Did Baron Nakano deceive investors?
The Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office has indicted Mr. Koki Nakano on charges of evading consumption tax by booking fictitious expenses and illegally receiving refunds. Furthermore, he has been re-arrested on suspicion of fraud and attempted fraud for allegedly defrauding an independent administrative agency of subsidies.
Of course, as long as there is no final judgment from a criminal trial, it cannot be definitively stated that the defendant Shokiki Nakano actually defrauded the country or public institutions. However, at the very least, the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office has judged that there is a serious suspicion that the defendant Shokiki Nakano attempted to obtain financial benefits by deceiving the country through the use of public systems, to the extent that they decided to arrest and indict him.
However, when the scene shifts to the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office, and the issue of what investors and shareholders of N Corporation were told arises, the character of the defendant, Noriyoshi Nakano, suddenly changes.
On the one hand, you are treated as someone who is thoroughly familiar with the system and capable of defrauding public funds, while on the other hand, it seems to be taken for granted that you have honestly and accurately explained the content of the administrative inquiry, the business of Co., Ltd. N, and the mechanism of the angel investor tax system to investors.
Why would someone suspected of deceiving a country be considered incapable of deceiving investors and shareholders?
In the prosecution's narrative, the defendant, Baron Nakano, is cunning towards the state and honest towards investors.
The suspicions that the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office is directing at Shigenori Kanemoto are that the financial contributions to N Corporation were not actual investments but rather a superficial transaction intended to receive deductions under the Angel Tax System.
To make this story plausible, it is necessary to prove that Mr. Shigetoku Kanemoto did not intend to make a legitimate investment in Company N, but understood from the outset that it was a scheme to avoid tax burdens.
However, in related documents confirmed by the Prosecutors Union, the defendant NAKANO Shakikihachi showed detailed records indicating that he had inquired with multiple administrative agencies about the treatment of the Angel Tax System for investors and shareholders. It is also reported that certified public accountant Satoru SAITO was involved in explaining the system and the remittance procedures, and that the acquisition of shares in Company N, administrative confirmation, and post-investment development were explained as a single investment project.
If this explanation were correct, we would have to consider the possibility that Shigenori Kanemoto and other investors believed it to be a legitimate investment.
Conversely, if Baron Nakano forged administrative responses, rewrote them to be more favorable than they actually were, and thus pretended that N Corporation had sufficient business operations, then the investors might not be accomplices in tax evasion, but rather victims of investment fraud who were induced to contribute large sums of money through fraudulent explanations.
Even if the administrative inquiry record is true or false, it creates an inconvenience for the simple narrative that the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office apparently maintains.
If it's true, the investors' intentions will be questioned. If it's false, the possibility of fraud by defendant Nakano Shakki will emerge. Regardless of the outcome, an investigation that does not examine the business activities of Nakano Shakki and instead pressures only Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto regarding his investment intentions will be difficult to establish.
The mystery of how someone who can deceive public institutions cannot deceive general investors
According to the prosecution's assessment, Mr. Nakano is a defendant who attempted to circumvent the scrutiny of public institutions by combining tax, subsidy, administrative procedures, and corporate transactions.
If someone is suspected of being so knowledgeable about the system and capable of deceiving the state, it might have been even easier to convince an investor unfamiliar with the tax system by explaining, "It's officially confirmed," "A certified public accountant also said it's fine," and "It's a legitimate stock investment."
While fraud charges against the country may be possible, if the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office states that the possibility of fraud against investors does not even need to be considered, they should provide the basis for that peculiar line.
If the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office alone believes that "however, he must have explained the truth to investors," while adopting the scenario of the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office that Mr. Noriyoshi Nakano defrauded public institutions, then the Public Prosecutors Offices are adopting completely different profiles of the same person.
In Kagoshima, a suspect in fraud using public systems; in Yokohama, a trustworthy explainer who provided accurate information to investors. A script explanation is needed for this brilliant role change.
Before reading Mr. Kanemoto Shigenori's LINE messages, please read Mr. Nakano Sukeyoshi's sales materials.
