Rumors about Jungkook have no proven link to Bang Si-hyuk’s legal case — and speculation is irresponsible
A Seoul court has issued an order to freeze about 156.8 billion won (US$106.4 million) worth of shares in K-pop powerhouse Hybe held by its chairman, who is under investigation over alleged unfair stock trading, court officials said Thursday.
The Seoul Southern District Court last month approved a prosecution request for asset preservation against Bang Si-hyuk, filed to block him from disposing of his shares in Hybe while the investigation is under way, according to court officials.
A major legal development involving HYBE founder and chairman Bang Si-hyuk has entered the public domain — and, almost immediately, online debate drifted into conspiracy theories. The most prominent: that revived dating rumors involving BTS’s Jungkook were being used to “distract” from news about Bang’s investigation.
This claim has no factual basis.
There is zero verified evidence linking any dating speculation to HYBE, to Bang Si-hyuk, or to any intentional “cover-up.”
As a publication grounded in fact-based reporting, it is important to state this clearly and unambiguously.
What Is Actually Confirmed
Two major South Korean news outlets — Yonhap News and multiple domestic media sources — confirmed the following verified facts:
- A Seoul court approved an asset-preservation order
- The Seoul Southern District Court approved a prosecution request to freeze Bang Si-hyuk’s HYBE shares.
- The freeze covers approximately ₩156.8 billion to ₩157 billion (around USD $106–107 million) in HYBE stock.
- Bang Si-hyuk is under investigation, but not indicted
- Prosecutors are investigating allegations that Bang misled investors in 2019 by denying IPO plans, leading them to sell HYBE shares to a special purpose company (SPC) connected to a private equity fund.
- The SPC allegedly gained significant profit once HYBE went public.
- Reports estimate that Bang is suspected of benefiting by roughly ₩190 billion (USD $130 million).
- No indictment has been made as of the latest official reports.
- HYBE’s official stance
HYBE told Yonhap that the asset freeze is a “routine procedure” and not a judgment of guilt.
HYBE also stated:
- It has cooperated fully with investigators.
- It is awaiting law-enforcement conclusions.
These are the only facts established by public documentation and official statements.
The Rumor Cycle: Dating Speculation and the “Cover-Up” Theory
Shortly after the asset-freeze news circulated, online communities saw a surge in revived dating rumors involving Jungkook.
A small number of users on Korean forums and X (formerly Twitter) speculated that the timing was “suspicious,” suggesting the rumors were created to overshadow Bang Si-hyuk-related headlines.
Suspicious? BTS Jungkook’s Reignited Dating Rumors Branded Cover-Up For HYBE Bang Si Hyuk’s Investigation Updatehttps://t.co/n0yhpYGLxX
— Koreaboo (@Koreaboo) December 4, 2025
However:
- There is no evidence that HYBE promoted or planted any dating rumor.
- There is no evidence that anyone linked to HYBE attempted to distract from legal news.
- Online rumor timing is not proof of coordination, and internet virality is rarely linear or controlled.
From a journalistic standpoint, correlation is not causation — and speculation of this nature risks unfairly connecting unrelated individuals and events.
Why Responsible Reporting Matters
Bang Si-hyuk’s investigation is a serious legal matter handled by the prosecution and the courts.
Jungkook’s dating rumors are unverified personal gossip that resurface periodically.
To conflate the two without proof is not only inaccurate — it puts public figures at risk of misinformation, unnecessary scrutiny, and baseless narrative-building.
Our position is simple and firm:
- The legal proceedings involving Bang Si-hyuk should be evaluated strictly based on verified facts.
- Jungkook should not be dragged into unrelated speculation.
- Fans and the public deserve reporting grounded in accuracy, not rumor ecosystems.
Until investigators complete their work, assumptions do not serve justice, fairness, or the people involved.