Questioning the sales activities and employer liability of Satoshi Saito during his tenure at Last One Mile, and the attribution of profits to Makoto Watanabe
Who was the instructor in this matter?
What emerges from the documents verified by the prosecutors' union is not an investor who joined after receiving explanations later. It is Certified Public Accountant Satoshi Saito, who allegedly utilized the system early on, consented to its use by others, engaged in sales and introductions to multiple parties, explained it as an expert to subsequent investors, and was even present at the scene of massive money transfers.
Satoshi Saito has a background of serving as the General Manager of the Corporate Planning Office at Last One Mile Co., Ltd.
Furthermore, according to information submitted to the prosecutors' union, multiple sales and referral activities related to this case overlap with the period when Satoshi Saito was employed by Last One Mile, and are said to have been intensively pursued during his tenure.
If this is true, this matter cannot be handled as a private issue concerning only Mr. Kakuki Nakano and Mr. Satoshi Saito.
If Mr. Satoshi Saito conducted sales activities and explanations using his position, credibility, sales environment, human relationships, or company facilities as the General Manager of the Corporate Planning Office of Last One Mile, it is necessary to directly examine Last One Mile Co., Ltd.'s own employer liability, supervisory liability, and attribution of profits.
The role of Satoshi Saito shown in the materials is not merely that of an "attendee."
According to documents verified by the prosecutors' union, Satoshi Saito is alleged to have had at least the following involvement.
- The act of using the system that Mr. Nakano Tamaki and others had explained ahead of everyone else.
- From the perspective of overseeing the financial affairs of affiliated companies, having approved or actively evaluated the use of the system by others.
- Involvement in sales, referrals, or the deployment of program utilization directed at multiple parties
- Explaining the system as a certified public accountant to subsequent investors
- Accompanying an investor to the bank for a large-scale money transfer
- There is a record indicating that a retainer fee related to the use of the system was received and later refunded.
If these facts are true, Satoshi Saito is not a passive party who merely received an explanation from Tamaki Nakano.
He is a core figure who utilized the system himself, evaluated it as an expert, spread it to others, explained it to investors, and even witnessed the actual money transfer.
If one were to express that role succinctly, the suspicion arises that he was a "mentor" who guided late-arriving investors and reinforced the credibility of the system.
Making the person who invested later the planner reverses the chronology.
It is reported that Prosecutor Yamaguchi of the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office stated that it appears as though subsequent investors and Mr. Toshiyoshi Nakano planned this case.
However, if the confirmed timeline is correct, that assumption does not hold up.
This is because, even before later investors participated, Takaoki Nakano had conducted institutional research and inquiries with government agencies, Satoshi Saito had made early use of the system, agreed to its expansion to others, and was allegedly involved in sales or introductions to multiple parties.
According to the materials, the chronological order of events is that Satoshi Saito and others subsequently explained the system, and later investors participated by trusting that explanation.
If this order is correct, in order to evaluate the later investors as the planners of the scheme, clear communications or instructions showing that the later investors were directing Satoshi Saito and others, who had used the scheme first and spread it to others, are necessary.
Without presenting such objective evidence and merely stating that "from an outside perspective, they look like the planner," this does not constitute an investigation.
It's just prioritizing the prosecutor's impression over the chronology.
The impact of the CPA expertise on investment decisions
Satoshi Saito is a publicly announced individual who is a certified public accountant and also has work experience in government agencies.
For ordinary investors who are not tax or accounting professionals, it is somewhat rational to trust the explanation if a Certified Public Accountant personally uses the same system, explains that there are no issues with it under the regulations, and even accompanies them to the site of a massive money transfer.
At the very least, chronologically speaking, the view that the investors who received explanations trusted the explanations of experts and early adopters is more consistent than the assessment that they designed the system from scratch, manipulated the experts, and led the criminal plot.
Nevertheless, if the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office is not thoroughly investigating Satoshi Saito's professional involvement and is instead focusing on obtaining confessions from subsequent investors, the way they are selecting their investigation targets is backward.
The first thing that should be questioned is not only the side that received the explanation.
Who designed the system, who used it first, who explained its legality, who marketed it, and who was present for the massive money transfers?
Why does the name of Last One Mile Inc. appear?
It cannot be concluded that Last One Mile bears legal responsibility solely based on the fact that Satoshi Saito served as the head of its Corporate Planning Office.
Because the employer is not automatically responsible for actions taken by an employee in a purely private capacity.
However, if business activities or referrals related to this matter took place while he was employed at Last One Mile, the company cannot simply dismiss it by saying, "This is a personal matter concerning Mr. Satoshi Saito."
It is necessary to investigate whether Satoshi Saito used affiliations with the following types of companies during sales or explanations.