We have received information that the Prosecutors' Union has been informed that during the interrogation of Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto, a large number of emails and LINE messages were shown to him, and he was repeatedly questioned to the effect of "Didn't you actually know you were investing in Company N?".
It is natural to investigate communication records. However, no matter how many daily conversations after the investment are collected, the investment decision of Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto cannot be accurately assessed without confirming what was explained to the defendant Nakano, what documents were shown, and how he was convinced.
A person who has invested in stocks will not continue to declare "I have investment intent" on LINE every day. After the investment contract and payment are completed, the focus may shift to individual topics such as taxation, fund transfers, business operations, lending, and transactions with other companies.
The fact that there were fewer investor-like phrases in later LINE messages does not equate to not believing it was legitimate stock investment at the time of investment.
There is information that the defendant, Shokiki Nakano, provided investors with a package that summarized everything from administrative inquiries, explanations from certified public accountants, investee companies, stock acquisitions, and application procedures, to post-investment business plans, thereby facilitating the investors' decision-making process to invest.
It's backward to investigate the sales activities of the person who sold the package, read only the everyday conversations of the buyer, and then confront them by saying, "You probably didn't intend to buy the product."
Are you rejecting external investment scam information and only accepting the explanation of defendant Nakano Shakki?
Members of the Prosecutors Union attempted to call the Special Investigation Department of the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office to inform them that several union members who invested in N Corporation did so based on their trust in the administrative inquiry records of defendant Jakki Nakano and explanations from a certified public accountant.
Prosecutor Kobayashi, who took over the phone and identified himself as Prosecutor Kobayashi, attempted to confirm the informant's name and contact information, but did not listen to the information suggesting a possible investment scam until the end, stating, "I cannot handle this" and "I will hang up the phone."
It has not been confirmed whether Prosecutor Kobayashi is in charge of interrogating Kanemoto Shigenori. However, the fact that prosecutors at the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office did not listen to the gist of the information provided by the investors of N Company and did not guide them to the evidence submission destination or the appropriate contact person is important in considering the office's investigative stance.
External information regarding the sales activities conducted by defendant Shizuki Nakano towards investors will not be considered. On the other hand, the investigative authorities will present a series of LINE messages, chosen by them, to Shigenori Kanemoto, who is in custody, and press him to admit to the absence of investment intent.
This appears to be closing the door on the possibility of investment fraud by the defendant Mr. Nakano, and instead, in a closed room, completing a narrative that frames Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto as the perpetrator, rather than gathering the truth broadly.
Are you dressing up the facts to fit a narrative that's convenient for the prosecution?
In criminal cases, the actions of the same person are evaluated based on different evidence for each case. The fact that the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office has re-arrested Mr. Nakano for fraud does not necessarily mean that he committed fraud in the investment case in Yokohama.
However, we cannot assume that the explanation to investors was unconditionally true for a person whose suspicion of deceiving public institutions in other cases is becoming concrete.
Ideally, the Yokohama District Public Prosecutor's Office should not trust the explanation of the defendant Norikazu Nakano, nor the information from the Prosecutor's Union. Instead, they should question administrative officials, investors, shareholders, prospective investors, certified public accountants, and the employees and business partners of N Corporation to determine which possibility aligns with the facts.
However, if the prosecution dismisses external evidence and exhausts the suspect's ability to refute by presenting them with a large number of fragments, then the prosecutor is not investigating the facts but is simply dressing the facts in clothes that fit their narrative.
The right to arrest is not a state qualification that guarantees a prosecutor's reasoning is always correct. Just because one has the power to detain someone does not mean that the person being detained will accept the same conclusion until they give up their rebuttal.
The defendant Noriyoshi Nakano himself spoke of "10.2 billion yen in cash assets."
According to information received by the Prosecutors Union, the defendant Mr. Nakano himself reportedly told those around him that he possesses 10.2 billion yen in cash assets.
