The prosecutors' union is now releasing a portion of a document known among concerned parties as the "Mamitsuka Memo," which is said to have already been circulated to multiple parties.
This document was provided to the Prosecutor Union by current employees of Last One Mile Inc. as material previously held by the company.
The redactions originally present in the documents already existed at the time they were allegedly held by Last One Mile Inc. The portions now filled in with red were independently added by the Prosecution Union to protect the privacy of unrelated individuals and corporations.
Note that, as of now, the prosecutors' union has not confirmed the creator of this document, the background of its creation, or its official status within the National Tax Agency or the Public Prosecutors Office.
That is precisely why I am making it public.
Why did a document containing such critical information exist within Last Mile Inc., a listed company, and how did it come to be distributed to multiple parties? The Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau, the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office, the Fukuoka High Public Prosecutors Office, Last Mile Inc., and the individual whose name has been raised among the parties as the author need to provide a straightforward explanation.
The "Mamizuka Memo" allegedly existing within Last One Mile Co.
Background of the document provision and redactions
Regarding the materials being released this time, the background of their provision known to the Prosecutors Union is as follows.
- It is a material provided by a current employee of Last One Mile Inc.
- being explained that it is a document held internally by Last One Mile Inc.
- The blacked-out parts of the document existed before they were provided to the prosecutors' union.
- The red-shaded area is what the prosecutors' union added to protect privacy.
- The claim that identical or similar materials are already circulating among multiple concerned parties
The Prosecutors' Union does not aim to spread personal information indefinitely.
The purpose is to subject the contents described in this document, the relationship with the national tax authorities and the prosecution, the actual state of information management, and the fairness of the investigation into each related party, including Last One Mile Inc., to social verification.
The "overall picture of fraud" centering on the Last One Mile Group
The first page of the document is titled "Overall Diagram of Fraud by Last One Mile Group Co., Ltd."
Beneath that, the names of Last One Mile Inc., Mr. Makoto Watanabe, and what appear to be multiple related corporate entities and individuals are lined up, connected by complex arrows along with expressions such as "outsourcing expenses," "loans (illicit funds)," "advertising expenses (kickbacks)," and "illicit funds."
This is clearly different in nature from a mere interview memo or a record of factual inquiries.
It appears that the creator of the material already holds a certain conclusion regarding the flow of funds centered around Last One Mile Inc., and has created the diagram after evaluating it as "fraudulent."
If this diagram is a document submitted to investigative authorities, did the investigative authorities fairly check all of the arrows, corporations, related parties, and money transfers?
If only certain individuals are targeted for investigation, and sufficient investigation is not conducted regarding the persons or listed companies described in the center of the diagram, what was the purpose of creating this material?
materials concluding that fraudulent examples were used under the angel tax system
On the second page of the document, it says "Example of Fraud 2" and "Angel Scheme."
Furthermore, along with terms such as "false investment" and "tax effect," the description outlines a flow involving multi-billion-yen share transfers, investments, and capital increases.
Whether the application of the angel tax system or any issues with stock transactions are present cannot be determined without reviewing contracts, deposit and withdrawal records, shareholder registries, investment agreements, actual business conditions, the understanding of the parties involved, and other related matters.
However, in this document, evaluations such as "falsehood" and "fraud" are stated beforehand without showing a sufficient verification process.
If this material was submitted to investigative authorities and influenced subsequent inspections, investigations, and press releases, the question is whether they examined the facts and reached a conclusion, or whether they forced the facts to fit a pre-made conclusion.
Note that Satoshi Saito, whose full name is listed, is a certified public accountant who was formerly the General Manager of the Corporate Planning Office at Last One Mile.
An extraordinary announcement of an investigation that went as far as stating "accusation, indictment, and arrest"
The third page of the materials includes statements to the effect that a specific corporation or related party is a "tax evasion contractor" and a "Category B bookkeeping operator" operating under the Last One Mile Group.
Furthermore, mentioning that there are multiple plaintiffs, numerous pieces of evidence, and that the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office and the Fukuoka High Public Prosecutors Office are "motivated," it even goes as far as stating "accusation, indictment, and arrest."
Finally, following statements about the possibility of questioning and arrest, an opinion to the effect of "Given this much evidence and a sufficient amount of money, it would normally be a criminal accusation" is also noted.
