We hate prosecutors who could not question Shigenori Kanemoto, who reported to authorities every week, and instead coerce confessions out of him after his arrest.
It is alleged that Prosecutor Yamaguchi of the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office visited Shigenori Kanemoto on Saturday and asked, "Do you hate me?"
Mr. Shigenori Kanamoto reportedly answered, "While I cannot help it in terms of work, I like him as a person." Even while in custody and facing a prosecutor who held the power to determine his fate, he was able to separate the person's character from their duties and gave a considerate response.
Now, as the Prosecutors Union, we will answer the same question.
We dislike the prosecutor's professional attitude shown in this case.
We are not discussing Prosecutor Yamaguchi's personal private life or character. All members of our union detest the way the investigation was conducted—whereby Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto faithfully responded to prosecutors' summonses on a weekly basis, even before his arrest, and traveled all the way to the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office in good faith, yet was arrested without the necessary factual verification being performed and without even clarifying which acts violated which laws, only to be pressured afterward into making statements aligned with the prosecution's scenario.
I am not saying "I hate it" based purely on emotion.
According to information obtained by the prosecutors' union, before his arrest, Shigenori Kanamoto did not ignore summonses from the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office. He reportedly responded to the prosecutors' requests almost every week and went to the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office on his own accord.
It means that there were repeated opportunities to hear the circumstances directly from the person concerned in any state of affairs.
However, it is said that during that period, the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office failed to sufficiently present the core legal question of this case to Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto.
Which act of Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto corresponds to which constituent requirements of which law? Which contract is considered to be a sham? On what basis is it determined that he recognized which administrative response as false? Which part of the consulting provided by Company N is considered not to have existed? With whom, when, and what kind of crime is he viewed to have conspired to commit?
Isn't it an investigation to ask these questions specifically and cross-check the person's answers with contracts, remittances, stocks, administrative inquiries, service provision materials, and other evidence?
Instead of doing that, after arresting and detaining the suspect, the investigative side repeatedly asks the same questions—such as "Didn't you think it was wrong?", "Deep down, didn't you know it wasn't an investment?", and "Didn't you think your principal would be returned?"—directing them toward the conclusion the investigators desire.
You can't tell me there are no reasons other than emotion for hating this method.
It is strange how prosecutors who couldn't ask questions before the arrest suddenly become so tough only after the arrest.
Was Shigenori Kanemoto a person who could not be reached unless arrested?
If the information that he was responding to weekly summonses is correct, the Yokohama District Prosecutors Office could have asked necessary questions, requested the submission of materials, and confirmed contradictions in his explanations even before the arrest.
Nevertheless, if they did not specify any legal issues at any stage and only intensified their pursuit after physical restraint was applied, wasn't what the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office needed not an opportunity to have their questions answered?
This raises the suspicion that they may have tried to obtain a statement that could not be obtained while the person was free to go home, by placing them in a state where they could not return home.
Arrest and detention are not tools to compensate for a lack of questioning ability.
If a prosecutor, who failed to ask what needed to be asked before an arrest, suddenly starts repeating only the same conclusion after the arrest, it does not mean their investigative skills have improved. It simply means the suspect can no longer go home.
Which act violates which law or regulation?
In criminal cases, what should fundamentally be questioned is simple.
Who performed what action, when, and where, which constitutive requirements of which laws that action fulfills, and by what evidence those facts are to be proven.
However, the questions allegedly being asked to Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto in this case are skewed toward seeking impressions and current evaluations, such as "Did you think it was bad?", "Did you think the principal would be returned?", and "Did you recognize it as an investment?".
The question "Did you think it was wrong?" is not a question to confirm legal intent.
The sense of incongruity regarding the large amount of money, post-transaction regret, and current moral evaluation must be distinguished from the awareness of the specific facts required to establish a crime.
If the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office is questioning the intent or conspiracy to evade taxes, it should at least specify the following matters.
- Which specific facts did Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto recognize to be false?
- Which administrative response did you know was incorrect?
- Which contract or share acquisition did you recognize as lacking substance?
- How did you know that any of the consulting services supposedly provided by Company N did not exist?
