The Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office also indicted Shigenori Kanemoto along with Defendant Toshiyuki Nakano

"Angel Tax System Lacking Administration" Which Ignores Investment Fraud by Corporation N

Shigenori Kanemoto, whose real name is defendant Kim Jung-deok, has been indicted along with defendant Susumu Nakano.

According to reports on August 12, 2026, the Special Criminal Division of the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office indicted Mr. Kanemoto for violating the Income Tax Act, alleging that he concealed approximately 2.276 billion yen in income for the year 2023 and evaded approximately 367 million yen in income tax. Defendant Nakano was also reportedly indicted for complicity in Mr. Kanemoto's tax evasion.

The narrative painted by the reports is that someone used the Angel Tax System to invest in Company N and recovered the majority of the investment amount. However, that narrative lacks the starting point of the incident.

Why did Mr. Kanemoto invest in Company N? Who introduced Company N? What did Defendant Tamaki Nakano and Certified Public Accountant Satoshi Saito explain regarding the legality of the system, administrative confirmation, share issuance, and the use of funds? Are the other people who invested in Company N accomplices, or victims who believed the same explanation?

If this part is left uninvestigated and only the final movement of funds is extracted to put the investor in the defendant's seat, that is not the clarification of the case. It is merely the Yokohama District Prosecutors Office rewrapping the investment products allegedly created by Defendant Nakano and others in wrapping paper labeled "tax evasion case."

The Prosecutors' Union calls upon those who invested in N Co., Ltd. If the explanation given at the time of solicitation differed from the actual investment, please formally request an investigation into investment fraud. If the administrative verification was based on fraudulent documents, please ask the administrative agency that performed the verification to conduct a reinvestigation. If there are errors in tax processing, please sort out amended returns, requests for reassessment, and whether tax refunds are possible.

For grants, the labor bureau investigates fraudulent claims and goes as far as issuing decisions of non-payment, revocations of payment, orders for repayment, public disclosure, and even criminal complaints. That is how administration works. However, when it comes to the Angel Tax Incentive, the administration that issued the confirmation letter disappears from the stage, and only the national tax authorities and the prosecutors suddenly play the triple role of scriptwriter, director, and star of the system.

This calls for an epic tsukkomi.

Where on earth has the administration of the angel tax system gone?

Even if Shigenori Kanemoto is prosecuted, the solicitation of investment in Company N does not disappear.

indictment report published by KAB on August 12, 2026Now, it is reported that Mr. Kanemoto has been accused of abusing preferential tax treatment regarding the large amount of income he gained from selling his company's shares, and that Defendant Kazuyoshi Nakano has been indicted for allegedly assisting in the tax evasion. The Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office has not revealed whether the two have admitted to the charges.

An indictment is a procedure in which the prosecution argues guilt and requests a criminal trial. It does not mean that the court has finalized a conviction. Furthermore, being indicted for a violation of the Income Tax Act does not prove that the solicitation of investment in N Corporation was appropriate.

Regarding company N, there are people who claim that they received explanations of the system from Defendant Toshiyuki Nakano and Mr. Satoshi Saito, made investments or paid high consulting fees, and that the explanations differed from reality. Those victims claim that Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto is in the same position as them.

What the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office needs to clarify is not simply how much money came out of Mr. Kanemoto's account and how much moved later.

• The person who originally planned the investment in N Corporation.
• The person who explained to Shigenori Kanemoto and other investors that the angel tax system could be utilized.
• The person who prepared application forms to be submitted to administrative agencies, investment contracts, and stock-related documents.
• A person who explained legality as a certified public accountant and gained the trust of the investors.
• The person who actually managed stock issuance, the shareholder registry, capital increase registration, and fund transfers.
• The person or corporation that directed the transfer of funds after the investment and ultimately made a profit.

If you don't examine this chronology and make only the investors who joined later the masterminds, the investigation is easy because you don't have to investigate those who originally designed the system. However, an easy investigation and a correct investigation are not the same thing.

The Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office did not listen to the report of the damage and prosecuted the potential victim first.

by investors in Company NAssociation to Have Prosecutor Kobayashi Start the Investigationis composed of people who invested in N Co., Ltd. or paid exorbitant consulting fees at the solicitation of Defendant Toshiyuki Nakano and Mr. Satoshi Saito. The association argues that whether Shigenori Kanemoto is an accomplice to tax evasion or a victim of investment fraud should be determined after receiving victim information and conducting an investigation.