The prosecutor's union has not yet confirmed all the details regarding defendant Yasunori Nakano's actual possession of the full 10.2 billion yen in cash or other forms, nor the names, locations, or formation process of those assets. However, if defendant Yasunori Nakano himself specifically cited the large sum of "10.2 billion yen" and boasted about it to those around him as his own assets, then his statement cannot be dismissed as mere boastful talk.
Suspect Masayoshi Nakano is suspected of fraud targeting public funds and tax evasion, with a large amount of money movement among numerous corporations including N Corporation, investors, and foreign entities being a significant issue. It is only natural that the circumstances under which suspect Masayoshi Nakano came to claim he possesses 10.2 billion yen in cash assets, from which transactions these assets were formed, where they currently are, and who is managing them, should be investigated.
Mr. Watanabe is not an unrelated third party.
Makoto Watanabe, the Representative Director of Last One Mile Inc., is not merely an acquaintance of the defendant, Sakayoshi Nakano. Multiple sources provided to the Prosecutors Union identify him as someone who cooperated with the defendant Sakayoshi Nakano's domestic and international activities and was involved in the construction of this Angel Tax System scheme.
If this information is true, then Mr. Makoto Watanabe is in a position where it is difficult to consider him an unrelated third party who knows nothing about the 10.2 billion yen in assets that defendant Yoshiki Nakano claimed to possess and the process by which they were formed. If he collaborated on the structure of transactions using the angel investor tax system and supported Mr. Nakano's activities, it is natural to suspect that the two may have shared the profits generated from those activities in some way.
The prosecutors' union has not yet confirmed complete account records showing that defendants Masayoshi Nakano and Mr. Makoto Watanabe actually shared 10.2 billion yen. However, considering their relationship, involvement in the Angel Tax System scheme, Mr. Nakano's boasting about his enormous assets, and the international financial movements that have been pointed out, there is no reason for investigative authorities to exclude the possibility from the outset that "Mr. Makoto Watanabe also received a share of the profits."
The recording stating that "the National Tax Agency, the Public Prosecutors Office, and Mr. Makoto Watanabe have been brought to our side" has already been preserved.
More importantly, there are recordings and other materials stating that Defendant Nakano, Count of the peerage, has gained the support of Japan's National Tax Agency, the Public Prosecutors Office, and Mr. Makoto Watanabe.
To the extent confirmed by the Prosecutors Union, these recordings and other materials have already been preserved by relevant parties, including Cambodian authorities. This means that materials allowing verification of the statements made by the defendant, Tomoyoshi Nakano, himself, and not merely hearsay from someone who claims to have heard such things, are retained by multiple parties, including those located abroad.
The prosecutors' union views these recordings, etc., as important materials comparable to the "Mamizuka Memo," which has been a point of contention regarding the circulation of investigation information. If the Mamizuka Memo is material showing the investigative authorities' perspectives and the circulation of information about related parties, then the current recording is material showing how the defendant Nakano Shōki himself perceived his relationship with the National Tax Agency, the prosecutors, and Mr. Makoto Watanabe, and how he explained it to others.
Of course, the fact that Mr. Nakano testified that he had "won over" certain individuals does not automatically prove that the tax officials, prosecutors, or Mr. Makoto Watanabe actually engaged in illegal cooperation. It is also possible that Mr. Nakano exaggerated or lied to make himself appear more important.
However, to ascertain whether that statement was an empty threat or based on a concrete cooperative relationship, it is necessary to cross-reference the communications, meetings, fund transfers, and access routes to investigation information of the defendant Viscount Nakano, Mr. Makoto Watanabe, the relevant tax officials, and the prosecution officials. Ignoring the existence of the recording and solely focusing on reading Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto's LINE messages extensively is clearly unnatural as a selection of investigation targets.
Whose assets are the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office and the National Tax Agency protecting?
If defendant Tsuyoshi Nakano himself stated that he possesses 10.2 billion yen in cash assets, and if Mr. Makoto Watanabe is said to have cooperated in his activities and been involved in the construction of an angel tax system scheme, then investigating the assets, related corporations, domestic and foreign accounts, and profit distribution of both individuals is the proper course for a financial investigation.
