"Missing Evidence" Connecting Defendant Takanori Nakano, Makoto Watanabe, and the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office
This is not an article that lists facts currently recognized by the court.
This is a case hypothesis that pieces together the gaps between recordings, documents, and witness testimonies submitted to the Prosecutor's Union, and public reports.
The characters are: defendant Baron Nakano, Masashi Watanabe, Chairman and CEO of Last One Mile Co., Ltd., Satoshi Saito, a certified public accountant, and Shigenori Kanemoto, who was arrested on July 23, 2026.
The story unfolds across Cambodia, Kagoshima, Kumamoto, Tokyo, and Yokohama.
What's at the heart of the story isn't the angel tax system or the 367 million yen figure.
The mystery is who has the evidence, who lost the evidence, who gave the story to the investigative authorities, and why Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto was finally arrested.
Prologue: After Count Nakano disappeared, the Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau arrived.
According to information received by the Prosecutors Union, the central figure who effectively managed the accounts, terminals, contract information, administrative inquiry records, and communications with related parties of N Corporation was the defendant Noriyoshi Nakano.
However, by the time the Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau began its full investigation into this matter, the defendant, Baron Nakano, had already left the site of N Co., Ltd. and had also left Cambodia.
The information received is that what remained at the company was the registration of N Co., Ltd., fragmented documents, and the fact that defendant Nakano-Shakki was absent.
Hypothetically, if Count Koki Nakano was in charge of important terminals, accounts, originals, and communication records, what the Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau seized may not have been the core of the case, but rather the room after the case had passed through.
The room contained records of significant investments made by Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto.
On the other hand, sufficient evidence regarding the circumstances of soliciting the investment, the person who made the administrative inquiry, the person who designed the fund transfer, and the ultimate beneficiaries was not left behind.
In cases where there is no evidence, what do investigative agencies do?
Are you looking for evidence? Or are you creating a story around the most prominent person?
Chapter 1: Did Viscount Nakano say he "had the national tax authorities and the public prosecutors on his side"?
The Prosecutors' Union has received information that the defendant, Nakano Shakiki, boasted to those around him about his relationship with the National Tax Agency and prosecutors, making statements to the effect that he had "won over the National Tax Agency and the District Public Prosecutors Office as allies."
Furthermore, there is information that Mr. Makoto Watanabe also told those around him that the apprehension of the defendant, Takaashi Nakano, was not a simple arrest, but rather a concept that involved intentionally securing his custody in cooperation with Japanese investigative authorities to prevent him from fleeing from overseas investigative agencies.
Regarding these statements, the prosecutors' union is proceeding with confirmation of the audio recordings and original materials, and at this time, they are not confirmed as facts.
However, if Viscount Nakano had intended to use an arrest for a separate offense in Japan to avoid being taken into custody by Cambodian or other foreign investigative authorities, then the arrest would not have been the end of his flight, but rather a change in his method of fleeing.
To Japanese detention facilities from foreign authorities.
From overseas fraud and embezzlement cases to Japanese tax cases.
From issues with their own fund management and solicitation of investments, it has escalated to tax evasion cases on the investors' side.
If someone could truly design such a story, it would be an incredible feat utilizing state power that ordinary citizens like us could never imitate.
Second: Who was the defendant Nakano, Viscount Kiki, protected from by his arrest?
Defendant Shizuki Nakano has been arrested by the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office and subsequently indicted for violations of the Consumption Tax Act and other offenses.
Initial reports confirmed by the Prosecutors' Union point out that the name was not disclosed at the time of the initial arrest, and the information provided to the press was limited.
After that, his/her name began to be reported from the stage of re-arrest and indictment.
Meanwhile, Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto was reported nationwide from the day of his arrest, along with his name, aliases, age, company history, and a profile picture from social media.
This difference alone does not prove the existence of plea bargains or investigative cooperation. The nature of the case, the timing of the announcement, and the media outlets' own judgment could also have differed.
Still, questions remain.
Regarding defendant Toshiya Nakano, who did he identify as an accomplice and who as the principal offender to Japanese investigative authorities, and what did he admit as his own responsibility?
Was Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto shifted to the center of the investigation due to the testimony of the defendant Tsuneyoshi Nakano?
And how was it verified whether there was no motive to lessen their own responsibility and protect themselves from overseas incidents in that statement?
Chapter 3: Did Mr. Makoto Watanabe Say That "Even Arrests Can Be Managed"?
The Prosecutors Union has received information that Mr. Makoto Watanabe was boastfully telling those around him about the return, hiding, and response of defendant Kazuki Nakano to investigative agencies.
Defendant Nakano Sukeyoshi sided with the national tax authorities and the prosecution.
Intentionally arrested in cooperation with Japanese authorities to evade foreign investigative agencies.
Mr. Watanabe stated that he had spoken to people around him to that effect.
If this is a bluff or a fabrication, then Mr. Makoto Watanabe was merely trying to make himself look bigger by boasting about his connections with government agencies.
However, if they truly knew in advance about the apprehension of defendant Nakano and their statement strategy, where did the information come from?
Is this from the defendant, Tanaka Kaseki himself?
Is it from around the national tax office or the public prosecutor's office?
Or perhaps from the person who circulated the document called the "Makizuka Memo"?