However, it is reported that on July 27, 2026, when a prosecutor union member attempted to inform the Special Criminal Division of the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office about investment fraud damages involving Company N, the phone call with a person claiming to be Prosecutor Kobayashi ended in approximately 8 minutes and 40 seconds without the summary of the damage information being fully conveyed. It is also said that no guidance was provided regarding where to submit documents or the contact point for reporting damages.

Article 230 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: A person who has suffered damage from a crime may file a criminal complaint.

Article 246, Paragraph 1 of the Penal Code: A person who deceives another person and causes them to deliver property shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than 10 years.

Victims have the right to file a criminal complaint. The prosecution is not necessarily obligated to turn every piece of information they hear into a case. However, hanging up the phone at the very beginning without listening to the details of the victim's account or instructing them on how to submit evidence is completely different from reviewing the evidence and determining that an investigation is unnecessary.

Information pointing toward guilt is received from the National Tax Agency, and even video footage is distributed to the media before the arrest. Meanwhile, when information alleging investment fraud against Company N is provided, the informant's identity is asked for first, and the call is ended before getting to the core of the matter. Afterward, Mr. Kanemoto, who had been accused of being in the same position as the victims, is indicted.

This makes one suspect that what the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office is gathering is not evidence, but merely materials that support their own scenario.

The Labor Bureau chases you for subsidies, and the administration vanishes into the sky with the Angel Tax System.

If false applications for employment-related subsidies are suspected, the Labor Bureau will conduct a follow-up investigation. If fraud is confirmed, it will issue a decision not to grant or will revoke the subsidy decision, order a refund, publish the names of the employer and any agents involved in certain cases, and consider criminal prosecution if the violation is severe.

Information on fraudulent receipt of employment adjustment subsidies published by the Ministry of Health, Labour and WelfareIt clearly specifies administrative actions by the labor bureau, including investigations, revocation of payments, decisions not to pay, repayment orders, and public disclosure.

Grants and the angel tax system certainly have different legal frameworks. However, since both are systems that support private sector activity through public funds or tax relief, administration cannot simply accept documents at the time of application and then dump everything onto investigative agencies once problems are discovered.

The administration that issues the confirmation document has existed from the beginning.

The process from application for the angel tax system indicated by the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency to the final tax returnThen, a system is shown in which the startup applies for confirmation to the prefecture where its head office is located, the prefecture issues a confirmation document to the startup, the startup hands the confirmation document to the investor, and the investor submits it to the tax office in their tax return.

In other words, the administration has been involved in this system from the beginning.

• The Small and Enterprise Agency and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, which oversee the entire system.
• Prefecture that verifies corporate requirements and stock payment and issues a confirmation letter.
• The tax office / national tax authority that receives the income tax return with the attached confirmation letter and processes the tax amount.

It is not a system where the government is present only when issuing confirmation documents, and the moment a problem occurs, everyone becomes invisible.

In the case of a false application, we are prepared to revoke confirmation, notify the tax office, and even make a public announcement.

Under the 2024 amendment to the Ordinance for Enforcement of the Act on Strengthening Small and Medium-sized Enterprises' Business Dynamism, a framework has been explicitly established allowing prefectural governors to revoke confirmation in cases where a company that received confirmation of share payment is revealed not to have met the requirements as of the record date, or where the company made a fraudulent or false application for confirmation.

If the certification is revoked, the prefectural governor notifies the company of the revocation, requests the return of the certificate, notifies the competent district tax office director, and publicly announces that fact.

Since the transaction in this case is reported to have taken place in 2023, the competent administration should officially explain which cancellation provision can be applied, based on the timing of the issuance of the confirmation letter, the regulations at that time, and transitional measures at the time of revision. However, at the very least, the current system is not designed such that "the administration does nothing even if falsehoods are suspected."

Nevertheless, only the national tax authority and the prosecutors appear in the news reports. What did the prefectures that issued the confirmation documents investigate? What did the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency ascertain? If the confirmation was erroneous, who will revoke it, and who will notify the investors? If investors alone are arrested and prosecuted without any public announcement or guidance, the administrative stamp of confirmation will not be proof of trust, but rather a stamp card guiding citizens into criminal cases.

Evidence that investors in Company N should preserve right now

Those who invested in Company N, those who paid high consulting fees, and those who were told they could use the angel tax system, please preserve the following materials in their original form so as not to dispute based on memory alone.