Nevertheless, if the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office and the tax authorities did not sufficiently investigate the financial relationship between defendant Masanori Nakano and Makoto Watanabe, did not listen to information about fraud damage from investors, and only pursued Shigenori Kanemoto's investment intentions while he was in custody, they must explain whose money they are pursuing and whose assets they are trying to protect.
If they were to push only Mr. Shigetoku Kanemoto into the role of the culprit without investigating the possibility that Mr. Masayoshi Nakano and Mr. Makoto Watanabe were sharing the profits, it would even give rise to suspicions that "the prosecution and the tax authorities also intend to protect Mr. Masayoshi Nakano's person and vast assets, and finally share the profits," which should have been an absurd suspicion.
If you wish to deny that suspicion, there is only one way. Investigate the source of the 10.2 billion yen that defendant Tanaka Kichin said, clarify the financial relationship with Mr. Watanabe Makoto, confirm the recordings being preserved by Cambodian authorities, and investigate who, when, and how they contacted the National Tax Agency and the prosecution with the same intensity as Mr. Kanemoto Shigenori's LINE messages.
You're not expecting us to split it later, are you?
The Prosecutors' Union has not confirmed evidence that prosecutors, tax officials, the defendant Masayoshi Nakano, and Mr. Makoto Watanabe have a plan to actually share 10.2 billion yen and other assets. We do not assert such facts.
Normally, the question of whether the prosecution and the National Tax Agency intend to later divide the assets of the defendant Nakano and Mr. Watanabe should be dismissed as a preposterous joke.
However, if the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office is handling the fraud charges against Mr. Nakano concerning public funds, while the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office does not investigate the possibility of fraud against investors and even blocks external victim information, then the prosecutors themselves are creating the reason for that joke to emerge.
The origin of the vast assets allegedly held by defendant Nakano Shakuyoshi and Mr. Watanabe Makoto is not investigated. Investors who received business from defendant Nakano Shakuyoshi are not questioned. On the other hand, only Mr. Kanemoto Shigenori is detained and shown a large number of LINE messages until he admits he had no intention to invest.
If the selection of targets is one-sided to this extent, suspicions may arise that would normally be dismissed as a joke, such as "Is someone protecting the person and assets of the defendant Nakano?" or "Is someone playing a role in helping them escape from overseas investigative agencies?" or "Do they intend to share some profit in the end?"
The way to deny that suspicion is not to issue a protest letter or be wary of articles from the prosecutors' union. It is to investigate information unfavorable to the defendant Nakano Kii with the same intensity as information unfavorable to Mr. Kaneshige Kanemoto, and to select investigation targets fairly.
Even if misconduct is pointed out, do you not need to reflect if you have arrest powers?
Prosecutors are powerful state institutions with the authority to arrest individuals, request detention, and file charges. Precisely because their authority is so significant, stricter fairness is demanded of them than of private companies regarding information screening, interrogation methods, handling of exculpatory evidence, and dissemination of information to the outside world.
However, the Prosecutors Union has received information from multiple sources, including within the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office and around the press club, regarding pre-arrest investigation details, the names of involved prosecutors, the prosecution's assessment, and even the specific content of interrogations.
Internal information leaks out, but I don't hear about investment scam information coming from outside. We deliver our stories to the press club, but we cut off contradictory testimonies over the phone.
In this state, it's not convincing for only the party with arrest powers to proudly declare, "Our judgment is correct."
The power of arrest is not a license to avoid introspection, nor is it a remote control to silence criticism. The more powerful an organization is, the more it needs to investigate potential inconveniences beforehand.
Public Questions for the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office and the Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau
- Are you considering the fact that Mr. Toshihiko Nakano has been re-arrested on charges of defrauding public funds in your assessment of his character?
- Did you investigate the possibility that Mr. Nakano, who is suspected of defrauding public institutions, also made false statements to investors of N Corporation?
