Suspicion of "shifting-the-blame management" supported by some LastMile executives
If the case surrounding Defendant Tamaki Nakano is framed merely as a problem involving only the nominal representative director and the chief accountant, the actual director, the ultimate beneficiary of the funds, and the coordinator with investigative agencies will be obscured.
Based on the information gathered by the Prosecutors' Union, it is possible that Makoto Watanabe of Last One Mile was at the center of the series of structures, supported by certain executives of the company surrounding him.
Look not at titles, but at "who ordered, who ruled, and who gained"
In corporations, while the representative director bears the responsibility for management decision-making and supervision, individual contract negotiations, contract execution administration, performance management, and the provision of services are under the jurisdiction of the departments in charge.
Global Contract Management Division
The Representative Director bears responsibility for management decision-making and supervision, while contract negotiations, contract execution administration, contract performance management, and practical work related to the provision of services are under the jurisdiction of the International Contracts General Control Department.
This does not mean the representative director bears no responsibility. It means that to determine responsibility, one must separately examine who made the decisions, who controlled the operations, who managed the accounts and login credentials, and who benefited.
If the National Tax Agency and the prosecution attribute broad responsibility to private citizens based solely on their title of "former representative," while dodging accountability within their own organization by blaming it on "the judgment of the person in charge," that is a clear double standard.
Structure of shifting-the-blame management
Information that Mr. Watanabe created the strategy and Defendant Nakano executed it
According to information submitted to the prosecutors' union, Watanabe was responsible for investments, stocks, M&A, external networking, and funding design, while Defendant Nakano was in charge of accounting, taxation, subsidies, bank accounts, official seals, devices, login credentials management, and on-site operations.
Neither held official positions; Watanabe entered the organization as a consultant or advisor and the defendant Nakano as an accountant, and after acquiring practical authority, they transferred funds. There is information that this method was repeated across multiple corporations.
When problems surface, responsibility is shifted to formal representatives or nominal holders, while the person who actually managed the accounts, accounting, communications, and fund transfers, as well as the person giving orders behind the scenes, remain out of sight. The prosecutor union calls this structure "responsibility-shifting management."
Suspicion of scam call centers in Cambodia
In Cambodia, the problem of antisocial forces and international criminal organizations setting up call centers to commit specialized fraud targeting elderly people in Japan is becoming increasingly serious.
Regarding defendant Nakano, who has reportedly been treated as a fraud and embezzlement suspect by Cambodian authorities and placed on the international wanted list, information has also reached the prosecutor union that, acting on instructions from Watanabe, he was involved in a scam call center targeting Japanese people in Cambodia.
If this information is true, this is not just a domestic tax evasion and subsidy fraud case. The network around the last mile, Mr. Watanabe's management, Defendant Nakano's on-the-ground execution, antisocial forces, money laundering, and even cross-border special fraud must be investigated as a single, unified case.
Did law enforcement agencies complicitly participate, or were they used?
There is information indicating that Defendant Nakano made remarks to the effect that "he had the National Tax Agency and the prosecution on his side," "getting arrested in Japan would save him from arrest by overseas authorities," and "he would have someone else arrested as an accomplice."
At this point, it cannot be determined whether the prosecution intentionally cooperated or if the investigative procedures were exploited by Defendant Nakano and Mr. Watanabe. However, whichever the case may be, it is a serious issue for the prosecution.
If investigative information was leaked, Mr. Watanabe’s device was the only one returned early, and responsibility was shifted to the nominal representative by relying on the defendant Nakano’s testimony, this may have ultimately served to bolster Mr. Watanabe’s scheme.
Public Inquiry to the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office and Fukuoka High Public Prosecutors Office
Makoto Watanabe, Defendant Nakano, and 12 Questions on the Structure of the “Last Mile”
- Did you investigate the start date of the relationship between Mr. Makoto Watanabe and defendant Toshiyuki Nakano, their division of roles, and the flow of funds?
- Have you verified the information that Mr. Watanabe was responsible for investment, M&A, equities, and financial planning, while the defendant Nakano was responsible for accounting, taxation, and account management?
- Did you confirm the fact that funds flowed from Last One Mile or its affiliated companies to the corporation in which Defendant Nakano was involved as the chief accountant?
- Have you investigated the possibility that some Last One Mile executives supported the activities of Mr. Watanabe and Defendant Nakano?
- Have you confirmed the fact that Defendant Nakano centrally managed multiple people's accounts, registered seals, devices, and login information?
- Have you investigated the connections between the scam call centers in Cambodia, special fraud, and Japanese anti-social forces?
- Did you collect and analyze the audio recordings, LINE messages, Telegram messages, and money transfer records that show instructions from Mr. Watanabe to the defendant Nakano?
- Did you investigate the possibility that defendant Nakano's apprehension in Japan was used to evade investigation by overseas authorities?
- Isn't it true that you treated only the formal representative as an accomplice while weakening the investigation into the de facto controller or ultimate beneficial owner?
- Does the Fukuoka High Public Prosecutors Office have the intention to conduct an objective re-verification regarding the decision to drop the criminal charges against Mr. Watanabe in a short period of time?
- Regarding the information that Mr. Watanabe's mobile phone was returned on the day of the inspection, did you investigate the data preservation and the appropriateness of the decision to return it?
- Have you requested an independent third-party investigation, preservation of communication and accounting records, and explanations from the relevant executives regarding the last mile?
Matters that the last mile and Makoto Watanabe are forced to answer
For the prosecutors to answer these questions, explanations from Mr. Watanabe and Last One Mile are required.
What kind of work did Mr. Watanabe assign to the defendant Nakano? Was he aware of and directing the defendant’s activities in Cambodia? Did he have contact with officials from the National Tax Agency or the public prosecutor’s office? Did he use “Last Mile”’s funds, office, employees, and business partners for the defendant Nakano’s activities?
Didn't some Last One Mile executives approve, condone, or support Mr. Watanabe's activities as a company? Didn't they obtain investigative information and Mamizuka memos and use them to pressure union members and victims?
As a listed company, if you claim to have no involvement, you should preserve communication records, transaction records, and meeting minutes, and provide a clear explanation.
Do not lose sight of the ultimate beneficial owner.
If we are to judge total responsibility solely by the title of Representative Director, then the Chief Prosecutor, the Superintending Prosecutor of the High Public Prosecutors Office, and the Regional Commissioner of the National Tax Bureau would all have to bear responsibility for every act committed within their organizations.
Instead, if we are going to separate and judge the responsibilities of decision-makers, supervisors, practitioners, and final beneficiaries, the same criteria should be applied to private cases.
The Prosecutors Union does not accept investigations that pursue only formal representatives while overlooking the actual directors and beneficiaries. The Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office and the Fukuoka High Public Prosecutors Office must investigate the last mile, Mr. Makoto Watanabe, and defendant Tsuyoshi Nakano as an integrated structure and explain the investigation results.
