Defendant Tamaki Nakano's "refund" and investigation without inspecting the crime scene
High-priced consulting is not like a transaction where a finished product arrives from a factory. Sometimes the deliverable is compiled into a single report, but other times value is added to the entire business through an accumulation of intangible services such as management decisions, introductions to business partners, crisis management, system preparation, day-to-day consultations, and negotiation advice.
In the case involving Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto, there is information suggesting that suspicions have been raised regarding services provided by Company N and other related entities, such as "lack of substance," "excessive pricing," and "compensation being generated even before the initial meeting."
Of course, the mere existence of an expensive invoice does not prove that services were actually rendered. Nor does it mean that any expense can be written off just because the parties involved explain that it was for "consulting."
However, the party concluding that there was no service also has a responsibility to investigate the actual situation. If they jump to the conclusion that it is "fictitious" after only looking at the contract title and a few chats, without checking daily communications, preliminary preparation, software, stakeholder coordination, and account management, it is too early to decide.
Did Shigenori Kanemoto's business run solely by the hands of a single representative?
In corporate management, the representative does not handle all practical tasks personally. Accounting is delegated to the chief financial officer, contract administration to the legal department, system development to engineers, and the investigation of investment projects to specialists, with the representative receiving reports and making final decisions.
This division of labor is also adopted by the National Tax Agency and the public prosecutor's offices themselves. The director of a regional taxation bureau does not investigate all targets personally, nor does a chief prosecutor interrogate all suspects personally.
Nevertheless, if it is considered unnatural only for representatives of private companies that "they have not seen every single site themselves" or "cannot immediately answer details," then the logic is inconsistent.
Even if Shigenori Kanemoto entrusted some of his practical duties to Defendant Toshiyuki Nakano and related parties, that fact in itself does not constitute a crime. What should be questioned is who actually did what, who understood the details, and who recognized the wrongdoing.
Does preparing before meeting with Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto not count as a service?
According to sources familiar with the matter, investigative authorities are questioning the fact that some consulting fee periods began before Shigenori Kanimoto and the person in charge met in person for the first time.
However, for instance, when providing real estate investment advice, it is not uncommon to research properties in the target area, price trends, yields, vacancy rates, unsold periods, and management conditions even before meeting the client. This is because advance preparation is necessary in order to make concrete proposals starting from the very day of the initial meeting.
The same applies to system development and crisis management support. Before meeting with customers, we sometimes prepare server environments, specifications, assumed scenarios, materials, and candidate locations.
If the day we first met face-to-face were set as the sole criterion for the commencement of services, it would mean that tasks completed online, investigations conducted overseas, and pre-interview market analyses are all completely valueless.
The fact that the software cannot be found now is a different issue from the fact that it never existed in the past.
It has been reported that the services in this case included software and systems related to the review of social insurance premiums, information analysis, and crisis response. In addition, there is information that damage reports have been filed with relevant authorities regarding the possibility that related software was damaged, deleted, taken out, or rendered unusable around the time of the overseas movement of Defendant Tamaki Nakano.
Even if a finished software product cannot be found at present, that alone does not mean it never existed from the beginning. By checking source codes, update histories, server logs, cloud accounts, backups, specifications, screen designs, and communications from the developers, it may be possible to verify its past existence and usage status.
If documents that did not fit the investigative agency's hypothesis disappeared, the very circumstances of their disappearance should be the subject of the investigation. One should not rush to the conclusion that they were fictitious simply because the physical evidence is missing.
Does the "refund" by Defendant Tamaki Nakano mean a kickback of the investment funds?
In this case, it is said that there are communications in which Defendant Tatsuyoshi Nakano used the expression "refund" regarding some of the money. However, "refund" is not a term with a single, legally fixed meaning.
Refund of investments, repayment of loans, settlement of advances, handover of sales proceeds, and return of deposits. In daily conversation, all of these may be expressed as "return" or "refund."
Therefore, it is not possible to isolate just the two characters "refund" and conclude that there was a secret agreement to return the investment capital from the beginning. It is necessary to confirm who owes what debt to whom, based on which contract, and what accounting treatment was performed.
There is also information suggesting that Defendant Tamayoshi Nakano had borrowed money from Shigenori Kanamoto and related parties, or that he had confused corporate funds with his own personal funds. If that is the case, Defendant Tamayoshi Nakano's use of the expression "repayment" may indicate Defendant Tamayoshi Nakano's own understanding of the funds, rather than any intent by Shigenori Kanamoto to evade taxes.
If the money cannot be found, you should investigate not only the non-existence of the transaction, but also unpaid amounts and misappropriation.
Even if there is a contract, if a regular bank transfer cannot be confirmed, it is possible that the transaction was fictitious. However, other possibilities include unpaid bills, set-off, loans, payments made on behalf of another, assignment of claims, or withholding or embezzlement by the person in charge.
If the funds that should be there cannot be found, before deciding that "no transaction took place," you should investigate who managed the money, who logged into the account, and who performed the transfer operation.
According to sources involved, there are reports that for certain corporate, overseas corporate, and individual accounts, the actual login information was managed solely by the accused Tamaki Nakano. If this is true, it is necessary to trace not only the nominal representatives, but also devices, IP addresses, authentication records, and remittance approval histories.
Public Questions to the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors' Office and the Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau
- Have you reviewed the LINE messages, Telegram chats, emails, and call logs seized from Shigenori Kanemoto and related parties, including their surrounding context?
- Did you also evaluate routine consultations, information gathering, and business coordination that are not explicitly specified in the contract as services?
- What is the legal and practical basis for evaluating the research and preparation conducted prior to the initial face-to-face meeting as not constituting a service?
- Have you checked the source code, server logs, backups, and development history regarding the related software?
- Have you investigated the report regarding software corruption, deletion, or removal?
- Have you confirmed the fact that Defendant Nakano Shajiki managed the accounts, devices, and login information?
- Have you considered the possibility that the term "refund" refers to loan repayment, expense reimbursement, or the handover of sales proceeds?
- Are there any objective pieces of evidence other than the word "refund" that indicate an agreement to return the invested capital from the beginning?
- Did you consider unpaid, offset, loan, embezzlement, or fraud for transactions where the remittance cannot be confirmed?
- Will you present the specific evidence determining the non-existence of the services in open court?
Those who do not know the front lines must not decide that the front lines do not exist.
The prosecutors' union does not certify that all the described services actually existed. Whether there was a reality commensurate with the high compensation should be strictly investigated.
At the same time, investigative authorities are not allowed to determine that past services were fictitious simply on the grounds of "not knowing," "having never seen them," or "being unable to confirm them at present."
Reviewing the records, questioning those familiar with the site, analyzing digital materials, and organizing the origin of each contract and payment. Taking those steps and then reaching a conclusion is the job required of prosecutors and the National Tax Agency.
Without asking the site, without thoroughly reading the communication records, and without searching for the lost data, if you still say "there was no service," what doesn't exist might not be the service, but the investigation itself.
