Does the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office also have an organizational culture that produces "junk" assessment reports?
There has been another report that cannot be overlooked regarding harassment within the prosecution service and the organizational culture that forces subordinates to conform to their superiors' interpretations of cases.
FNN Prime Online reported on August 4, 2026, that a former prosecutor's testimony was released, stating that a senior prosecutor told him, "You're a failure," and demanded that he draft investigation records according to the senior prosecutor's assessment. The person accused of being the perpetrator reportedly resigned without being disciplined.
https://www.fnn.jp/articles/-/1088022
https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/4db4f322b69377e77f7d3b3cedb3197a10c5b029
https://news.ntv.co.jp/category/society/f5b64fefb1f94732bb9ad26167f5f8ed
This isn't just a workplace argument. It's an accusation that a superior insulted a subordinate and, at the same time, demanded that the investigation report be tailored to the superior's preconceived notion of the incident, rather than to facts derived from evidence.
And now, the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office has also received information that suggests the same structure.
The supervisor pressures the prosecutor, saying, "Produce results" and "Obtain a confession that aligns with your assessment," and that prosecutor then transfers the pressure to the suspect in custody. If the expected confession isn't obtained, the supervisor appears in the interrogation room on a Saturday and asks, "Do you dislike me?" inquiring about their own evaluation.
Is this criminal justice, or is it a giant workplace harassment game of telephone, with pressure flowing down from superiors to subordinates to suspects?
Kanemoto Shigenori has remained silent, and it is said that his mental burden has been lightened.
And currently, at the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office, information that suggests this same structure is being received as voices of harassment from the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office. It might even be a cry of anguish from Prosecutor Yamaguchi himself.
According to information received by the Prosecutors' Union, Shigenori Kanemoto has decided to remain silent during interrogations, which sought statements aligning with the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office's case narrative.
After that, the prosecutor's intense questioning significantly decreased, and Mr. Kanemoto Shigenori himself is said to have felt considerably more at ease mentally.
The mere fact that questioning decreased after a defendant invoked their right to remain silent does not automatically mean the prior interrogations were illegal. It is also possible that the need for further questioning diminished because the intent to refuse to make a statement became clear.
However, at the very least, when my explanations were repeatedly rejected because they differed from the prosecution's assessment and the same questions were asked repeatedly, it can be inferred that remaining silent became a realistic means of protecting my mental state.
While continuing to confess, I was pursued, and when I remained silent, I felt relieved. If this is the direct experience of the person who underwent interrogation, then the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office should examine whether that interrogation was a place to hear the truth, or a place that continued until the prosecution obtained the words it wanted.
Prosecutor Yamaguchi came on Saturday for a "casual chat."
However, even after substantive questioning decreased due to his silence, prosecutor Yamaguchi is said to have visited Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto on a Saturday.
Information submitted to the Prosecutors' Union states that Prosecutor Yamaguchi said he had "come to chat" and asked questions to the following effect:
How was your interrogation by the prosecutor?
What image do you have of the prosecution?
What are your thoughts on the future?
Aren't you curious about what's happening outside?
Do you hate me?
Do you consider the police to be enemies?
Do I not need to come anymore? Even if you say I don't need to come, I will still come.
It is reported that Kanamoto Shigenori responded that he is fine because he has left matters concerning the outside to his lawyer, and regarding the future, he tries not to think about it too much because it becomes painful to expect to be able to go outside.
Also, when asked, "Do you dislike me?", it is reported that he replied, "I can't help it for work, but I like you as a person."
Finally, Prosecutor Yamaguchi asked Mr. Kanemoto Shigenori, "Is it okay if I don't come anymore?" and Mr. Kanemoto replied, "It's okay if you don't come."
The suspect is not the HR department that conducts the prosecutor's 360-degree evaluation.
Small talk itself is not necessarily inappropriate. It can be meaningful to check the suspect's physical and mental condition and to ease the tension of the interrogation.
However, for what purpose was the conversation that was conveyed this time conducted?
If it's an investigation to confirm the facts of the case, you would question specific facts such as contracts, remittances, administrative inquiries, service provisions, explanations from Mr. Nakano Toshiyoshi, and so on.