- The title or credibility of General Manager of Last-Mile Business Planning
- Company email address, phone number, device, or communication environment
- company meeting rooms, offices, and other facilities
- Human relationships with company employees, sales representatives, or business partners
- Customer information, sales lead information, or referral information held by the company
- Last-mile call center and sales organization
- company expenses, transportation costs, entertainment expenses, and other funds
- Approval, instruction, or acquiescence by Makoto Watanabe and other management members
If even one of these was used, the connection between the act in question and the last-mile business becomes stronger.
In particular, the company's business operations include call centers, outsourced sales, B2B sales, and revenue support utilizing customer data.
Within that sales foundation, if the head of the corporate planning office was promoting another investment or tax utilization, it must be determined through specific records whether it was a completely private act or an extension of company business.
User liability is not determined solely by the fact of having been enrolled.
Employer liability under the Civil Code comes into question when an employee causes damage to a third party in the execution of the company's business.
Therefore, in order to establish the employer liability of Last One Mile Inc., it is necessary to first verify whether there was any illegal false explanation, non-disclosure of important matters, or other tortious act in the explanations, sales, or solicitations by Mr. Satoshi Saito.
Furthermore, we will examine the extent to which the said act was related to the last-mile operations.
What matters is not only whether the company officially issued a work order internally.
Was it carried out using the company's title or credibility in a manner that appeared externally as part of the company's business? Did it use the company's personnel, facilities, customer touchpoints, or sales network? Did the company or management profit from it? Did the company know about the conduct and fail to stop it?
These are important not only for considering employer liability, but also for examining the company's own supervisory negligence and joint involvement.
Was the company unaware of the actions taken by the Head of the Corporate Planning Office?
The head of the corporate planning office is usually in a position to handle important matters such as the company's management strategy, capital policy, business plans, investments, partnerships, and other key matters.
If that individual repeatedly engaged in sales, referrals, institutional explanations, or accompanied transfers for investments utilizing tax incentives during their tenure, could the company truly have been completely unaware of nothing?
Were they not conducted during company working hours? Were company communication methods not used? Was there no report to management? Did the clients not overlap with the company's business partners or related parties?
By reviewing these, we can determine whether the company was involved, turned a blind eye, or was completely unaware.
We cannot just dismiss this as the "private conduct of a former employee" without even verifying the facts.
Investigate the ultimate destination of compensation and profits.
What is extremely important in this matter is where the remuneration or economic benefits generated by sales, referrals, system design, or consulting ultimately went.
The Prosecutors Union does not assert, based solely on the documents currently verified, that the compensation was definitively paid to Last One Mile Inc. or Mr. Makoto Watanabe.
Because deciding on a conclusion first without checking the evidence would make it the same as the investigative methods the Prosecutors Union is criticizing the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office for.
However, if Satoshi Saito was engaged in sales and referrals while he was at Last One Mile, there is a good reason to investigate the flow of compensation.
What needs to be checked is not just the direct remittances to Mr. Satoshi Saito personally.
- Remittance to Last Mile Inc. or its affiliated companies
- Payments under the name of consulting fees, referral fees, sales commissions, success fees, or any other names
- Direct or indirect remittances to Mr. Makoto Watanabe or his affiliates
- shares, stock acquisition rights, loans, debt forgiveness, and other economic benefits
- Money processed as company sales, payments made on behalf of others, deposits received, or temporary accounts
- reflux via a third party or separate corporate entity
- Business expenses, transportation expenses, and entertainment expenses incurred as company expenses
By checking these against bank accounts, general ledgers, invoices, contracts, emails, and chats, the ultimate destination of the profits becomes clear.
If profits were indeed flowing to Last One Mile Co., Ltd. or Mr. Makoto Watanabe, it would become even more difficult to explain this matter as the private activity of Mr. Satoshi Saito.
Did Mr. Makoto Watanabe know about the activities of Mr. Satoshi Saito?
To what extent did Makoto Watanabe and other members of the management team understand Satoshi Saito's external activities, investment solicitation, tax-utilization sales, and consulting while he served as the General Manager of the Corporate Planning Office?
If the Head of the Corporate Planning Office was conducting sales activities with multiple parties and was involved in a huge investment decision without the company's management knowing anything about it, that in itself is a serious internal control issue.
Conversely, if the management team knew, approved, provided referrals, or received benefits, the involvement of the company and Makoto Watanabe will become a more direct subject of scrutiny.
Either way, it won't end with just a single phrase saying, "It has nothing to do with the company."
If you didn't know, why couldn't you keep track of the Head of Corporate Planning's activities?
If they knew, who approved it, for what purpose was it carried out, and who benefited from it?