- Regarding the return of the principal, with whom, when, and what kind of legal agreement was made?
- With whom, which crime, and with what division of roles did they conspire?
If you do not show this and simply keep repeating "Do you think it's bad?", this is not an interrogation by a legal professional.
It is a predetermined questionnaire that can be continued until you agree with the prosecutor's impressions.
Has the interrogation after the arrest become "single-minded"?
An investigation requires multiple hypotheses.
The possibility that the administrative inquiry was genuine and investors believed it was legal. The possibility that Mr. Toshiyuki Nakano exaggerated or falsified the administrative response. The possibility that actual investments and consulting existed. The possibility that there was another issue with the fund transfer after the investment. The possibility that the investors themselves were aware of the falsity.
Comparing these with evidence and choosing the most rational set of facts is what an investigation is.
However, if from the beginning you hold only a single conclusion—that "it was not an investment," "there was no consulting," "the principal was guaranteed," or "Shigenori Kanameta or the target person is at fault"—and you simply repeat questions until Shigenori Kanameta acknowledges that conclusion, that is not a multifaceted investigation.
It is a single-celled type of interrogation where the same reaction is given to every stimulus.
If Shigenori Kanemoto offers a different explanation, instead of verifying that explanation, the same question is asked again. If objective evidence contradicts the investigators' hypothesis, rather than revising the hypothesis, the person who presented the evidence is cast as a new suspect.
There is no reason for our union to highly evaluate such investigation methods.
Why did the pursuit decrease when Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto remained silent?
According to information submitted to the prosecutors' union, after Shigenori Kanamoto switched to remaining silent, strong questioning from the prosecution decreased significantly, and his own mental burden was also alleviated.
The mere fact that questions decreased after remaining silent does not allow the conclusion that the prior interrogations were illegal. It is also possible that investigators reduced the number of questions because it became clear that no answers would be obtained.
However, if the questioning continued to demand answers fitting the prosecution's narrative before the right to remain silent was exercised, and interrogation practically ceased once that right was exercised, we must consider what was actually being demanded prior to that point.
When it comes to questions for checking objective evidence, even after remaining silent, you can examine administrative officials, document preparers, related parties, electronic data, remittance records, and other evidence.
If the goal was to get specific words out of Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto, there would be nothing left to do the moment he remained silent.
The process by which the interrogation stopped due to the decision to remain silent suggests the possibility that the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office relied too heavily on statements rather than evidence.
And on Saturday, "Do you hate me?"
After the effective questions decreased, Prosecutor Yamaguchi reportedly visited Shigenori Kanemoto on a Saturday and stated that he had come for a chat.
There, Prosecutor Yamaguchi reportedly asked what he thought of the prosecutor's interrogation, what image he had of the prosecution, whether he was worried about the outside world, how he was thinking about his future, whether he considered the police an enemy, and "Do you hate me?"
I cannot explain which acts violate which laws. The questioning of the official who provided the administrative response is also insufficient. There is also no visible verification of Mr. Tamaki Nakano's electronic data and overseas travel records.
However, I will make sure of one thing: whether the suspect likes me or hates me.
What is the priority order of the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office?
What prosecutors need to check is not how much the suspect likes them, but objective evidence supporting the crime.
Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto's answer was kind, but our union's answer is different.
It is said that Shigenori Kanemoto was asked by Prosecutor Yamaguchi, "Do you hate me?", and replied, "I have to tolerate you for work, but I like you as a person."
It is an extremely moderate and mature response.
However, the prosecutors' union does not feel the need to respond with equal gentleness.
All members of our union detest the way the prosecutor in this case has handled their work.
The reason is clear.
Because they did not ask the necessary questions before the arrest to the person who had been responding to weekly summons. Because it does not specifically indicate which acts violate which laws and regulations. Because there is no sign that administrative inquiries, service provisions, contracts, shares, remittances, and Mr. Nakano's explanations were sufficiently verified through objective evidence.
And this is because there is a suspicion that, after making it impossible for them to return home by arresting them, they are being pressured to confess in line with the investigative authorities' scenario.
Furthermore, because they could not obtain the expected statement and the suspect remained silent, they then visited for casual conversation on Saturday and asked the suspect to confirm their feelings by asking, "Do you hate me?"
