Regarding this matter, we have received reports that while information and handling have been handed over from the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau to the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office, and some individuals were told by the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office that they wanted to speak in person, subsequent communication regarding scheduling has ceased.
Handing over a case from the national tax authorities to the prosecutors is sometimes necessary to proceed with handling it as a criminal case. However, if the informant is left hanging after the handover, that is not "cooperation." It is merely a transfer of responsibility.
The prosecutors' union calls on the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office not to waste the whistleblower's time, memory, and opportunities to preserve evidence while leaving ambiguous its previously indicated intention to conduct an in-person interview.
There is no general right for everyone to be guaranteed an in-person hearing.
It cannot be said that rushing into the public prosecutor's office will guarantee an interview.
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, a general right for any informant to uniformly demand that a district public prosecutors office conduct an in-person interview simply because they possess information about a case is not granted to all informants.
You can file a complaint, report an offense, consult, or provide information to the public prosecutor's office, but whether to verify through which method, conduct an in-person interview, or use the information for an investigation will be determined based on the details of the case and the necessity of evidence.
Therefore, it is not accurate to generalize that "anyone who has any doubts can go to the public prosecutor's office and definitely get a face-to-face investigation."
However, leaving someone hanging after saying you'll discuss it in person is a different issue.
On the other hand, if the National Tax Agency handed over a specific case and the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office indicated its intention to conduct an in-person interview with the suspect, leaving the matter unattended for a long period without any communication cannot be considered appropriate investigative management.
If we are going to carry it out, we will coordinate the schedule. If not, inform us to that effect. If the person in charge has changed, indicate the successor. If additional materials are needed, specifically request them. At the very least, you should be able to do that much.
Can they draft a document summoning citizens to Kagoshima on a short deadline, yet they are unable to decide on a schedule to hear us out? Does the prosecutors' calendar require several months just to turn a single page?
What is lost by postponing face-to-face interviews
Memories and evidence wait for no one.
As time passes, people's memories fade. Devices are replaced, cloud data retention periods expire, company representatives leave their jobs, and communication with overseas parties becomes difficult.
In particular, for cases involving the last mile, Makoto Watanabe, Defendant Toshiyuki Nakano, overseas corporate entities, and multiple regional taxation bureaus, it is necessary to promptly secure the statements of the involved parties and cross-reference them with objective documentation.
Implying an in-person interview and then failing to conduct it does more than just keep the other party waiting; the investigative agency itself causes the degradation of evidence.
Please do not say there is no evidence without listening to what I have to say.
It is unacceptable not to conduct an interview when the informant offers to explain the flow of funds, devices, login information, official seals, accounting procedures, overseas affiliates, and suspected leaks of investigation information, and then subsequently concludes that "no corroborating evidence could be obtained."
Not hearing the story is not the same as having no evidence. One who does not open the information that arrived cannot say, "There was nothing inside."
Public Questions for the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office
Questions and matters to be confirmed
- Did you take over information regarding the informant, witness, and related corporations concerning this case from the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau or other tax authorities?
- How many people have been informed by the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office of their intention to interview them in person?
- How many people have not yet completed scheduling their dates?
- Is the reason for the lack of communication a change in personnel, a change in the investigation policy, or a delay in administrative processing?
- Did you inform the person in question that the format has been changed to forgo the in-person interview?
- Have you considered online, telephone, dispatched, or hearings via the nearest public prosecutor's office for individuals in remote locations?
- Did you provide instructions on how to save the devices, LINE data, recordings, bank account materials, accounting materials, etc., that the informant offered to submit?
- Which department verifies responsibility if data is lost due to listening latency?
- Do you manage the information handed over from the National Tax Agency in a way that allows tracking of the receipt date, person in charge, and processing status?
- Do you intend to clearly notify the informant in this matter whether or not it will be implemented?
To those with information—you can consult with the public prosecutors office. However, an in-person meeting is not guaranteed.
Realistic ways to provide information
Anyone with knowledge of the facts regarding this matter may consider filing a complaint, accusation, consultation, or providing information to the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office, Fukuoka High Public Prosecutors Office, local police, national tax authorities, or other appropriate agencies.
In that case, it is important to organize who did what, when, and where, whether the information is based on direct observation or hearsay, and which documents support it, and to submit it in a format that preserves the original records.
However, providing information does not necessarily mean an in-person interview will take place. That is precisely why it is necessary to keep the receipt number, the responsible department, and a list of submitted documents, and to establish a system where the processing status can be checked after a certain period of time.
Don't just leave it as an all-inclusive service.
The Prosecutors' Union's Position
When the National Tax Agency says, "The next step is up to the Public Prosecutors Office," the Public Prosecutors Office says, "We will contact you later," and then no one contacts you, this state of affairs cannot be called cooperation between government agencies.
If you have accepted a case from the National Tax Agency, the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office should determine the necessity of an investigation, interview the necessary persons, and if deemed unnecessary, record that operation within the organization.
Do not provide a mere "pass-the-buck service" that simply bounces informants from desk to desk; instead, conduct an investigation that carries the evidence through to the truth.