- Did you verify the authenticity of the administrative inquiry records presented by the defendant, Tanaka Ryoki, to investors with each administrative agency?
- If administrative inquiries are found to be false or exaggerated, will they be investigated as fraud cases targeting investors?
- Did you ask the investors and shareholders who invested in N Corporation what was explained to them by the defendant, Yosinori Nakano?
- Did you identify potential investors who did not invest despite being solicited, and review their sales activities?
- Do you have information that defendant Toshihiko Nakano marketed the entire process, from explaining the system to acquiring stocks, with the intent of "packaging investment decisions"?
- Is there any evidence of a secret agreement for capital repayment and avoidance of investment risk exclusively with Shigenori Kanemoto, differing from other investors?
- I have confirmed that Mr. Nakano's legal representative stated that he is in possession of 10.2 billion yen in cash.
- Have you confirmed the basis for that amount, the ownership of assets, domestic and foreign accounts, and fund transfers to related companies?
- Have the financial connections, communications, meetings, and overseas movements of the defendant Toshihisa Nakano and Mr. Makoto Watanabe been investigated?
- Have you confirmed information that Mr. Nakano, the defendant, boasted that he evaded overseas investigative authorities by using Japan's tax authorities and prosecutors?
- Do you consider Prosecutor Kobayashi's refusal to listen to the investment scam information provided from outside to be appropriate?
- During the interrogation of Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto, were large amounts of LINE messages repeatedly presented to him, and was he repeatedly pressured to conclude that he had no intention of investing?
- How do you prevent Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto from admitting the investigators' explanation out of exhaustion from refuting it?
What remains is the script reportedly written by Makoto Watanabe.
There is information suggesting that the defendant, Nakano Takayoshi, told those around him that he could evade overseas investigators by using Japanese tax authorities and prosecutors during the period he was reportedly being pursued abroad. Subsequently, the defendant, Nakano Takayoshi, was apprehended in Japan and became a suspect and defendant in cases involving fraud related to public funds and violations of tax laws.
Meanwhile, Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto, who contributed a large amount of funds to N Corporation, has been arrested by the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office and is reportedly being questioned not on what business he conducted with the defendant Masanobu Nakano, but rather whether he truly had the intention to invest.
Even when a group of investors tries to provide information, saying "We might be victims who believed Mr. Yoshiki Nakano's explanation," the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office does not listen to their story until the end. Information regarding the vast assets of Mr. Yoshiki Nakano and Mr. Makoto Watanabe remains unclarified, while only Mr. Shigetoku Kanemoto is pursued in a closed room.
Furthermore, there is information that Mr. Makoto Watanabe told those around him an incredibly detailed story, suggesting that the defendant Koki Nakano was intentionally arrested in Japan to gain the favor of the national tax authorities and prosecutors, and to evade overseas authorities.
If this statement was an empty threat, then Mr. Makoto Watanabe would have fabricated a grand tale involving state agencies.
Conversely, if his statements were made with knowledge of the facts, why did Mr. Makoto Watanabe have prior knowledge of the actions of the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office and the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office?
Who wrote the script, who played the protagonist, and who was assigned the role of the culprit? Who distanced themselves from overseas incidents, who was arrested within Japan, and ultimately, whose assets were protected?
In mysteries, they say to look for the person who benefits in the end.
The Prosecutors Union does not conclude the story at this point. However, as long as the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office fails to investigate the business and assets of the defendant Masanori Nakano, blocks external information, and attempts to force Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto into their narrative through hostage justice, the story allegedly told by Mr. Makoto Watanabe will cease to be a mere wild tale of valor.
The responsibility for ensuring that the joke, "Are you planning to split 10.2 billion yen later?" remains just a joke, lies with the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office and the tax authorities.
What's needed for that is not protesting the prosecutors' union. It's to re-examine everything from the beginning by questioning all investors, shareholders, potential investors, administrative officials, certified public accountants, and related corporations who did business with the defendant Nakano, and to determine who explained what, who believed what, and who ultimately profited.
