Are only the national tax authorities and the prosecution permitted to leak information without limit?
Reports regarding Defendant Tamaki Nakano state that the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office has requested the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to issue an order for the return of the passport of an alleged "accomplice" who is said to have emigrated abroad.
This is highly specific investigative information.
Who do they consider to be an accomplice abroad?
What did the prosecutors request of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs?
Are you proceeding with an operation to revoke passports and restrict returnees or travel abroad?
By their nature, if these details were known in advance to the subject of the investigation, they could allow for flight, destruction of evidence, countermeasures regarding nationality or status of residence, acquisition of alternative passports, or other responses.
However, this information was widely reported.
Furthermore, the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office has not disclosed whether defendant Nakano admits or denies the charges, stating that it "relates to the contents of the evidence."
Whether the person in question has confessed to the crime is a secret.
Meanwhile, investigative operations against parties abroad were made public.
The secret criteria of the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office apparently seem quite unique.
Did the Ministry of Foreign Affairs actually issue an order to return the passport?
What can be confirmed through news reports is only that the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office requested the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to order the return of the passport.
Did the Ministry of Foreign Affairs accept that request?
Did they actually issue a return order?
Did the order reach the intended recipient?
Has the passport been surrendered or revoked?
It is not clear from currently available public information.
A passport revocation order is not issued solely by the prosecution.
This is an administrative disposition made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in accordance with the Passport Act, based on a determination made in accordance with the prescribed requirements and procedures.
Therefore, just because the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office requested it does not mean that the passport is automatically invalidated.
If the request was approved, why was the operation leaked?
Assuming the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a passport revocation order at the request of the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office, careful information management regarding the subject and procedures is necessary.
However, if the existence of the request is reported by the media, the target person or those around them can learn that they may be suspected.
Why did the prosecution provide that information to the media?
Have they determined that the operation is already complete and will not affect the investigation?
Or did they deliberately release the information to apply psychological pressure on foreign parties?
Or perhaps it wasn't an official public relations statement, but rather someone carelessly leaked it?
If the request was denied, who was the prosecution being used by?
Conversely, if the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has not accepted the request, the matter becomes even stranger.
Because only investigation policies of uncertain realization were reported in advance, it may have resulted in damaging the social reputation of the person seen as the target.
Did the investigative authorities identify the overseas accomplices based on concrete evidence?
Didn't you simply take the information provided by the defendant Nakano or people close to him at face value?
Has the possibility that Defendant Nakano tried to have individuals inconvenient to him investigated as "foreign accomplices" been verified?
If the Ministry of Foreign Affairs refused the request, the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office should also investigate the possibility that it was manipulated by the narrative fabricated by Defendant Nakano and others.
Why are the Mamizuka memo, the arrest information, and the passport operation all being leaked to the outside?
In this case, there are suspicions that the “Mami-zuka Memo”—which is said to have contained information regarding the prospects for arrest, indictment, and prosecution—had been leaked to multiple parties even before the actual arrest took place.
Furthermore, there have been reports that, around the time of Defendant Nakano’s arrest, information regarding the timing of the arrest, the targets of the investigation, accomplices, and individuals overseas had been leaked among those involved.
And now, it has even been reported that the prosecution has requested the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to order the return of his passport.
The National Tax Agency itself explains that it does not leak the personal information and content it receives to the outside, and that national tax officials are bound by a strict duty of confidentiality.
The National Tax Agency also explains that officials who leak secrets learned during tax audits may be subject to stricter tax law penalties than ordinary national public servants.
The official stance is very noble.
However, from the perspective of those involved in this case, quite a lot of information appears to be leaking to the outside, including the investigation scenario, arrest prospects, names of those involved, funding charts, and passport strategies.
Does the duty of confidentiality apply only to the contents of the brochure?
Isn't this the same structure as Mr. Maezawa's tax information leak issue?
In the past, there have been cases that became social issues due to suspicions that the tax information of prominent figures or internal investigation data from the National Tax Agency had been leaked to the outside.