If the interview is to explain future procedures, they should clearly state the extent to which they can explain matters such as detention, disposition, and interrogations.
If the interview is to check your physical and mental condition, it should cover sleep, diet, health, medication, contact with your lawyer, and any difficulties you are experiencing within the facility.
However, at its core are questions that ascertain how Prosecutor Yamaguchi is perceived, such as "What is your impression of the prosecution?", "Do you dislike me?", and "Can you stop coming here?".
Kanemoto Shigenori is a suspect who has been taken into custody and faces the possibility of criminal proceedings. He is not a superior who conducts performance reviews for prosecutor Yamaguchi, a colleague who answers the workplace environment survey, or a counselor who cares for prosecutors' mental well-being.
Do not use the interrogation room for prosecutor 360-degree evaluation interviews.
"I meant to be flat," the suspect's self-defense.
Prosecutor Yamaguchi is said to have further stated the following.
As for me, I don't intend to put Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto at any particular disadvantage, and I believe I have handled the situation neutrally.
There are things I can do and things I can't, but I believe I've done my best to be supportive.
I wanted to help Mr. Kanemoto Shigenori, but I think it became like this because I wasn't strong enough.
If this is accurate, it is a review and self-assessment of Prosecutor Yamaguchi's work, rather than a factual verification by investigators.
"I intended to be neutral," "I intended to be supportive," and "I was not good enough," I will explain to the suspect, and further ask, "Do you dislike me?"
Is this an interrogation by a prosecutor of a suspect? Or is the person being evaluated and the evaluator completely reversed?
If prosecutor Yamaguchi truly handled the situation neutrally without disadvantaging Mr. Kanemoto Shigenori, then its appropriateness will be judged not by his "intention," but by the examination of the recorded and filmed interrogation, the questions asked, the materials presented, the written statements, and the handling of objective evidence.
Criminal investigations are not judged by the declaration of feelings.
Perhaps Prosecutor Yamaguchi is also being called "useless" by his superiors.
Here, it's unavoidable that the general reader, upon reading this "clunker" report, will have a mean-spirited thought.
Isn't Prosecutor Yamaguchi also being pressured by his superiors, who are saying things like, "Get a statement," "Make them admit they're bad," "How long are you going to let them stay silent," and "You're useless"?
Therefore, on Saturday, when the suspect remained silent and substantive investigations stalled, they appeared before Shigenori Kanemoto and asked, "Do you dislike me?" and "Is it okay if you don't come anymore?" to confirm.
Of course, the Prosecutors' Union has not confirmed any information indicating that Prosecutor Yamaguchi was called "clunker" or similar by his superior, received power harassment, or made an internal report.
Therefore, this is not a statement of fact, but an ironic question that arises when juxtaposing the current reporting with Public Prosecutor Yamaguchi's inexplicable meeting.
However, if there truly is a culture within the prosecution service where subordinates who cannot perform are called "useless" and are pressured to create investigation records that align with their superiors' views, there is no guarantee that this pressure will not be brought into the interrogation room.
A prosecutor, cornered by their boss, takes out their desperation on a suspect. When the suspect remains silent and no progress is made, the prosecutor then goes to check if the suspect dislikes them.
If this is an internal matter of the prosecution, the person Prosecutor Yamaguchi should consult is not Mr. Shigetoku Kanemoto. He should consult the Ministry of Justice's harassment consultation service or an independent third-party organization.
Was there a report of power harassment from Prosecutor Yamaguchi?
If you only hear that Prosecutor Yamaguchi visited on Saturday for casual conversation and asked if he was disliked, how his actions were evaluated, and if he could continue visiting, it might sound as if Prosecutor Yamaguchi himself was troubled by some kind of workplace pressure and was venting his frustrations in front of a suspect.
So, I'll ask the Yokohama District Public Prosecutor's Office directly.
Was there any consultation or report made to Prosecutor Yamaguchi or the person in charge of this case regarding harassment such as scolding by a supervisor, insults, excessive demands for achievement, instructions to obtain specific statements, or other forms of harassment?