An investigation inherently involves gathering evidence, confirming counter-evidence, interviewing both parties involved, and carefully considering whether a crime has been committed.
However, this material also suggests that conclusions such as "fraud," "tax evasion," "accusation," "indictment," and "arrest" may have been predetermined even before the investigation began.
Assuming it was created by someone well-versed in investigative practices, such as a former national tax official, and used to lobby current national tax and prosecution officials, this is a serious issue that could undermine the fairness of the investigation.
Question the relationship between Mr. Takeji Mamizuka and the materials
Former national tax official with 24 years of experience in the examination department
According to the official website of the Takeji Mamizuka Certified Public Tax Accountant Office, Takeji Mamizuka entered the Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau in 1987, where he served in various positions including investigator, supervising tax investigator, and director of the Investigation Development Division at the Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau Investigation Department, before retiring in July 2023 and registering as a certified public tax accountant in August of the same year.
https://mamitsuka-zeirishi.com
The firm's official website explains that Mr. Mamizuka himself worked in the National Tax Agency's Inspection Department for 24 years, and also states, "He has built good relationships with numerous prosecutors and maintains a partnership with them to this day."
Of course, simply having this background and these connections with prosecutors does not prove that this person is the author of this document.
However, given that this document is referred to among the concerned parties as the "Mamizuka Memo" and Mr. Mamizuka is recognized as its author, Mr. Mamizuka himself should be given the opportunity to explain whether he created it, where it was submitted, and the purpose of the document.
Remarks to the effect that regional tax bureaus and local prosecutors offices are not well-versed in public finance
Within the prosecutor union, there are multiple members who have spoken directly with Mr. Mamizuka.
According to those union members, Mamizuka reportedly made remarks to the effect that "regional tax bureaus and local public prosecutors' offices are not well-versed in the fiscal and financial fields, so they sometimes make biased judgments."
The Prosecutors Union will continue to check regarding this statement, including the existence of recordings or other objective materials.
However, assuming the statement is true, we must also examine the possibility that, while broadly dismissing the capabilities of regional tax bureaus and prosecutors' offices, they were bringing their own self-crafted narratives and evaluations into those regional agencies.
If you thought local agencies were unfamiliar with finance and monetary matters, all the more reason not to accept materials prepared by one party as-is, but rather to carefully examine them, including opposing materials.
If they exploited differences in status—such as "they aren't well-informed because they're from the provinces" and "I have extensive inspection experience"—to steer the investigative authorities' judgment in a specific direction, that goes beyond the mere issue of looking down on the provinces.
It concerns the very fairness of investigations by state power.
Do the confidentiality obligations set forth by the National Tax Agency and the circulation of the "Mamizuka Memo" coexist?
The National Tax Agency explains that regarding tips on unassessed or uncollected taxes, the provider's personal information and the contents of the information will not be leaked to the outside, and that National Tax Agency officials are bound by a strict duty of confidentiality.
However, if documents detailing the investigation policies of the National Tax Agency and prosecutors, persons involved, the flow of funds, and prospects for accusations, indictments, and arrests were held by the listed company and circulated to multiple parties, what on earth is going on with this information management?
If this material is based on internal information from the National Tax Agency or the prosecution, there is a suspicion of a data leak.
Conversely, if it were merely materials independently created by civilians, why were the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office and the Fukuoka High Public Prosecutors Office "enthusiastic," and how were they able to record specific prospects leading to accusation, indictment, and arrest?
Either way, an explanation is required.
The investigation must not avoid only the part concerning Last One Mile Inc.
This document contains numerous names that appear to be Last One Mile Inc., Mr. Makoto Watanabe, related companies, former executives, and business partners.
Furthermore, the very title of the document is "Overall diagram of fraud by Last One Mile Group Inc."
Nevertheless, if the investigative authorities have not sufficiently verified the descriptions regarding Last One Mile Inc. or Mr. Makoto Watanabe, and instead have concentrated responsibility solely on other individuals or corporations, serious doubts arise regarding the fairness of the investigation.
If the information in the documents is accurate, then all fund transfers and those involved—including Last One Mile—should be investigated.
If you claim the document is erroneous, you should clarify the background of its creation and submission, as well as its impact on the investigation, and restore the honor and rights of the person who suffered disadvantages due to the erroneous document.