Specific explanations are required from Last One Mile Inc. and Mr. Makoto Watanabe.
Why doesn't the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office focus its investigation on Satoshi Saito's prior involvement?
While Prosecutor Yamaguchi and others are trying to obtain confessions from subsequent investors, if they have not sufficiently verified Satoshi Saito's prior use, approval to others, sales, introductions, explanations, and presence at remittances, the order of the investigation is backward.
Who used the system first? Who explained the safety as an expert? Who spread it to others? Who received the compensation?
You cannot call someone who joined later the planner without examining this chronological order.
Furthermore, if Mr. Satoshi Saito's sales activities took place while he was employed at Last One Mile, and the company's title, sales network, facilities, or reputation were used, the target of the investigation is not limited to just the individual.
We must also confirm the perception, instruction, supervision, profit, and accounting treatment of Last One Mile Inc.
Open Questions to Last One Mile Inc. and Mr. Makoto Watanabe
- Can you disclose Mr. Satoshi Saito's exact period of employment, title, authority, and reporting line at Last One Mile?
- Were you aware that while Satoshi Saito was with the company, he was engaged in investments utilizing tax incentives, consulting, or related sales and referrals?
- Did Satoshi Saito not use company emails, phone calls, devices, meeting rooms, customer information, or employees?
- Did the individuals contacted by Mr. Satoshi Saito include last-mile business partners, shareholders, employees, or related parties?
- Were reports made to Makoto Watanabe regarding the sales, referrals, system explanations, or remittance attendance by Satoshi Saito?
- Has Last One Mile Inc. or Mr. Makoto Watanabe received any referral fees, sales commissions, consulting fees, shares, or any other economic benefits?
- Were any related funds recorded in the company's books as suspense accounts, advance payments, deposits received, or affiliate transactions?
- Have you conducted an investigation into the activities of Mr. Satoshi Saito by the Board of Directors, the Audit and Supervisory Committee, or the internal audit department?
- Are you preserving related company emails, chats, call logs, access control records, expense records, and accounting data?
- Will you accept a third-party committee or other independent investigation?
Open questions to the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office
- Have you verified the fact that Mr. Satoshi Saito is alleged to have used the system in advance?
- Have you collected communication records regarding the multiple approvals of sales, referrals, and third-party use by Mr. Satoshi Saito?
- Have you confirmed the fact that Satoshi Saito allegedly explained the system to late-arriving investors and was present for the massive money transfers?
- Have you investigated the sales activities conducted by Mr. Satoshi Saito while he was at Last One Mile and their relationship to the company's operations?
- Did you check whether the last-mile emails, devices, customer information, sales personnel, or facilities were used?
- Did you trace the final destination of the compensation generated by sales or referrals?
- Did you check whether economic benefits were directly or indirectly attributed to Last One Mile Co., Ltd. or Mr. Makoto Watanabe?
- Without thoroughly investigating Satoshi Saito, how can you evaluate a later investor as the planner?
- Are you considering user liability, direct involvement of the company, and the management's awareness as subjects of the investigation?
- Are materials that contradict the case story constructed by Prosecutor Yamaguchi and his team also bound into the case records and examined fairly?
Do not remove the mentor and make only the later investors take the blame.
There is a person who used the system ahead of others.
That person is said to have evaluated the system as a certified public accountant, spread it to others, explained it to subsequent investors, and been present for massive money transfers.
Furthermore, there is information that the person served as the General Manager of Corporate Planning at Last One Mile Co., Ltd., and that multiple sales activities were conducted during their tenure.
It is not possible to ignore this chronological order and designate an investor who received an explanation later as the planner.
If the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors’ Office truly wishes to uncover the truth, it should investigate Mr. Satoshi Saito’s role, his business relationship with Last One Mile, and the flow of payments before attempting to extract a confession from the person in custody.
Last One Mile Inc. cannot refuse to provide an explanation on the grounds that Satoshi Saito is no longer with the company.
Even if the resignation has occurred, the company's liability is not eliminated as long as the act took place during employment and was linked to the company's business, reputation, facilities, personnel, or profits.
The Prosecutors Union does not fabricate the beneficiaries of profits using documents alone.
That is precisely why we demand it of Last Mile Inc. and Mr. Makoto Watanabe.
Clarify to whom Satoshi Saito made sales pitches, what he explained, whose company equipment and title he used, and who received the compensation, through bank records, accounting records, and communication records.
Removing the person considered to be the guide from the investigation and pinning the blame solely on the later investors who believed the explanation is not an evidence-based investigation.
And if the advising salesperson was acting as the executor of the last-mile business, Satoshi Saito should not be the only one who bears responsibility.