I am not stating that a report was made.
However, this comes shortly after reports of new accusations that he was disparaged as "junk" within the prosecution and pressured by his superiors to produce a written statement that aligned with their views. It is worth investigating whether there was any systemic pressure behind Prosecutor Yamaguchi's inexplicable behavior, rather than dismissing it as the eccentric ramblings of an individual.
If Prosecutor Yamaguchi is a victim of power harassment, they should be appropriately protected.
However, it is not permissible to transfer that stress and pressure for results onto Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto, who is in custody, and to resolve it by obtaining his testimony or confirming his favorability towards oneself.
Even if someone tells you "You don't have to come," is coming to them considered showing support?
Prosecutor Yamaguchi stated, "You don't need to come anymore. Even if you say I don't need to come, I will still come," and it is reported that Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto responded, "You don't need to come."
If this exchange is accurate, the distance is also inexplicable.
If the interrogation is necessary for the investigation, it is not the type of situation that would be stopped simply because the suspect said "you don't need to come." Conversely, if it is merely casual conversation or a personal emotional check, there is no reasonable justification to continue visiting after the person has stated that you don't need to come.
It's unclear why the interview was conducted, as the purpose is mixed: Is it an investigation, a health check, casual conversation, or a meeting for Prosecutor Yamaguchi to sort out his own feelings?
The word "yori-so-u" (to be close to someone) is convenient, but continuing to visit someone when they don't want it cannot be called "yori-so-u."
Even if you're told not to come, showing up isn't so much about being there for someone as it is a mishap with boundaries.
If it's really flat, you don't need to make the target person say bad things.
Information has also been received that the Prosecutor's Union previously stated that Prosecutor Yamaguchi told Mr. Shigetoku Kanemoto that if he did not testify that Mr. Kanemoto was the target that the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office was trying to concentrate on, then Mr. Kanemoto himself would become the worst person.
How do these statements, and your explanation that "I intended to respond neutrally" and "I wanted to help Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto," reconcile with each other?
Even if you explain that you didn't intend to put Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto in a disadvantageous position by presenting a false dilemma of "either you say the target is bad, or you are the worst," it is objectively inconsistent.
If the investigation is truly neutral, there's no need to point fingers. You just need to listen to what Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto actually saw and heard, and then cross-reference that information with administrative inquiry records, contracts, remittance records, service provision documents, Mr. Takayoshi Nakano's electronic data, and other evidence.
Even if the prosecutor themselves initially presents the criminal role, explaining to the suspect "I intended to be neutral" does not prove that they were neutral.
The investigation into perceived workplace harassment within the prosecution service and these separate issues are not unrelated.
What's particularly important in the memoir of a former prosecutor called a "failure" is the point that he was not only a victim of mere verbal abuse but was also allegedly asked to create investigation records that aligned with his senior prosecutor's assessment.
Harassment and improper investigations are not separate occurrences.
In workplaces where you cannot contradict your boss, you also cannot contradict their assessment of a situation. If you question your boss's assessment, you'll be judged as incompetent, unmotivated, or useless.
As a result, subordinate prosecutors will focus more on creating confession statements that their superiors want, rather than verifying objective evidence.
And if the suspect or witness refuses to give the statement the prosecutor wants, the pressure will be directed further down.
Power harassment within the prosecution is not just a labor issue for employees. It is a criminal justice issue that directly affects citizens' statements under interrogation, arrests, indictments, and trial outcomes.
Can an organization that has experienced a series of information leaks be solely entrusted with an internal investigation?
This FNN report states that not only improper relations by prosecutors, but also information leaks to the outside have been exposed.
Regarding this matter at the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office, the Prosecutors' Union has received reports that specific information, which seemingly could only be known by investigative authorities, had been circulated among multiple stakeholders before the news broke.
Since not all documents that can publicly confirm the source and route of the leak have been disclosed, it is not possible at this time to conclude that a specific official from the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office leaked the information.
However, if the points of interrogation, the alleged statements of the prosecutor, the investigative team's assessment, and even the suspect's movements before the arrest have been leaked externally, it strongly suggests the flow of information from within or around the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office.
