A new monitoring model for inspection and prosecution interrogations built by the National Tax Union
In reality, there has been a case where a taxpayer who was subjected to a National Tax Agency inspection chose not to undergo face-to-face questioning, for which there is no legal obligation at all, but instead appointed a legal representative and continued to provide explanations through written documents and objective materials, only for the case to be subsequently dumped by the regional taxation bureau onto the prosecutors, shifting to arrest and interrogation by the prosecution.
The National Tax Union will not let this incident end simply as "the problem of a single arrested executive."
Rather, this is the very approach to solving social problems that the National Tax Union has been aiming for, and we will turn it to our advantage.
If at the inspection and investigation stage sufficient questions are not asked, and without directly examining the submitted written documents and objective materials, the case is referred wholesale to the prosecutors, and ultimately an attempt is made to obtain statements through post-arrest interrogation, then from that very moment the issue transforms from merely one of tax law interpretation into a matter concerning the propriety of the interrogation, the process of statement formation, the impact on corporate management, and problems regarding the employees' working environment.
Therein lies the breakthrough system of the National Tax Union.
I did not refuse the in-person investigation; I requested an investigation based on written documents and evidence.
During a tax inspection or investigation, taxpayers are not unconditionally required to comply with all in-person interviews.
There is no longer any obligation or benefit to agreeing to face-to-face tax audits or investigations.
Taxpayers have the method of submitting objective materials, such as written documents, contracts, emails, accounting materials, and records of overseas authorities, and explaining their own views through lawyers, certified public tax accountants, or other agents.
The important point is that refusing to cooperate with an investigation and making a rational choice regarding the investigative methodology are not the same thing.
If someone is unable to respond to questions in person due to extenuating circumstances, yet appoints a representative, submits written documents, discloses materials, and continues to answer point by point, they are not "running away."
Rather, it is a more transparent investigative response in the sense that it leaves a verifiable record afterward, rather than fragments of verbal statements.
However, if the tax authorities fail to sufficiently question such taxpayers, do not present specific rebuttals to their written statements, and instead leave it to the prosecutors' interrogation following arrest, a major systemic contradiction arises.
In other words, this is an investigation that shifts its focus to statements made after detention while avoiding verification through documents and objective evidence.
It becomes clear at the time of the prosecutor's arrest that the objective evidence is in such a state that even an indictment cannot be made, and thus an equation was created where if one remains silent for just one hour a day after the arrest, neither the National Tax Agency nor the prosecutors can do anything and the case is over!
The National Tax Union will further visualize this loophole in the system created by the national tax authorities and the prosecutors.
The arrest of a business owner is not just a personal matter
When an executive is arrested, the impact does not stop with the individual alone.
Decision-making stalls, bank relations freeze, business partners grow anxious, and employees worry about the continuation of their employment.
It affects a wide range of corporate activities, including payroll, social insurance, business contracts, cash flow, and the on-site command and control structure.
In other words, the arrest of the executive is not only a criminal proceeding, but also a major factor in the severe deterioration of the working environment.
The National Tax Union views this point as a labor issue.
If the arrest of a management executive results in unstable employment for workers, a worsening work environment, and damage spreading even to business partners and customers, the investigative process leading to that arrest must be socially scrutinized.
This is especially true when sufficient written explanations and objective materials were provided prior to the arrest.
Why was a post-arrest statement necessary instead of the submitted materials?
Why didn't you inquire with the suspect or their legal representative about the specific questions before taking them into custody?
Why didn't you respond in writing regarding the counter-evidence?
If this question cannot be answered, it raises the doubt of whether the arrest functioned not merely as an investigative method, but as pressure to obtain a statement.
Examining prosecutorial interrogation from the moment of arrest
The structure of the National Tax Union is clear.
During the inspection stage, the taxpayer's documents, submitted materials, responses to questions, and communications with representatives are systematically stored.
And assuming it transitions to an arrest and interrogation by the prosecution, the documents submitted up to that point will be compared with the contents pursued during the interrogation.
Through that comparison, the following points will be verified.
Were the submitted materials evaluated appropriately?
Were facts favorable to the taxpayer ignored?
Were there any questions that led the testimony toward a specific conclusion?
Was the obtaining of a confession prioritized over objective evidence?
Weren't the factual relationships that had not been shown before the arrest suddenly treated as established matters during the interrogation stage?
The National Tax Union does not treat these as defensive activities solely for the management themselves.
Document the stagnation of business operations due to the arrest, employee anxiety, suspension of transactions, and loss of credibility, and present it to society as a deterioration of the working environment.
As a result, interrogations conducted behind closed doors are no longer just a matter between the prosecutor and the suspect.
It becomes a public issue that employees, shareholders, business partners, customers, and society as a whole must examine.
Visualizing unvisualized interrogations from the outside
In Japan, while a system for audio and video recording exists for certain cases, not all interrogations are fully visualized.