• Investment explanatory materials, scheme diagrams, and business plans received from Defendant Toshiaki Nakano, Mr. Satoshi Saito, and individuals related to N Co., Ltd.
• Emails, LINE messages, chats, and recordings explaining that the angel tax system can be used, that it is legal, and that it has been confirmed with the government.
• Investment contract, subscription form, payment certificate, share allotment notice, copy of shareholder registry.
• Remittance record to N Corporation, destination account, remittance date, amount, transfer name.
• Records of money received after investment under the guise of refunds, loans, outsourcing fees, consulting fees, etc.
• Records showing who explained the funds would be returned and under what pretext.
• Certificate of confirmation by the prefectural governor, statement of changes in shareholdings prepared by the company, and attached documents at the time of tax return filing.
• Tax return form, calculation statement for the angel tax system, notice from the tax office, and documents concerning amended tax returns or reassessments.
• Certificate of all historical matters for N Corporation, timing of capital increase registration, and amount of capital increase.
• The name and role of the person who attended the solicitation, the person who accompanied to the bank, and the expert who actually prepared the contract and application.
• A chronological table summarizing the events in date order from the date of receiving the explanation to the present.

Please store the source data and duplicates separately without processing or rewriting the materials. If it can be confirmed that multiple investors received the same explanation, it may indicate a repeated solicitation method rather than individual misunderstandings.

Simultaneously proceed with fraud investigation, administrative verification, tax correction, and asset recovery.

Recovery of damages does not require waiting in line for a criminal court judgment. Criminal, administrative, tax, and civil procedures should be pursued simultaneously.

In criminal proceedings, we file a criminal complaint regarding the damage caused by investment fraud.

If the described system, administrative confirmation, stocks, business reality, and use of funds differ from reality, and you handed over money believing those explanations, you can consider filing a criminal complaint with the police or prosecutor's office as a victim of fraud.

In a criminal complaint, it is not enough to simply write that you were "swindled"; you need to show, along with supporting documents, who explained what and when, that you would not have invested without that explanation, how the reality differed, and how much you paid. If multiple victims compile common explanatory materials and a chronological timeline, it also becomes difficult for investigative agencies to brush it off initially as individual consultations.

In administrative procedures, we request the basis for the confirmation document and the judgment regarding its revocation.

It is necessary to request the prefectural government that issued the confirmation document and the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency, which has jurisdiction over the program, to conduct a re-investigation regarding the type of application submitted by N Co., Ltd., the confirmation date, the payment subject to confirmation, the existence of any false applications, the necessity of revoking the confirmation, notification to the competent tax office, and guidance for investors.

If the content verified by the administration differs from what the prosecutors characterize as "fictitious" or "kickbacks," then unless that discrepancy is made public, investors across the country who use the same system will not know what to believe.

In tax procedures, amended returns and requests for reassessment are used differently depending on the situation.

Just because an investment is found to be invalid or ineligible for tax benefits does not mean that all investors will take the same tax procedures.

• If you have claimed too many deductions through the angel tax system and your tax payment was too low, consider filing an amended tax return.
• If a deduction you were originally entitled to is denied, resulting in overpayment of tax or a smaller refund, consider filing a request for reassessment based on Article 23 of the National Tax General Rules Act.
• If you are subject to a reassessment by the tax office, check the deadline for requesting a reinvestigation or filing a request for review with the National Tax Tribunal.
• Check the deadline for a request for reassessment due to subsequent reasons if new facts arise later, such as a criminal case or the revocation of an administrative confirmation.

Notice from the National Tax AgencyHowever, it is organized such that if the declared tax amount was less than the actual amount, it is corrected by filing an amended return, and if it was more than the actual amount, it is corrected by filing a request for a tax reassessment.

The registration license tax associated with capital increase registration is normally an issue for the company applying for the registration of the capital increase. If the capital increase registration itself is false, the registration correction and registration license tax processing on the part of N Corporation will also be subject to verification, but the focus of tax relief for individual investors is amended income tax returns, requests for reassessment, refunds, and appeals.

Instead of uniformly deciding that "because they are victims, they will definitely receive a refund" or "in the case of fictitious investments, everyone must file an amended tax return," it is necessary to sort things out with a tax accountant or lawyer based on each investor's tax return details, confirmation forms, share acquisition, and whether or not a refund was received.

In civil proceedings, we seek the cancellation of the contract and the return of funds.