This is not an ad hominem attack.
This is our union's frank assessment of the official duties performed as a prosecutor.
I am criticizing the nature of the prosecutor's work, not their personality.
The prosecutors' union does not know what kind of person Prosecutor Yamaguchi is to his family and friends. It is possible that he is a kind person in his daily life.
However, prosecutors do not come to the interrogation room to be liked as private individuals.
I have come to exercise state power and perform duties that have a significant impact on a person's freedom, honor, property, and life.
That is precisely why that position must face harsher criticism than an ordinary office worker.
Subjective self-assessments like "I intended to treat everyone equally," "I meant to be supportive," and "I didn't mean to put anyone at a disadvantage" are not enough.
We must review all audio and video recordings of interrogations, questioning contents, presented materials, interrogation protocols, administrative inquiry records, and the handling of evidence favorable and unfavorable to Mr. Toshiyuki Nakano, and evaluate them objectively.
Instead of saying "Confess or I'll arrest you," please explain with evidence.
This article does not conclude solely on its own that Shigenori Kanemoto is innocent. It is also possible that the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office will prove the criminal facts in the future through sufficient objective evidence.
That is precisely why we should present the evidence and conduct the investigation logically.
A person who had been cooperating voluntarily was arrested, and after the arrest, evaluative questions were repeatedly asked. When they remained silent, the questioning decreased. Based on this sequence of events alone, it is impossible to dispel the suspicion that the prosecution was not building a case through evidence, but rather using physical detention to extract a confession.
A prosecutor's job is not to question a suspect until they break down.
to gather objective evidence so compelling that the case holds up even if the suspect remains silent.
Open questions to the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office
- Is it true that before his arrest, Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto responded to summonses from the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office almost every week?
- At the stage of the voluntary questioning, what specific laws and elements of the offense were presented to Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto?
- Did you specifically ask which contracts, administrative responses, provision of services, or money transfers were at issue before the arrest?
- What questions could not be asked because they could not be confirmed in a voluntary questioning, and therefore could only be asked after the arrest?
- What were the specific circumstances that led to the determination that Shigenori Kanemoto must be arrested to prevent the destruction of evidence or flight?
- During the post-arrest interrogation, how many times were evaluative questions asked, such as "Did you think it was wrong?" or "Did you think the principal would be returned?"
- Have you explained to Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto regarding which specific requirement of which law or regulation the intent is being confirmed?
- Is it true that after Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto turned to silence, the frequency or pursuit of interrogations decreased significantly?
- If the pursuit was reduced by remaining silent, wasn't what was needed in the interrogations prior to that confessions rather than objective facts?
- Is it true that Prosecutor Yamaguchi stated on Saturday that he "came to chat" and asked, "Do you hate me?"
- What was the necessity for that question in terms of investigation or treatment?
- Are you preserving the audio and video recordings, questions, presented materials, and break conditions for all of Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto's interrogations?
- Will you accept an investigation review by a position independent from the department in charge of the incident?
If you want me to like you, please conduct a proper investigation.
If Prosecutor Yamaguchi wants the suspect not to dislike him, there is no need to ask about his favorability rating.
We will ask necessary questions to the person who has been responding to summons even before their arrest. We will explain which actions violate which laws and regulations. We will also examine evidence that contradicts the prosecution's theory. We will investigate information that is unfavorable to Mr. Takuoki Nakano with the same level of enthusiasm as the information favorable to him.
Verify Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto's contracts, remittances, stock ownership, administrative responses, and service provision records at the time of investment, rather than his current impressions. Gather objective evidence that can prove the case even if the suspect remains silent.
If you can do that, at least you won't be criticized as a "prosecutor without logic."
Conversely, if a voluntarily attending person is not asked necessary questions, only the same conclusion is repeated after arrest, and when they remain silent, the interrogation shifts to casual conversation and asks, "Do you hate me?", then the answer from the Prosecutors Union remains unchanged.
Yes. We hate that way you do your job as a prosecutor.
Before asking whether you like it or not, please explain with evidence and logic which act violates which law and ordinance.