Are Mr. Watanabe's statements evidence to solve this case, or just tall tales? This will become clear if we check the communication and meeting records.
Chapter 4: Where is the evidence truly needed for the Kanemoto Shigetoku case?
If Mr. Kanemoto Shigenori invested in N Corporation with the intention of returning the funds from the outset and had conspired with the defendant Nakano Shakuki and others to illegally evade taxes, then evidence of that conspiracy is required.
Pre-contract communication.
Prior agreement for fund return.
Agreement not to substantially acquire shares.
A promise not to bear investment risk.
Instructions from Kanemoto Shigenori himself.
However, information received by the Prosecutors' Union indicates that Mr. Nakano, a defendant, was in charge of important accounts, communications, terminals, and company information.
If Baron Nakano took, destroyed, or moved important evidence overseas, the Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau and the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office may not have been left with sufficient direct evidence to prove Mr. Kanemoto's intent.
Therefore, by connecting the substantial stock sale gains of Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto, deductions from angel investor tax incentives, and the movement of funds from Company N, they constructed a narrative of "abuse" and "kickbacks," did they not?
This is a hypothesis.
Because it is a hypothesis, the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office can refute it in an open court.
Two hypotheses surrounding the arrest of Shigenori Kanemoto
Hypothesis 1: Defendant Tokinori Nakano and Mr. Satoshi Saito gained Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto's trust.
Certified Public Accountant Satoshi Saito and defendant Kijun Nakano solicited investment in N Corporation, explaining it as a legitimate tax reduction that had been administratively approved. While Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto invested funds based on that explanation, there are concerns about potential issues with the investment destination and fund management.
In this case, Kanemoto Shigenori could be a victim of investment fraud.
Hypothesis 2: Responsibility was shifted to Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto in the testimony of defendant Shakki Nakano.
The possibility that Mr. Kanemoto Shigenori and other investors were assigned responsibility for the angel tax system scheme in exchange for cooperation with Japanese investigative authorities by defendant Nakano Ryosuke.
In this case, the testimony of the defendant Nakano, who has a motive to reduce his criminal liability and protect himself from overseas incidents, requires careful corroboration.
Public Questions for the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office and the Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau
- Do you possess communications or prior agreements prior to the investment that directly demonstrate Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto's intent?
- What is the evidence that it was agreed upon before the investment that funds would be returned from N Co., Ltd. to Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto?
- Did you confirm who was managing Company N's important accounts, terminals, and login information?
- Have you investigated the possibility that the defendant, Kazuyoshi Nakano, may have removed, destroyed, or transferred evidence overseas?
- Wasn't the key evidence of N Co., Ltd. already lost during the inspection by the Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau?
- Did you evaluate the testimony of the defendant, Takanobu Nakano, as potentially self-serving?
- Have you considered the alternative hypothesis that Mr. Kanemoto Shigenori is a victim of an investment scam?
- Why didn't you listen to the prosecution union's information about the alternative hypothesis until the end?
Public Questions to the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office and the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau
- Did you obtain testimony from the defendant, Tsunenori Nakano, regarding the angel tax system transaction between N Co., Ltd. and Shigetoku Kanemoto?
- Did defendant Takanori Nakano describe himself as a mentor, administrator, or perpetrator?
- Was there any agreement with Mr. Nakano regarding avoiding handover to foreign investigative agencies or cooperating with investigations in Japan?
- Before the arrest of the defendant Masayoshi Nakano, was there any instance of investigative information being leaked to Mr. Makoto Watanabe?
- Have all of defendant Nakano's devices, accounts, cloud storage, and overseas data been secured?
- Are you considering further indicting Mr. Moriyoshi Nakano for investment fraud related to a subscription to Company N?
Public Questions for Makoto Watanabe and Last One Mile Co., Ltd.
- Did Makoto Watanabe state that the defendant Natsuki Nakano had gained the support of Japan's national tax authorities and prosecutors?
- Did Mr. Takayoshi Nakano state that he intentionally had himself arrested in Japan to evade foreign investigative agencies?
- Did you hear that information directly from the defendant, Mr. Nakano?
- Did you know in advance about the arrest date, statement policy, and investigation cooperation of the defendant, Shinnosuke Nakano?
- From early April to late May 2026, what was discussed with defendant Takanori Nakano and Satoshi Saito?
- Was there no discussion among the three parties regarding the policy of attributing responsibility to Mr. Kanemoto Shigenori?
- Will the communication and visitation records of defendants Masabumi Nakano and Satoshi Saito, and Mr. Makoto Watanabe, be submitted to an independent third party?
Chapter 11: Can anyone truly control an arrest?
For the average citizen, arrest is something imposed by the state unilaterally.
However, this case is accompanied by a bizarre hypothesis: that there is someone who not only avoided arrest but deliberately chose the place, incident, timing, and even the interrogator, and used this situation to protect themselves from another investigative agency.
If that's true, the term "upper class" isn't enough.
This is using the arrest power itself as a means of transport.
If it's not true, why did Mr. Watanabe tell such a story to those around him?
Before arresting Shigenori Kanemoto, the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office and the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office should confirm whose story they are being told.
The person who wrote the script for the incident and the person assigned to play the role of the culprit in the script are not necessarily the same.