Article 96, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code: A manifestation of intention induced by fraud or duress may be rescinded.

If you were given a false explanation regarding a material fact and entered into an investment contract believing it, you can consider cancellation of manifestation of intention due to fraud, restoration to the original state, return of unjust enrichment, damages, and the like.

What kind of verdicts will be handed down for Defendant Nakano and Mr. Kanemoto in the criminal case is a separate issue from whether investors can demand the return of funds from Company N, the promoters, the presenters, and the ultimate beneficiaries. Arrests and indictments do not function as a money transfer service that automatically returns victim funds to bank accounts.

Make the victims' association larger than the entrance of the prosecutor's office

If you believe that the explanation regarding the investment in or payment of consulting fees to N Corporation differed from the reality,Association to Have Prosecutor Kobayashi Start the InvestigationHowever, we are asking the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office to receive the information on the damage, verify it, and determine the necessity of an investigation.

activities to organize the flow of investment funds, the roles of related parties, and the ultimate beneficiaries separately from criminal proceedings in order to lead to actual fund recovery,Nakano Toshiharu Victims Associationis conducting.

Even if consulting alone results in it being treated as an "individual contract dispute," when victims gather who have the same explanatory materials, the same recruiter, the same remittance route, and the same administrative confirmation documents, the repetitiveness and organizational nature of the incident become apparent.

If the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office is closing its telephone access, the victims should simply increase the points of access. Consolidate crime reports, administrative inquiries, tax documents, and civil claims into a single record, and submit it simultaneously to the police, prosecutors, Small and Medium Enterprise Agency, prefectural governments, and national tax authorities. There is no need to repeat the same explanation one by one in front of organizations that refuse to listen.

Open questions to the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office, Prosecutor Kobayashi, the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency, prefectural governments, and the National Tax Agency

1. Did the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office seize and verify all explanations, materials, and administrative confirmation records received by Mr. Shigenori Kanamoto from Defendant Tatsuyoshi Nakano and Mr. Satoshi Saito before he invested in Company N?
2. Have you heard the explanations given at the time of solicitation and the reports of damages from other investors who invested in Company N or paid high consulting fees? Please clarify the number of people you heard from.
3. What is the specific evidence determining that Mr. Kanemoto is not a victim of investment fraud, but an accomplice who was aware of tax evasion?
4. Have you investigated the information that Satoshi Saito explained as a certified public accountant that the investment in Company N Inc. is legal and that the angel tax system can be utilized?
5. Have you confirmed with the person in question, the related financial institutions, and Last One Mile Inc. regarding the information that Mr. Saito used the system in advance and was involved in explanations to investors, contracts, and remittances?
6. Did the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office investigate the report that on July 27, 2026, a person claiming to be Prosecutor Kobayashi ended the call without listening to the explanation of the investment fraud damages suffered by N Corporation to the end?
7. Will the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office establish a dedicated contact window and person in charge for victims of Company N to submit recordings, contracts, remittance records, and other materials?
8. To which prefecture did Company N apply for confirmation of the angel tax system, and when and for which payment did it receive the issuance of the confirmation letter?
9. Which documents, such as the investment contract, subscription application, proof of payment, shareholder registry, capital increase registration, or others, were submitted for the confirmation application?
10. Has the prefecture that issued the certificate received an inquiry or notification from the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office or the national tax authorities stating that the application details were false?
11. Did the prefectural government consider the necessity of revoking the certification of Company N? If considered, please clarify the conclusion, the date of the decision, and the basis for it.
12. Have you notified the competent tax office and all contributors if the confirmation was canceled or if significant doubts arose regarding the confirmed contents?
13. Does the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency know about the criminal case and multiple investment fraud reports surrounding Company N? As the agency with jurisdiction over the system, will you publish guidance for victims?
14. Will the national tax authorities guide each investor in N Co., Ltd. on which procedure applies to them: an amended return, a request for reassessment, a refund, or an appeal?
15. By what objective evidence did the national tax authorities and the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office determine whether the capital increase registration, share issuance, and shareholder rights of Company N actually existed?
16. Regarding the movement of funds after the investment, which contracts, which payments, and what amounts were identified as a "kickback," and based on what criteria were they distinguished from regular reinvestments, loans, and outsourcing fees?
17. Have you investigated the total amount of consulting fees, referral fees, retainers, and remuneration received by Company N, Defendant Kazuki Nakano, Mr. Satoshi Saito, and other related parties, as well as their final destinations?
18. While administrative agencies conduct post-audits, revocations, demands for repayment, and public disclosure in cases of grant fraud, please explain the reasons why the administrative authorities in this case are not taking a leading role, specifically from the perspectives of the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency, the prefectural governments, and the National Tax Agency.

