Open questions regarding the relationship between Kitamura, Director-General of the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau, the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office, Fukuoka High Public Prosecutors Office, and Makoto Watanabe of Last One Mile
Regarding the series of cases involving Defendant Tamaki Nakano, looking only at the reported tax evasion and subsidy fraud does not capture the full picture. Recordings, LINE messages, and testimonies from related parties submitted to the prosecutors' union contain content indicating that Defendant Nakano knew the investigative authorities' movements in advance or acted as if he knew them.
The connection between Defendant Tamaki Nakano and the national tax authorities and prosecutors
Defendant Nakano's statement claiming to have "made the National Tax Agency and the prosecutors his allies"
The prosecutors' union has received recordings and other materials suggesting that Defendant Nakano had stated he coordinated with Makoto Watanabe to successfully bring the national tax authority and prosecutors to their side, that using the form of arrest in Japan would allow him to evade arrest by overseas investigative agencies, and that he would subsequently have another person arrested as an accomplice to seize their assets.
At this point, it does not establish as fact that all of the statements came true. However, even if the statements were lies by the accused Nakano, the background that allowed him to specifically discuss the timing of the investigation, the targets, and the handling of custody must be verified.
Was it a complete fabrication? Was it an exaggeration using leaked investigative information? Were the remarks made against the backdrop of contact with the National Tax Agency, prosecutors, or people around them? Regardless of which possibility is true, it is something that the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office and the Fukuoka High Public Prosecutors Office should investigate.
What did Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau Director-General Kitamura grasp?
Does Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau Director General Kitamura, who is in a position to direct and supervise the national tax investigation in this case, know about the leak of investigation information to Defendant Nakano and Mr. Watanabe's side, and Defendant Nakano's statement that he "made the national tax authorities his ally"?
I am not questioning an "improper relationship" in the narrow sense that the commissioner of the National Tax Agency met directly with the defendant Nakano. Rather, I am questioning whether the distance kept from the targets of the investigation was appropriate, including contacts made through current or former staff, tax accountants, or intermediaries, the provision of investigative information, preferential treatment regarding the handling of seized items, and the selection of statements and materials.
Unnaturalness of investigation response and information management
Information that only Makoto Watanabe's device was returned on the day of the inspection
The Prosecutors Union has received information that during a large-scale inspection by the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau, corporate accounting materials and executives' smartphones were seized, and some have not been returned for a long period, whereas only Makoto Watanabe's mobile phone was returned on the day of the inspection.
If this information is true, it is extremely important. As the person linking the defendant Nakano, Last Mile, investments, M&A, and the corporate networks in Fukuoka and Kagoshima, Mr. Watanabe should, at the very least, be a key focus of the investigation.
Did you preserve the data on the device? Who decided to return it? Did you analyze communications with Defendant Nakano, fund transfers by Last One Mile, and contact history on apps like Telegram? If there is a rational reason, the prosecution can explain it.
Leakage of investigation information and the "Mamizuka Memo"
The "Mamizuka Memo," which is believed to have already been leaked and to have spread to a significant number of people, is said to contain information regarding the subjects of the investigation, the flow of funds, and arrests.
If there are points of consistency between Defendant Nakano's statements, the contents of the memo, and the actual course of the investigation, it cannot be dismissed as mere coincidence. We should even investigate the possibility that Defendant Nakano and Mr. Watanabe's side obtained investigative information and used it in planning for the handling of arrests and the shifting of blame.
Public Inquiry to the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office and Fukuoka High Public Prosecutors Office
10 points questioning the contact points between defendant Nakano and the national tax authorities and prosecutors
- Are you aware that the defendant Nakano stated that he had “won over the National Tax Agency and the prosecution”?
- Have you obtained recordings of the remarks and testimonies from those involved, and verified their authenticity?
- Did you investigate whether Defendant Nakano, Mr. Makoto Watanabe, and Last One Mile executives had any direct or indirect contact with officials from the National Tax Agency or the Public Prosecutors’ Office?
- Have you investigated the route through which the “Mamizuka Memo” was leaked and the possibility that investigative information was provided to the defense team for the defendant Nakano?
- Is it true that Mr. Watanabe’s cell phone was returned on the day of the inspection? If so, please clarify the reason for this and identify the person who authorized it.
- Did you perform a complete data backup of the device, analyze its communication history, and recover deleted data before returning it?
- Did you investigate the possibility that Defendant Nakano tried to evade pursuit by overseas authorities by being taken into custody in Japan?
- Have you investigated the possibility that the defendant Nakano made statements suggesting they would have another person treated as an accomplice in order to acquire property?
- Have the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office or the Fukuoka High Public Prosecutors Office conducted an independent verification regarding the response of the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau?
- Can you explain, based on objective evidence, that there were no inappropriate contacts between the investigative authorities and either the defendant Nakano or Mr. Watanabe?
De facto questions for Makoto Watanabe and Last One Mile
In order to answer the prosecution’s questions, cooperation from Mr. Watanabe and Last One Mile is essential.
Did Mr. Watanabe not receive any reports from the defendant Nakano regarding the activities of the National Tax Agency and the prosecution? Did he have no contact with investigators, former National Tax Agency officials, tax accountants, or prosecution officials? Did some of Last One Mile’s senior executives not receive and share investigative information or the Mamizuka memo?
If the prosecution claims it conducted a proper investigation, it should also demand that Mr. Watanabe and Last One Mile submit materials and provide explanations. If they are unrelated, it would also be an opportunity for both parties to clearly deny it.
We must not let this end as mere lies by the defendant Nakano.
The conclusion that Defendant Nakano's statements were false can only be reached after conducting an investigation. Dismissing them without an investigation as "something the defendant just made up on their own" would mean turning a blind eye to suspicions of leaked investigative information or favoritism.
The Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors’ Office and the Fukuoka High Public Prosecutors’ Office must thoroughly investigate the relationships between defendant Shukki Nakano, Mr. Makoto Watanabe, Last One Mile, and the Kumamoto Regional Tax Bureau. Do not evade the investigation, and address the allegations directed at your own organizations.
