The same diagrammatic scheme can serve as a criminal conspiracy plan or as administrative inquiry documentation.
There is a single schematic diagram.
Multiple companies, investors, lenders, and fund flows are connected by arrows.
To the prosecutors, it might look like a criminal blueprint for funneling funds back.
If the materials were brought to the administrative officer, it might be a list of questions to check the handling under the system.
If it's a document shown to investors, it might be a sales pitch deck explaining the business structure and post-investment plans.
Even with the exact same diagram, its meaning as evidence differs completely depending on who created it, when, for what purpose, and to whom it was shown.
Whose eyes was the scheme diagram of defendant Tamaki Nakano meant for?
According to documents preserved by the prosecutors' union, defendant Toshiyuki Nakano presented investors with explanatory documents and scheme diagrams detailing investments utilizing the angel tax system, reinvestments, loans, and the possibility of business suspension.
Also, there is a record that defendant Kakuki Nakano inquired with administrative agencies about a similar transaction structure and explained the obtained responses to investors.
Assuming that the schematic diagram was presented to government officials and was documentation for which a response was obtained stating that it was not immediately rejected under the regulations, that diagram differs in nature from a secret criminal plan.
Conversely, if the fund transfers shown to the administration differ from those actually executed, that discrepancy is precisely what is subject to investigation.
Just extracting the diagram does not allow one to conclude "it is a conspiracy because it goes through multiple corporations."
The document titled "To Our Investors" is not a supplementary material.
A large-scale stock investment is not decided instantly upon looking at a single investment contract.
I will receive explanations regarding the investee's business, management, use of funds, tax implications, risks, exit strategy, and post-investment developments, ask questions, and make a decision based on the answers.
If there exists a document titled "To Our Investors," allegedly delivered to investors by Defendant Tamaki Nakano, it is central evidence in the formation of investment intent.
To determine what Mr. Shigenori Kanimoto believed, which risks he recognized, and what he understood as having been administratively confirmed, it is necessary to review not only the contract, but also this explanatory document and the contents of the meeting.
Not seizing this document, without even questioning investors, and inferring intent solely from the outcome of the fund movement means intentionally leaving the first half of the investment decision blank.
If the administrative response record is true, it becomes difficult to establish intentional wrongdoing by Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto.
If the administrative inquiry record created by Defendant Tamaki Nakano is authentic, and he actually explained the transaction structure to the administrative official and received a response that it was not immediately rejected under the system, it is rational for Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto to have relied on that explanation.
Administrative responses do not constitute a final guarantee of the legality of individual transactions.
Still, for investors who were shown the certified public accountant's explanation, administrative inquiry records, confirmation letters, and the capital increase registration, stronger separate evidence is required to establish that they "knew it was tax evasion from the beginning."
Shigenori Kanimoto knew a secret fact that had not been disclosed to the administration.
I was part of the secret agreement to return the funds from the very beginning.
I realized that stock and investment risks were nominal.
Such specific facts must be proven.
If the administrative response record is false, Shigenori Kimoto could become a victim of investment fraud.
Conversely, if Defendant Kakki Nakano did not actually make inquiries to administrative agencies, but instead included non-existent or exaggerated responses in the documents to make investors trust him, the structure of the case changes fundamentally.
If they received a large amount of investment while pretending to have received administrative approval, Shigenori Kanamoto and other investors may not be accomplices to tax evasion, but victims who handed over property due to false explanations.
Whether the administrative response is true or false, the current simple narrative cannot stand as it is.
If true, it serves as evidence denying intent, and if false, it serves as evidence indicating investment fraud.
Documents indicating that Certified Public Accountant Satoshi Saito was involved in a 500 million yen transfer
According to materials preserved by the prosecutors' union, certified public accountant Satoshi Saito explained the Angel Tax System and investment in Company N, and was also present for the transfer of 500 million yen.
Satoshi Saito is a certified public accountant with experience working at an audit firm and involvement in IPO practices.
If tax and accounting experts explained the system and even witnessed the actual remittance, the possibility that Shigenori Kimoto believed it was a legal investment must be considered.
If the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office evaluated Satoshi Saito as "not fully understanding the system," while attributing a complete understanding and intent to evade taxes to Shigenori Kanemoto—who is not a tax expert—then the evaluation of responsibility is reversed.
Why did only investors understand a system that experts could not?
If Satoshi Saito did not understand the system, the intent of investors who trusted the expert's explanation should be judged with caution.
If Mr. Satoshi Saito explained that it was legal after understanding the system, we should investigate the content and basis of that explanation.
If Satoshi Saito understood the illegality, the question is why the investigation focuses only on the investors.
In either scenario, we cannot blur the role of experts while deliberately focusing the intent solely on non-expert investors.
Public Questions for the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office and the Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau
- Have you reviewed the document titled "To Investors" created by Defendant Toshiyuki Nakano?
- Have you confirmed the document's creation date, recipient, and distribution timing?
- Have you confirmed whether Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto saw the document before investing?
- How do you evaluate whether the scheme diagram of defendant Tasuki Nakano is an administrative inquiry document, an investor presentation material, or a criminal plan?
- Have you checked the purpose of creation, the recipient, and the usage context that serve as the basis for that evaluation?
- Did you ask the administrative official whether they had received the same scheme diagram or an explanation of the same content?
- Have you cross-checked the administrative response records with the person in charge's notes to verify their authenticity?
- If the records are authentic, on the basis of which evidence is Shigenori Kanemoto's intent established?
- If the record is false, are you investigating investment fraud by Defendant Toshiyuki Nakano?
- Did you confirm the fact that Mr. Satoshi Saito was involved in explaining the system and transferring the 500 million yen?
- Based on which criteria did you distinguish the perceptibility of Mr. Satoshi Saito and Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto?
- What is the specific evidence that non-experts understood the illegality more deeply than experts?
Open letter to Mr. Satoshi Saito
- Have you explained the investment in Corporation N and the angel tax system to Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto?
- Did you explain that this is a legitimate use of the system?
- Did you attend or were you involved in the transfer of 500 million yen?
- Have you checked the administrative inquiry record for Defendant Tamaki Nakano?
- Were you aware that the schematic diagram was a document presented to government officials?
- To what extent did you understand the actual business conditions, use of funds, and reinvestment plans of Company N?
- Did you explain to Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto the possibility that tax benefits might be denied after the investment?
- Can you clarify the explanation given regarding this matter to the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office and the Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau?
It is not the number of arrows that determines the meaning of a drawing.
Complex drawings give the viewer an impression of fraud.
However, the meaning of the evidence is not determined by its appearance.
Who made it, when, and for the purpose of showing it to whom?
So it was material for questioning the local government.
Was that a document explaining risks to investors?
So it was a secret criminal plot.
Without checking the context, it is not possible to establish conspiracy based solely on arrows.