Tax information is extremely sensitive data, such as income, assets, business partners, family relationships, and bank accounts.
Nevertheless, if information regarding a specific individual is repeatedly leaking outside from officials in the national tax agency and prosecution, it cannot be brushed off as "individual carelessness."
Who explained it to the reporters?
Who gave the documents to the related companies?
Who was talking about the investigation prospects before the arrest?
Who revealed the request for the passport surrender order to the media?
We should investigate the full picture of the information leak.
Is the party that spread the most information going to claim defamation later?
If it was national tax or prosecutorial officials, or individuals close to them, who communicated evaluations such as "fraud," "tax evasion," "accomplice," "arrest," and "indictment" regarding the individuals and companies involved in this matter to numerous stakeholders from the very earliest stage, it is an extremely ironic structure.
If information leaked by investigative agencies or materials created based on it spread to the general public, and the moment citizens or labor unions raise issues to verify the content, there is a backlash claiming it is "defamation," that is simply far too convenient.
Of course, the fact that there was a leak by investigative agencies does not mean that third parties are free to spread false information.
However, there is no reason to exempt the party that first leaked the information, created and provided the materials, or explained the matter to the reporters from responsibility.
The prosecutors union is comparing public information, allegedly leaked materials, and actual investigation progress to verify inconsistencies for the public interest.
If you have objections to that verification, please respond with accurate facts and research findings rather than claims of intimidation or defamation.
Open questions to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office, and the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau
Questions to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
- Have you received a request for a passport surrender order related to the case of defendant Naruki Nakano from the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office?
- Upon receiving the request, did you actually issue a return order to the target person?
- If it has not been issued, is the reason due to insufficient requirements, insufficient materials, or issues with identifying the target audience?
- Are you aware that the content of the request has been reported?
- Did the Ministry of Foreign Affairs provide information regarding the request or disciplinary action to the media?
Questions for the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office
- Who explained to the media that a request had been made to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to order the return of the passport?
- Were the target individuals identified and the necessary evidence secured at the time of the request?
- Did you consider the risk that reporting on the investigation strategy could lead to the suspect fleeing or evidence being destroyed?
- While the court has declined to disclose Defendant Nakano’s plea on the grounds that it “relates to the evidence,” what are the criteria for deciding to request an order for the surrender of his passport?
- From which source did you obtain the information regarding the subject—from Defendant Nakano, his associates, or the document known as the “Mami-zuka Memo”?
- If the request was not approved by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, did you re-examine the credibility of the informant’s statement?
- Have you conducted an internal investigation regarding the information leak concerning the request for a passport surrender order?
Questions for the Kumamoto Regional Tax Office
- Did you provide the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office with information regarding the person alleged to be an accomplice abroad?
- Is that information based on objective data obtained by the National Tax Agency itself, or on statements from those involved?
- Have you conducted an internal investigation regarding the distribution of materials known as the Mamizuka Memo?
- Are there any current or former employees who leaked information regarding investigation prospects, arrests, indictments, or international parties to the outside?
- Have you reported the possible breach of confidentiality to the National Tax Agency’s Inspector General’s Office or other relevant departments?
Please apply the same laws and responsibilities to the party responsible for the leak as well.
What the prosecutors' union is asking for is simple.
Please stop turning a blind eye to information leaks originating from within the National Tax Agency and the Public Prosecutors’ Office, while holding citizens and the media to strict standards of accountability.
If the Mamizuka Memo is false, please investigate those who created and disseminated the false information.
If it contains genuine investigative information, please investigate the person who leaked it.
If the request for an order to surrender a passport is legitimate, please explain the procedure and the outcome.
If the request was based on incorrect information, please clarify whose information was incorrect.
It is unacceptable for the National Tax Agency and the Public Prosecutors’ Office—which have released the most information to the public—to blame only the citizens who are trying to verify that information.
Please apply the same laws and the same level of liability to those who leaked the information, those who used it, and those who suffered harm as a result of the information.
That is the minimum requirement for the “proper and fair” conduct that investigative agencies speak of.
