A South Korean company embroiled in a trade dispute with the U.S. government has reportedly paid $2 million to the Trump Organization, a family business of President Donald Trump.
According to a report by The New York Times on July 14, recent disclosures from Trump's financial filings indicate that the Base Group made the payment to the Trump Organization last year. The Trump Organization classified the payment as part of a 'letter of intent' and 'non-refundable development fees,' though specific details about the business arrangement were not disclosed.
The Times noted that the Base Group has built a relationship with the Trump family over the past decade. In February, Eric Trump, the president's second son and executive vice president of the Trump Organization, was invited to the company's headquarters in Seoul. Additionally, a subsidiary of the Base Group, Geumyang International, imports and sells wines from Trump Winery in South Korea.
Another subsidiary, KAMU E&C, appears to have established ties with the Trump Organization through real estate development projects. During his visit to South Korea last year, Eric Trump also toured a golf course site that was being considered for a hotel and entertainment complex.
Notably, the Base Group's affiliate is currently involved in a trade dispute with the U.S. government. Korea Aluminum, a subsidiary of KAMU E&C, sells aluminum foil products used in prescription drug packaging and ice cream cone containers to the U.S. The company is under investigation by the U.S. Department of Commerce for allegedly processing and rerouting Chinese aluminum for export to the U.S.
The domestic industry, including Korea Aluminum, has pushed back against the allegations, and a final determination from the Commerce Department has yet to be made.
The Base Group stated that the $2 million payment to the Trump Organization is related to undisclosed golf course business expenses and is unrelated to the aluminum export dispute.
Alan Garten, the Trump Organization's chief legal officer, also refuted claims that the transaction was made for reasons other than legitimate business considerations, calling such assertions 'completely false.'
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.