Will the prosecution investigate and conclude that there are no problems with harassment within its own organization, the creation of records according to assumptions, and the leakage of information, all by itself?
It is only natural that those claiming to be victims would call for a third-party committee, stating that an internal investigation would be meaningless.
Open questions to the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office
- The purpose of Prosecutor Yamaguchi's visit to Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto on Saturday was for an interrogation, a check on his health, an explanation of procedures, or casual conversation.
- Was this interview conducted with your supervisor's instruction or approval?
- Has the entire interview process been recorded via audio and video, with notes taken during the interrogation, interview records, or other documentation?
- What was the investigative or procedural necessity for asking "What is your image of the prosecution?" and "Do you dislike me?"
- The prosecutor Yamaguchi explained that he "intended to respond neutrally" and that he "lacked the ability." What was the purpose of his explanation?
- After Mr. Kanemoto Shigenori decided to remain silent, is it true that the frequency of interrogations or the content of the pursuit significantly decreased?
- Were you instructed or pressured by your superiors to obtain specific statements from prosecutor Yamaguchi or the person in charge of this case, to elicit an admission of responsibility from the target individual, or to achieve specific investigative outcomes?
- Was there any consultation or report made to Prosecutor Yamaguchi or the person in charge of this case regarding verbal abuse, insults, excessive performance demands, or other forms of power harassment by a supervisor?
- Was a statement made to the effect that "If the target is not deemed bad, then Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto would be the worst person"?
- Have you investigated the channels through which information prior to Mr. Kanemoto Shigenori's arrest, interrogation details, presented documents, prosecutor's statements, and the investigative team's assessment were leaked externally?
- Are you preserving the terminal, communication records, access history to case records, and contact status with press club members of the person in charge of this matter?
- Will you accept an review by a higher authority or a third party, independent of the department responsible for the incident?
Kanamoto Shigenori is not a mental health caregiver for prosecutor Yamaguchi.
If Prosecutor Yamaguchi is under any pressure from his superiors, he should consult the appropriate channels and be protected as an organization.
If Prosecutor Yamaguchi believes he has performed his duties with integrity, he can demonstrate that appropriateness through the interrogation records and objective evidence.
However, it is wrong to ask for an evaluation of one's work performance from Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto, who is in custody, by saying things like, "Do you dislike me?", "I tried to be there for you," or "I wasn't strong enough."
The suspect is not being held in custody to encourage the prosecutor.
There is no obligation to acknowledge the prosecutor's feelings, offer a favorable assessment, or console a prosecutor who may have been reprimanded by their superior.
If there are no effective questions about the incident, no specific explanation of the procedures, and no confirmation of objective evidence, then why was it necessary to visit on Saturday?
If you were told "You don't need to come," then the next thing you should bring to Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto is not the prosecutor's self-evaluation.
Objective evidence verifying administrative inquiry records, contracts, remittances, service provision records, and the statement of NAKANO Jakki.
The prosecutors should be investigating the suspect's favorability, not the suspect's likeability.
A report revealed accusations that a senior prosecutor called them "a wreck" and demanded a written statement that aligned with their superior's assessment.
At the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office, after Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto began to remain silent, Prosecutor Yamaguchi is said to have stated on Saturday that he "came to chat" and asked, "Do you dislike me?"
There is no evidence to conclude that there is a direct relationship between the two.
However, the organizational culture of insulting subordinates and forcing them to comply, and the prosecutor who, unable to obtain the expected testimony from the suspect, comes to confirm their feelings towards themselves, do not seem like unrelated issues.
If prosecutors who cannot create investigation reports that align with expectations are blamed within the organization, and if that prosecutor then shifts pressure onto the suspect, then prosecutorial harassment issues are not confined to outside the interrogation room.
It is being reproduced as suggestive questioning in the interrogation room.
What the prosecutor should investigate is not whether Kanemoto Shigenori likes or dislikes Prosecutor Yamaguchi.
Who did what, what objective evidence exists, and whether the prosecution's narrative truly aligns with the facts.
