaking OLED and chip-related data to overseas firms.

Another related case involving a former Samsung employee surnamed Kim is still under review after reaching South Korea’s Supreme Court. He was previously sentenced to six years in prison and fined for similar offences linked to CXMT.

Court records show that Kim’s case was sent back for retrial after the Supreme Court ruled that earlier proceedings did not properly separate key legal elements, including acquisition and disclosure of trade secrets.

South Korean authorities treat semiconductor process technology as national core technology. Officials say this reveals its importance to both industry and national security.

CXMT has expanded despite the legal challenge surrounding its early development. In 2025, the company announced plans to raise about 29.5 billion yuan through an initial public offering in Shanghai.

The funds are expected to support upgrades to production lines and technology development.

This case also adds to a pattern of industrial espionage disputes involving South Korea’s chip sector. In 2012, several individuals were arrested over alleged leaks of display technology. More cases followed in 2020 and 2023, involving both semiconductor and OLED information.

According to IDC, semiconductor and memory constraints are expected to persist as production capacity remains prioritised for AI systems and hyperscale infrastructure. In this environment, assuming price stability is financially dangerous.

For CFOs, the real exposure is not availability alone. It is the impact of absorbing hardware inflation upfront.

Traditional capex heavy procurement models force organisations to commit significant working capital at the exact moment pricing is least predictable. That decision affects liquidity, debt ratios, and return on capital employed.

“However, this is not to discourage investment in new equipment,” says David Buck, general manager for InnoVent South Africa. “Modern infrastructure remains essential for competitiveness and productivity. The financial question is how that investment is structured.”

“Semiconductor volatility is hitting financial models harder than operational ones. When organisations rely on capex structures, they take the full impact of price shocks immediately. That creates avoidable strain on cash flow and capital reserves,” he explains.

Leasing introduces predictability where the market offers none. Instead of funding hardware refreshes from working capital or absorbing sudden supplier increases in a single quarter, leasing allows organisations to lock in structured, forecastable costs over time. Payments become operationally aligned with usage. Cash remains available for strategic initiatives.

Buck says when prices are rising and forecasts keep changing, certainty becomes a financial advantage.

“Leasing does not remove market volatility, but it prevents that volatility from distorting your financial planning cycle.”

Alongside structured leasing for new equipment, partnering with a leasing provider that has an in-house refurbishment capability adds tactical financial flexibility.

Organisations can access refurbished equipment immediately through flexible rentals when supply delays threaten delivery timelines or when short term capacity is required. Renting avoids emergency purchases at inflated prices and prevents unplanned capital outlays.

He says renting gives finance teams breathing room.

“It allows organisations to respond to operational pressure without compromising financial discipline,” he explained

Together, leasing and renting form a capital protection strategy. Leasing stabilises long term funding of new assets. Renting mitigates short term volatility and supply disruption. Both reduce the risk of tying up capital in depreciating technology during periods of price instability.

The chips shortage is exposing a structural weakness in outdated capital allocation models. CFOs who continue to treat hardware procurement as a straightforward capex decision may find themselves absorbing unnecessary financial shocks.

“In a volatile pricing environment, protecting liquidity and predictability must take priority. Structured leasing and strategic renting are not just procurement tools. They are financial safeguards,” he concludes.

The accusation, which was posted Thursday on Trump’s social media platform, has left the tech and political sectors in shock, increasing evaluation on one of America’s most strategically important chipmakers.

“The CEO of INTEL is highly CONFLICTED and must resign, immediately. There is no other solution to this problem. Thank you for your attention to this problem!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

Trump offered no specific evidence to back his claim, but his statements come in the wake of some Republican issues on the company. 

On Wednesday, Senator Tom Cotton had written to Intel’s board demanding clarity on Tan’s personal and professional ties to Chinese entities. 

Cotton’s letter raised red flags about Tan’s leadership at Cadence Design Systems—where tools were reportedly sold to a Chinese military-linked university—and his subsequent investments in Chinese tech firms through his venture capital arm, Walden International.

A Reuters report detailed that Tan had channeled over $200 million into various Chinese companies, with several reportedly linked to the country’s military or national security infrastructure. Cotton has questioned whether such entanglements are compatible with Intel’s receipt of federal funds under the CHIPS and Science Act.

“The new CEO of @intel reportedly has deep ties to the Chinese Communists. U.S. companies who receive government grants should be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars and adhere to strict security regulations. The board of @Intel owes Congress an explanation,” Cotton posted on X, attaching his formal letter.

Tan, who assumed the role of CEO in March 2025, has been steering Intel through a major overhaul in the face of stiff competition from Nvidia, AMD, and TSMC. 

His tenure has so far involved aggressive cost-cutting: thousands of job losses, cancelled factory expansions, and efforts to offload non-core business units. His stated aim is to restore Intel’s reputation as a leader in chip engineering, a position it has steadily lost over the last decade.