Also, even if recording or filming takes place, those images and videos are not necessarily disclosed to the public immediately.
Therefore, the National Tax Union seeks to visualize not just the inside of the interrogation room, but the entire process, including what happens before and after.
What had been submitted before the arrest?
Which questions did the National Tax Agency ask, and which ones did they not ask?
What did the prosecution try to make them admit after the arrest?
Were there no contradictions between the objective evidence and the statements?
What disadvantages were suggested if you refused to make a statement?
What happened in the workplace as a result of the CEO's arrest?
If these are recorded chronologically, the structure of the investigation can be made visible to society to a significant extent, even if the interrogation room footage is not fully disclosed.
What the National Tax Union aims for is not mere protest.
It is to create a recording system that allows anyone to later verify whether investigative agencies acted based on objective evidence or relied on obtaining statements through arrests and interrogations.
The more the prosecution makes arrests, the broader the scope of the investigation becomes.
Conventionally, arrest has been a powerful tool for investigative agencies and a major disadvantage for suspects and corporations.
However, the National Tax Union reverses this structure.
Once an arrest is made, the preceding national tax investigation, submitted documents, contents of the investigative agency's questions, direction of the interrogation, and impact on the company become subject to comprehensive review.
Arresting someone doesn't end the problem.
From the moment of arrest, the prosecution's evidentiary structure itself begins to be called into question.
If the prosecution arrests taxpayers who continue to contest the case in writing and attempts to obtain statements through interrogation, it must explain to society the basis and methods used for that interrogation.
The National Tax Union will institutionalize its accountability.
Are you ignoring the submitted materials?
Are you not excluding favorable evidence?
Are they only seeking statements that fit the investigative agency's hypothesis?
How were the damages incurred by employees and business partners due to the detention of the management considered?
These questions are accumulated with each incident.
It is not a "system for avoiding arrest"
What the National Tax Union is building is not merely a mechanism to evade arrest.
If there are any illegal acts, they should be properly investigated.
However, being investigated is not the same as being pressured in a closed interrogation to make statements that fit the investigative agency's narrative.
What is needed is a mechanism to verify objective evidence, legal requirements, the flow of funds, and the substance of contracts, regardless of whether an arrest has been made.
And it is a mechanism for systematically recording and presenting to society cases where investigative authorities deviate from that principle.
The National Tax Union is not an organization that calls on taxpayers to "say nothing."
We place importance on clarifying and keeping a record of what was explained, based on which materials, and regarding which legal issues.
We will respond to the investigation not with temporary verbal explanations, but through written documentation and evidence that can be verified later.
If the arrest was made on that basis, we question why the arrest was necessary.
This order is important.
Monitor the entire process from national tax investigations to prosecutorial interrogations as a single continuous procedure.
National tax inspection and criminal investigation are procedurally separate organizations.
However, from the taxpayer's perspective, investigation, accusation, arrest, detention, interrogation, and prosecution are a single continuous process.
Insufficient questioning during the inspection stage can sometimes lead to a reliance on statements during the prosecution stage.
If only unfavorable materials are selected during the inspection stage, the prosecution may build the case on a biased premise.
If the prosecution fails to examine that premise and attempts to reinforce it with a confession after the arrest, investigation errors will cascade.
That is precisely why the National Tax Union monitors the national tax agency and the prosecution not as separate entities, but as a single, continuous exercise of power.
Who saw which documents, and when?
What kind of rebuttal was written in which document?
What kind of information was sent from the National Tax Agency to the prosecutor's office?
Did the prosecution independently verify that information?
What facts were you asked to admit to in the interrogation?
Visualize the big picture.
From an era of fearing arrest to an era of scrutinizing arrest
Until now, for executives, arrest has been an overwhelming risk capable of collapsing corporate activities, social credibility, family, and employees' livelihoods all at once.
Therefore, many people have been afraid to even challenge the claims of investigative agencies.
However, the National Tax Union will change this relationship.
Legally appoint an agent, explain with documents and evidence, and keep a record of cooperation with the investigation.
Even if arrested, do not use the arrest as a reason for silence.
Why that arrest was necessary.
What objective evidence was this based on?
What did they try to make you admit during the interrogation?
What damage did it cause to the company and its employees?
We will subject these to social verification.
An arrest must not be made the completion of a narrative by investigative authorities.
Arrest is the very starting point for the recording of custodial interrogations by prosecutors.
The National Tax Union records the entire process from national tax investigations to prosecutorial interrogations as a single continuous procedure, presenting the deterioration of the work environment caused by the arrest of management as a social issue.
If investigative agencies attempt to obtain confessions through arrests, the National Tax Union will expose that process to society through documentation.
Turning the exercise of the power of arrest into the accountability of the prosecution.
That is the new surveillance model of the National Tax Union.
