The Prosecutors' Union has provided information to the Public Prosecutors Office regarding prosecutor Kobayashi's de facto refusal to accept information about crime victims, and we are hereby notifying our members.
Regarding the De Facto Refusal by a Prosecutor at the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office to Accept Information on Crime Victims
On July 27, Reiwa 8, a member of the Prosecutors’ Union called the Special Criminal Division of the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors’ Office in an attempt to provide new information regarding fraud victims in a case related to the Angel Tax System that the office was believed to be investigating.
The person who took over the phone from the receptionist identified themselves as "Kobayashi, prosecutor." The caller attempted to explain that multiple members who invested in N Corporation invested in reliance on the records of inquiries to administrative bodies and the explanation of legality provided by a certified public accountant shown by Mr. Nakano. Therefore, if the company indeed lacked business operations, they might not be accomplices in tax evasion, but rather victims of investment fraud who were induced to provide funds through false representations.
However, before fully hearing the details of the information, Prosecutor Kobayashi repeatedly asked who had provided the name of the person in charge, who the specific union member was, and whether the caller could provide their contact information.Even when the caller explained that they were not seeking answers regarding the details of a specific investigation but rather wished to provide information about a crime and request an investigation, the prosecutor stated, “I am unable to assist you” and “I will have to end this call,” and terminated the conversation. The caller was also not provided with information on where to submit evidence, where to report a crime, where to send written materials, or where to be referred if the matter fell outside the prosecutor’s jurisdiction.
Prosecutor Kobayashi did not explicitly state that "anonymous information will not be accepted." However, by failing to confirm the substance of the crime victim information until the end and not indicating the appropriate contact point, citing the lack of the informant's name and contact information, the possibility of fraud damage by multiple investors was effectively blocked at the entrance of the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office.
The inability to respond to individual incidents is a separate issue from not accepting criminal information reported by external parties. The National Tax Agency has announced that the provider's name and contact information are optional and that all provided information will be confirmed. The police also have a system for anonymous tips. If only the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office, which conducts joint investigations with the Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau, rejects information that differs from its own assumptions or reports of damage from other crimes, serious doubts arise regarding the fairness and comprehensiveness of the investigation.
Please investigate whether Prosecutor Kobayashi’s response was appropriate, and establish procedures to first verify the content of crime-related information provided anonymously or under a pseudonym before referring it to the appropriate department as necessary. Furthermore, please issue clear guidelines to all public prosecutors’ offices nationwide to ensure that they do not discontinue the provision of information or the reporting of crimes themselves simply because they refuse to respond to inquiries regarding specific cases.