But these leadership decisions now risk being overshadowed by the political fallout. Intel’s strategic importance to U.S. national security is significant. It is the single largest beneficiary under the CHIPS Act, with $8.5 billion earmarked for new manufacturing facilities across Arizona, New Mexico, Ohio, and Oregon. 

The controversy around Tan’s alleged links to China could compromise the company’s ability to maintain bipartisan confidence and secure future federal support.

Intel has not yet responded to multiple requests for comment on the matter. Tan himself has remained silent as calls for transparency mount.

Meanwhile, investors are reacting. Intel’s stock fell nearly 5% in premarket trading following Trump’s post, reflecting growing anxiety over potential leadership instability and the political issues surrounding the company. 

With Washington increasingly wary of Beijing’s influence in the tech supply chain, the timing of these revelations, whether substantiated or not, puts Intel in an uncomfortable spotlight.

With a 2.4% increase in its share price on Wednesday, the chipmaker’s stock hit $164, strengthening its place at the top of the global tech hierarchy, above Apple and Microsoft.

Not without challenges, the California-based firm, which was founded in 1993, surged past a $2 trillion valuation earlier this year in February, then blew past $3 trillion in June. 

Now, in under seven months, Nvidia has doubled its worth, a feat unmatched in stock market history. And it did all of this amid geopolitical friction, export bans, and a volatile tech environment.

Despite being locked out of the $50 billion Chinese chip market due to tightening U.S. export controls, Nvidia’s performance has barely flinched. In fact, CEO Jensen Huang was apt on how this affects them: “The $50 billion China market is effectively closed to U.S. industry,” he said in May, adding that losing China would be a “tremendous loss.”

But even with an $8 billion sales gap from blocked shipments of its H20 chips to China, Nvidia’s machine has not stalled. In the first quarter of FY2026 alone, the company posted $44.1 billion in revenue, a 69% jump from the same period last year. It’s now guiding for $45 billion in Q2. Some analysts are projecting as much as $200 billion in full-year revenue, with expectations rising to $250 billion by FY2027.

So, what’s driving this engine? Nvidia has built a near-monopoly in the data centre GPU market, with a 90% share. It supplies the processing muscle behind OpenAI’s GPT-4, Google’s Gemini, xAI’s Grok, and enterprise AI workloads across Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, and Tesla. 

Despite murmurs earlier this year noting OpenAI might explore alternatives, the firm publicly reaffirmed its reliance on Nvidia’s chips, silencing any talk of defection.

From Europe to the U.S., policy changes are tilting in Nvidia’s favour. CEO Huang has hinted at big expansion plans for Europe, where AI infrastructure uptake still lags. Back in the U.S., legislative tailwinds are pushing forward.

The newly passed “Big Beautiful Bill” is expected to increase semiconductor tax credits, strengthening Nvidia’s already-tight supply chains.

Even Nvidia’s market cap now tells a global story: it’s worth more than the entire London Stock Exchange and overshadows the combined value of all public companies in Canada and Mexico.

While some might see the company’s meteoric rise as a bubble waiting to pop, Wall Street seems to disagree. Nvidia’s stock has surged 74% since April and risen more than fifteenfold over five years.

And unlike the dot-com era’s inflated valuations, Nvidia’s growth is backed by tangible demand, from governments, corporations, and developers looking to harness artificial intelligence.

While other tech giants are trying to diversify or catch up, Nvidia has entrenched itself as the foundation of AI infrastructure worldwide. 

At Wednesday’s shareholder meeting, executives admitted missteps and outlined an aggressive plan, including a $7.2 billion share buyback and potential mergers and acquisitions, to reclaim lost ground in the AI-driven semiconductor race.

In the chip industry, Samsung has fallen behind competitors like SK Hynix in high-bandwidth memory (HBM) chips, an important component in AI-driven data centres. While other companies capitalised on thriving demand, Samsung’s shares tumbled, erasing billions in market value.

Long-time investors are unhappy about the situation, with a 65-year-old shareholder, Lee, summing up the mood: “Last year, the stock price was so bad that I even considered investing in U.S. stocks instead.”

Jun Young-hyun, co-CEO and head of Samsung’s semiconductor unit, acknowledged the company’s failure to act swiftly. “We were late in reading the market trends and we missed out on the early market as a result,” he admitted.

Samsung’s leadership has now mapped out its response. In November, the company launched a $7.2 billion share buyback to stabilise stock performance. But executives know that financial manoeuvres alone won’t restore long-term growth.

Co-CEO Han Jong-hee warned that 2025 would be fraught with global economic uncertainties. To counteract this, Samsung is pursuing “meaningful” mergers and acquisitions.

“There are some difficulties in doing semiconductor M&As due to regulatory issues and various national interests, but we’re determined to produce some tangible results this year,” Han assured shareholders.

Again, Samsung is considering expanding its stock-based performance incentive scheme to employees, hoping to drive internal motivation and align workers with the company’s turnaround efforts.

Beyond pressure from shareholders, internal dissatisfaction is growing. Leaked comments from Chairman Jay Y. Lee at an executive seminar revealed concerns about stagnation. “Our technological edge has been compromised across all our businesses. It’s hard to see that efforts are being made to drive big innovation or tackle new challenges. There are only efforts to maintain a status quo rather than shaking things up.”

The company’s decline is seen across multiple sectors:

• Memory Chips: SK Hynix has taken the lead in HBM technology.
• Contract Chip Manufacturing: TSMC continues to dominate the industry.
• Smartphones: Apple and Chinese rivals are chipping away at Samsung’s market share.

Jun assured shareholders that 2025 would be a good year for recovery. “It will be the year when we recover our fundamental competitiveness,” he said.

Samsung is also navigating geopolitical risks. The U.S. government’s restrictions on high-end chip exports to China is a major challenge, as China has become Samsung’s largest market due to stockpiling by local firms.

Added to these, Washington is reviewing subsidies granted under the 2022 CHIPS Act. Samsung, Intel, TSMC, and SK Hynix have all received substantial funding, but shifting U.S. policies could impact future semiconductor investments.

Han stated that Samsung would adapt as needed.

“We will flexibly respond to U.S. tariffs with our global supply chain and manufacturing footprints, while looking at options for U.S. investments.”

Even with these issues, Samsung is still South Korea’s most valuable company, accounting for 16% of the country’s stock market capitalisation. Nearly 40% of domestic investors hold Samsung shares, underscoring its importance in the economy.

But rivals are surging ahead and investor patience thinning, 2025 will be a make-or-break year for Samsung. If its recovery plan fails, the company risks falling even further behind in the competitive tech space.

This funding, announced by the Department of Commerce, will support Intel’s manufacturing projects in Arizona, New Mexico, Ohio, and Oregon, to revitalise the American semiconductor industry under the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022.

The CHIPS Act, a signature initiative of President Joe Biden’s administration, allocates $52.7 billion to strengthen the domestic chipmaking sector. Of this, $39 billion is earmarked for semiconductor production and $11 billion for research and development. 

Intel’s subsidy is the largest awarded to date under the programme, as the government seeks to reduce reliance on foreign supply chains and address vulnerabilities exposed during the pandemic.

Intel, which has already achieved several project milestones, is expected to receive at least $1 billion of the subsidy by the end of 2024. 

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo spoke on the impact of this investment, stating that it ensures “American-designed chips are manufactured and packaged by American workers for the first time in years.”

Scaling Domestic Capacity Amid Challenges

Intel’s funding will help in boosting the U.S. semiconductor space. The company has committed to an expansive $100 billion domestic manufacturing initiative across four states, which includes constructing new facilities and upgrading existing ones. 

However, the grant amount was revised from an earlier projection of $8.5 billion, following Intel’s separate $3 billion contract with the Department of Defense for producing advanced semiconductors under a national security programme. 

This adjustment was made without compromising the company’s vision or its projects’ timelines.

Nevertheless, the chipmaker had declining profit margins and workforce reductions have followed years of aggressive investments led by CEO Pat Gelsinger. 

But Gelsinger noted the importance of bipartisan support for restoring U.S. technology leadership, calling it “critical to the nation’s economic growth and security.”

Intel’s evolving business strategy includes transitioning to a “foundry” model, where it produces chips designed by external firms. This change has necessitated significant capacity-building, with major investments in new fabrication plants, particularly in Ohio and Arizona. 

Yet, global market challenges have delayed some projects, including those in Germany and Poland, reflecting the complex dynamics of the semiconductor industry.

Safeguards and Incentives

The Commerce Department has introduced measures to ensure accountability and protect taxpayer funds. Intel’s award includes restrictions on stock buybacks for five years and provisions for sharing excess profits. 

Again, the company opted against an $11 billion government loan initially offered, pointing to unfavourable terms for its shareholders.

Beyond direct subsidies, Intel stands to benefit from a 25% investment tax credit on qualified expenditures exceeding $100 billion. These incentives, coupled with strategic partnerships, such as its agreement with Tower Semiconductor, allow the company to strengthen its domestic and global footprint.

The U.S. government has prioritised semiconductor production as a cornerstone of its industrial and economic strategy. The CHIPS Act is part of a goal to reshore manufacturing, create high-paying jobs, and enhance national security. 

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Natalie Quillian described the Intel subsidy as an essential step in implementing this vision, reiterating its role in delivering tangible benefits to the American people.