Following the leak of the Kamitsuka memo, summons for prosecutors Ikeda and Shimizu have been leaked.

The Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office must explain the cost-effectiveness of the "large-scale joint investigation"

The Prosecutors Union is once again raising public awareness regarding information management concerning the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau and the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office.

Following the issue where the so-called "Mamitsuka Memo," which reportedly contains prospects for arrests, accusations, and indictments, was allegedly circulated to numerous parties long before the actual arrests, an image of a summons sent by the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office to a party in Tokyo has now been leaked externally.

According to information obtained by the prosecutors' union, both Mr. Ikeda and Mr. Shimizu, as mentioned in the document in question, are prosecutors handling this case.

If the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office provides a different explanation, please clarify the official job titles, jurisdictional authorities, document creator, and decision-maker for both individuals.

Yamaguchi District Public Prosecutors Office leaked the names of 11 prosecution review board members

In June 2026, the Mainichi Shimbun reported that the Iwakuni Branch of the Yamaguchi District Public Prosecutors Office had sent a document containing the names of 11 prosecution review board members, which should have been kept confidential, to an outside party.

Initially, the Yamaguchi District Public Prosecutors Office explained that it did not recover the leaked documents and that the review board members had also consented to this.

However, it is reported that the judge himself told Mainichi Shimbun that he requested the retrieval of the document and expressed bewilderment regarding the prosecutors' explanation, saying, "I don't understand what this means."

Subsequent reports indicate that the leak was caused by a prosecutor who had served as the branch head in Iwakuni giving incorrect instructions to a subordinate deputy prosecutor to specify the names of the jurors.

In other words, the prosecutor's information leak cannot be brushed aside as a simple mistake by some unknown, low-level employee.

This is an information management issue affecting the entire prosecution organization, including instructions given by prosecutors, the organization's initial response, explanations to victims, and delays in document collection.

Reference:Mainichi Shimbun: "Explanation 'makes no sense' – Prosecution review commission member whose name was leaked expresses confusion toward district prosecutor's office"

The summonses for Prosecutors Ikeda and Shimizu that were externally distributed after the Mamizuka memo

The document from the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office that was leaked externally was created on June 19, 2026, and requests an individual in Tokyo to appear at the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office at 3:00 p.m. on the 22nd of the same month.

Even though you are asking me to come all the way from Tokyo to Kagoshima, there are only three days between the date the document was prepared and the specified date and time.

Depending on the mailing status, there is a possibility that by the time the recipient confirmed the document, making arrangements for flights, accommodation, and work was already practically difficult.

Moreover, the subject line does not contain a specific law name, but rather reads, "Regarding tax law violations in conspiracy with Kakki Nakano."

Tax law is a general term that refers collectively to numerous laws related to taxation.

Is it a violation of the Consumption Tax Act, a violation of the Corporate Tax Act, or a violation of the Income Tax Act?

It is not specified under which law, for which act, and in what capacity they wish to question you.

If you are going to summon someone from Tokyo to Kagoshima and state that there is even a possibility of arrest if they fail to appear without a legitimate reason, you should at least specify the case and the legal basis to the extent that they can be understood.

Who approved the aggressiveness of this document?

Did Prosecutor Ikeda and Prosecutor Shimizu judge this schedule setting to be reasonable?

Is it appropriate investigative practice to demand that people involved within Tokyo come to Kagoshima three days later?

Call the person directly and check their availability.

Listen within Tokyo or Kanagawa prefecture.

Coordinate with the neighboring prosecutor's office.

An official in charge from the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office will go on a business trip.

There are countless ways.

Rather than a voluntary witness interview, the approach of suddenly sending a written notice without doing so and stating, "If you don't come, you may be arrested," also looks like an attempt to compel attendance through intimidation.

Why do both the Mamizuka memo and the subpoena keep leaking out?

In this case, the Mamizuka memo, which allegedly contained projections regarding arrests, criminal complaints, and indictments, had been circulated to multiple parties even before the actual investigation began.

Furthermore, this time, even a document containing the name of the prosecutor in charge at the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office, their direct phone number, the target case, and the date and time of the summons was leaked outside.

If the recipient disclosed the document for the public interest purpose of appealing the abnormality of the document to society, the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office should take the background leading to that disclosure seriously.

If it leaked through a channel other than the recipient, it is necessary to investigate the information management inside the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office.

Even looking at the Yamaguchi District Public Prosecutors Office case, the premise that "it is safe because it is information handled by the prosecution" has already collapsed.

The results of the large-scale joint investigation into the tax case amount to approximately 78 million yen at this time.

Based on what can be confirmed through news reports, the amount of tax evasion for which defendant Tamaki Nakano was initially indicted for violations of the Consumption Tax Act and other offenses is approximately 12 million yen.

After that, he was additionally indicted for tax evasion of approximately 66 million yen in violation of the Corporation Tax Act and other laws regarding a separate corporate entity.

The total amount of tax evasion reported in tax cases so far is approximately 78 million yen.

Approximately 78 million yen is by no means an amount to be taken lightly.

However, in this case, simultaneous inspections across the country, the seizure of PCs, smartphones, account books, etc., from numerous corporations and individuals, overseas parties including those in Cambodia, Last One Mile Inc. and its numerous affiliated companies, and even the complex fund-routing diagrams depicted in the Mamizuka memo have been brought into question.

Information has also been received stating that, according to those involved, it was a large-scale incident that deployed one of the largest workforces in the past.