measures demanded by the prosecutor union

1. The Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office shall immediately accept the investment fraud damage involving Company N as a damage case separate from Shigenori Kanamoto's Income Tax Act violation case, and shall initiate an investigation.
2. Establish a dedicated victim reporting hotline targeting investors and consulting fee payers of Company N, and publicize the method for submitting evidence.
3. Regarding the report that Prosecutor Kobayashi refused to receive victim information, the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office and the higher-level public prosecutors office should check the call records and make public the factual findings and corrective measures.
4. Investigate the solicitation, institutional explanation, administrative inquiries, contract creation, involvement in remittance, and receipt of remuneration by Defendant Tamaki Nakano and Mr. Satoshi Saito based on a chronological order and objective materials.
5. The prefecture that issued the confirmation document shall re-examine the application materials of N Co., Ltd., and if any fraudulent or false applications are found, take measures such as cancellation based on laws and regulations, notification to the tax office, public announcement, and other measures.
6. The Small and Medium Enterprise Agency shall provide the investors of Company N with comprehensive guidance regarding the status of the confirmation letter, tax treatment, consultation services, and the method for reporting damages.
7. The National Tax Agency shall outline the procedures for amended tax returns, requests for reassessment, tax refunds, and administrative appeals corresponding to the filing details of each investor, and shall not refuse consultations on the grounds of waiting for the outcome of a criminal case.
8. Track all accounts of Company N, affiliated company accounts, remittance destinations, consulting fees, referral fees, loans, and outsourcing expenses, and clarify the ultimate beneficiary.
9. In parallel with pursuing criminal responsibility, necessary information sharing must be conducted for the preservation of victim funds, confiscation and collection of equivalent value, benefit payments for victim recovery, and civil preservation.
10. Conduct a joint verification by the National Tax Agency, the Public Prosecutors Office, the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency, and the prefectures that issued the confirmation letters, and make public the causes of the discrepancy between the administrative confirmation and the criminal assessment.

If they are only an administration when issuing confirmation documents, and only a state when making arrests, then the system is absolute garbage.

In the case of a subsidy, the Labor Bureau reviews the application, conducts subsequent investigations, revokes the payment in the event of fraud, orders repayment, and even publicly discloses the agents involved.

Under the angel tax system as well, the company applies to the prefectural government, the prefectural government issues a confirmation certificate, and the investor submits it to the tax office. A system is even in place to revoke the confirmation if a false application is discovered, notify the competent tax office, and make a public announcement.

Despite that, in the case of Company N, the face of the government administration that issued the confirmation letter is not visible. The explanation from the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency is not visible either. Notices to investors are not visible either. What is visible is only the footage of Shigetoku Kanimoto before his arrest and the tax evasion case scenario created by the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office.

There are people who invested believing the confirmation letter. There are people who believed the certified public accountant's explanation. There are people who believed the record stating that Defendant Tamaki Nakano checked with the administration. If that explanation is true, it is not easy to establish Mr. Kanemoto's intent. If that explanation is false, the investors, including Mr. Kanemoto, could become victims of fraud.

No matter which way it goes, it doesn't lead to the conclusion of not investigating the solicitation of investment in N Co., Ltd.

Ignore administrative confirmations. Cut off victim reports at the entrance. Treat the assessments of the National Tax Agency and the prosecution as absolute, placing investors in the defendant's seat first. That manner of administration is not the operation of a rule-of-law state. It is a dictatorial operation that places the investigative agency's script above the system.

Investors in Corporation N, please do not discard your documents, do not keep them to yourselves, and consolidate your information with the victims' association. Please proceed simultaneously with criminal complaints, reinvestigation for administrative verification, tax rectifications, and civil recovery.

Before sending the investors of Corporation N to the defendant's dock, the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office, the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency, the prefectural governments, and the national tax authorities must first place the confirmation letters and application documents they received, created, and issued on the desk as evidence.

It is never the people who trusted the administrative approval who should be held accountable.

These are all the individuals and organizations that created that verification, explained that system, recommended that investment, moved those funds, and ignored the reports of damage.