An investigation that cherry-picks only the convenient parts while ignoring the inconvenient ones is unacceptable.
Open questions from the prosecutors union
Questions for Mr. Takeharu Mamizuka
- Is there any fact that you created the materials released this time?
- Have you created, edited, or supervised all or part of it?
- Have you submitted any documents to the Kumamoto Regional Tax Office, the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office, the Fukuoka High Public Prosecutors Office, or any other investigative agencies, or provided explanations regarding them?
- Based on information from whom are the statements "Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office, Fukuoka High Public Prosecutors Office, motivation" and "accusation, indictment, arrest" in the material based on?
- Have you ever been in contact with current or retired national tax officials, prosecutors, or prosecutor's assistant officers regarding this matter?
- Have you ever delivered this document to Last One Mile Inc. or any related parties?
- Is there any truth to the statement that you made remarks to the effect that "regional national tax bureaus and district public prosecutors offices are not well-versed in the fiscal and financial fields, and therefore make biased judgments"?
- Did you create this after hearing opposing opinions and explanations from each person and corporation listed in the materials?
Questions for Last One Mile Co., Ltd.
- Did your company possess the materials released this time?
- When, from whom, and for what purpose did you acquire it?
- Have the materials been shared with the Board of Directors, the Audit and Supervisory Committee, legal counsel, and the accounting auditor?
- How do you view the fact that the materials contain an "overall diagram of the fraud" centered around your company and Mr. Makoto Watanabe?
- Have you conducted an independent third-party investigation into the recorded funds transfer?
- Have you provided the materials to investigative agencies, news organizations, business partners, or other third parties?
- Have you ever asked current or former employees not to disclose this material?
Questions for the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau, Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office, and Fukuoka High Public Prosecutors Office
- Have you received the materials released this time, or materials with the same or similar content?
- Do you know the creator, provider, and submission route of the materials?
- Regarding the outlook for “charges, indictments, and arrests” mentioned in the documents, did any staff members disclose this information to outside parties in advance?
- Did you conduct an information leak investigation regarding the distribution of materials?
- Have you investigated the fund transfers related to Last One Mile Co., Inc. and Mr. Makoto Watanabe as described in the documents?
- Have you provided an opportunity for explanation and refutation to all individuals and corporations whose names are listed in the materials?
- Isn't it a fact that you adopted only a part of the materials and excluded another part from the scope of the investigation?
- Have you ever been lobbied regarding investigation policies by retired national tax officials or related parties?
- Have you verified the authenticity of the document, when it was created, and whether it has been altered?
- Can you explain to the public through objective data that a fair investigation was conducted?
What the prosecutors union is asking for is not to protect anyone.
What the prosecutors' union is seeking is neither to unconditionally defend a specific individual nor to condemn the individuals listed in the documents.
What I am looking for is a thorough and impartial investigation.
If the documents mention Last One Mile Inc., Mr. Makoto Watanabe, related companies, and multiple fund transfers, please investigate all of them.
If the materials contain falsehoods or exaggerations, please investigate who created them, for what purpose, and what kind of impact they had on the investigative authorities.
If investigative information has been leaked to the outside, please identify the source of the leak.
It is not justice to adopt only the storylines that are convenient for certain individuals while turning a blind eye to accounts concerning others.
The Supreme Public Prosecutors Office has established an Information Reception Desk within the Department of Inspection and Guidance to receive specific information regarding illegal or inappropriate conduct by prosecutors or public prosecutor's assistant officers. The Prosecutors Union will organize the necessary information regarding the creation, distribution, and impact on the investigation of this document, and will also consider providing information to relevant organizations.
Given that this much documentation is already circulating, we cannot end the issue through silence.
We demand that the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau, the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office, the Fukuoka High Public Prosecutors Office, Last One Mile Inc., Mr. Makoto Watanabe, and the individuals allegedly involved in the creation of the documents provide a direct explanation regarding the authenticity of the documents and the fairness of the investigation.
The Prosecutors Union accepts rational rebuttals, corrections, and information regarding the authenticity of materials.
Justice is not about sticking to the script written in the beginning.
It is to examine all evidence impartially and reveal the facts using the same standards, regardless of whose interests they inconvenience.