If the tax case uncovered so far amounts to only about 78 million yen as a result of investing that much manpower, time, travel expenses, storage costs for seized items, and digital forensic costs, the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau and the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office should explain the cost-effectiveness and their future investigation plan.

The problem isn't making grand promises, it's failing to follow through on them.

The large-scale investigation itself is not the problem.

The problem is that they removed devices and ledgers from numerous corporations and individuals and failed to return them for a long time, halted interviews with parties possessing counter-evidence halfway through, and at the same time, the investigation into the person listed as the central figure in the Mamitsuka Memo is nowhere to be seen.

If the matter is settled for about 78 million yen, what on earth were the mentions of Last One Mile Inc., Mr. Makoto Watanabe, multiple related companies, loans, outsourcing costs, advertising expenses, shares, and the angel tax system listed in the Mamitsuka Memo?

Was it merely a presentation for investigative purposes?

Was it just big talk to make it look like a major incident?

Or will additional indictments, including those related to the last mile, continue from now on?

Please continue the in-person interviews so that it is not dismissed as a "fictitious joint investigation."

The Public Prosecutors Office officially explains that, in addition to reviewing records sent by the police and other agencies, it interviews parties to the case directly as necessary to verify whether the contents are true.

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, public prosecutors and public prosecutor's assistant officers may perform their duties outside their jurisdictional districts if necessary for the investigation.

Therefore, it is not necessary to summon all the witnesses located in Tokyo and Kanagawa prefectures to Kagoshima.

Prosecutors from the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office can also travel to the site.

It is also possible to coordinate with the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office, the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office, and others to conduct hearings at nearby offices.

It is also possible to review the overview online and conduct in-person interviews only with truly necessary individuals.

Of course, the right to an in-person interview with a prosecutor does not automatically arise for all informants.

However, if the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office showed an intention to conduct an in-person interview, yet subsequently left the matter neglected without any further communication, it makes one doubt whether there was truly an intention to uncover the truth.

The Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau has handed over the case to us.

I sent a letter asking you to come from Tokyo to Kagoshima.

I will not contact you after that.

This looks less like a joint investigation and more like a joint pass-the-buck exercise.

Demonstrate your results in an open court

The trial schedule after indictment cannot be decided by the prosecution alone.

Nevertheless, the prosecution has a responsibility to properly handle evidence disclosure and the organization of issues, and to strive to promptly begin presenting its case in an open courtroom.

The Mamizuka memo featured bold words such as "accusation, indictment, and arrest."

If there was evidence that definitive and such a massive overall picture of fraud was being depicted, it should not be difficult to present the evidence in open court and carry out the necessary additional indictments.

Conversely, if long-term inspections and massive seizures are conducted without leading to supplementary indictments or public trials, and even questioning of related parties is halted midway, it would not be surprising if it invites harsh criticism that it is a "waste of taxpayers' money with no results to show."

The Prosecutors Union is not universally condemning tax and prosecution officials as thieves of tax money.

To avoid such criticism, they are demanding an explanation of the personnel and time invested, the costs, the scope of the investigation, the charges brought, the management of seized items, and future plans.

Open questions to the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office, Fukuoka High Public Prosecutors Office, and Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau

Regarding document and information management

1. Are prosecutors Ikeda and Shimizu the prosecutors in charge listed on the summons released this time, without a doubt?
2. Did both prosecutors review and approve the written deadlines, the subject line, the items to bring, and the notice indicating the possibility of arrest?
3. What is the rational reason for demanding that individuals concerned within Tokyo appear in Kagoshima three days after the date of creation?
4. What is the reason for using the term "tax law violation" instead of specifying the name of the specific law or regulation?
5. Are you aware of the fact that the document in question is being circulated externally?
6. Did you conduct an internal investigation into the distribution channels?
7. Along with the leak of the Mamizuka memo, did you verify the information management?

Regarding the scale of the investigation and its results

1. Can you clarify the number of personnel deployed, the investigation period, the number of locations searched, and the number of items seized in this case?
2. Do you plan to seek additional indictments other than the tax case involving approximately 78 million yen that has been made public at this time?
3. Have you investigated all of the Last One Mile company, Mr. Makoto Watanabe, related corporations, and fund transfers listed in the Mamizuka memo?
4. If there are any individuals or corporations excluded from the scope of the investigation, what are the criteria?
5. Can you explain the ongoing necessity to retain each seized item that has not been returned for a long period of time?

Regarding in-person interviews

1. Are there any stakeholders who have not been contacted after expressing their intention for an in-person interview?
2. If they exist, do you explain to the individual whether or not they will be listened to?
3. Do you conduct interviews outside the jurisdiction and coordinate with other prosecutors' offices regarding personnel in Tokyo and Kanagawa?
4. Will you also fairly interview individuals who possess materials that contradict the scenarios of Defendant Nakano and the National Tax Agency?
5. Will you cooperate with evidence disclosure and issue clarification so that evidence can be promptly examined in open court?

The person who made the big promises must take responsibility until the very end.

Leak information.

Deploy a large number of people.

Suddenly summon stakeholders from afar.

Hold a large amount of seized items for a long period of time.

Since you've gone that far, please investigate it thoroughly to the end and present the results in an open court.

Will it end at about 78 million yen?

Will you proceed with the investigation around the last mile depicted in the Mamizuka memo?

Or will it be criticized as a "fictional joint investigation" that staged a massive incident that never existed in the first place?

The responsibility for providing that answer lies with the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office, the Fukuoka High Public Prosecutors Office, and the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau.