Before asking if you think it's right, please explain what is illegal.
It is said that during the interrogations at the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office, Mr. Shigenori Kanamoto was repeatedly asked questions such as the following.
Do you think that's the right thing to do?
However, what the prosecutor should show Mr. Kanemoto is not an abstract moral issue.
Which action corresponds to which statutory requirement of which law and regulation.
When, what facts, with whom, and what kind of crime does it judge that Mr. Kanemoto conspired to commit?
Which parts of the investment, stock acquisition, administrative inquiries, consulting agreement, and remittances were false or fictitious, and what is the evidence that Mr. Kanemoto was aware of this?
What the prosecutor needs to explain are these specific facts.
Nevertheless, if they continue to ask for Mr. Kanemoto's subjective evaluation by asking "Do you think it is right?" without showing any legal basis or the specific acts in question, that is not an interrogation to clarify the facts of a crime.
It is an interview with a predetermined outcome, where the prosecutor continues until the suspect gives the expected answer to a moral problem the prosecutor set themselves.
The absurdity of asking someone who doesn't know what is wrong, "Do you think you are wrong?"
It is said that Mr. Kanemoto received inquiries from administrative agencies regarding this transaction and also obtained responses from certified public accountants and other experts.
At least from Mr. Kanemoto's perspective, the procedures were being carried out while undergoing specialized verification.
Asking such a person, "Do you think this is right?" without explaining which administrative response was mistaken, which expert's explanation was inappropriate, or which part of which contract has issues, leaves the person with no idea what they are supposed to address in their answer.
Without even an indication of what might be wrong, it is impossible to specifically recognize the target act or determine whether there was an intention to commit a crime.
In general, intent is not simply feeling later on that something might not have been a good thing to do.
The issue is the intent to commit the act while recognizing the specific facts necessary for the establishment of a crime.
The current impression regarding the large transaction amount, the regret over the resulting problems, and the anxiety caused by repeated negative questioning from investigative authorities are distinct from the intent or conspiracy necessary to establish a crime.
Nevertheless, if the prosecutor does not confirm specific factual recognition and only asks questions like "Do you think it was right?" or "Didn't you think it was wrong?", they are not proving intent.
I'm just trying to convert regret and agitation into words resembling a confession.
A prosecutor is not a morality teacher.
What is judged in a criminal trial is not whether the defendant shares the same moral sentiments as the prosecutor.
Even if a transaction was unfavorable from the prosecutor's perspective, that alone does not constitute a crime.
Conversely, even if the person believes they did "the right thing," a crime can still be established if the objective elements of the offense are met and the required intent is recognized.
In other words, the question "Do you think it is correct?" does not in itself clarify whether or not a crime has been committed.
As a legal professional, what a prosecutor should do is not to encourage moral self-criticism, but to identify one by one the facts necessary for establishing a crime and prove them with evidence.
What should be asked of Mr. Kanemoto is at least the following matters:
To which government agency, who, and what content was inquired about?
How did Mr. Kanemoto receive that response, and which points did he trust?
What explanations did you receive from certified public accountants or other experts?
Regarding the contract in question, which services were provided and which were not provided?
Did Mr. Kanemoto fabricate the fact that services that were not provided actually existed?
Regarding the investment or share acquisition, who explained what kind of conditions?
What are the specific facts that Mr. Kanemoto knew to be false?
Who, when, and to commit what crime did you agree to do so?
What legal significance is there in continuing to ask "Do you think this is correct" without showing these?
Now, I will also ask the prosecutor: "Do you think this is right?"
If a prosecutor demands an abstract moral evaluation from a suspect without providing a legal basis, it is only fair to ask the prosecution office the same question.
Therefore, I have a question for Prosecutor Kobayashi and Prosecutor Yamaguchi, who have been evaluated by those interrogated as being unable to ask questions and only spreading insults.
Regarding the incident where the former Chief Prosecutor of the Osaka District Public Prosecutors Office was indicted for sexual assault against a female subordinate prosecutor and admitted to the charges at his first trial, do you think the prosecutorial organization's handling of the matter is proper?
The woman who reported the harm explained that she was told by the former Chief Prosecutor that making the damage public would cause the Osaka District Prosecutors Office to collapse, preventing her from reporting the harm for a long period of time.
Do you think it is right for a situation to exist where harmed employees are forced into silence in order to protect the organization's reputation?
Regarding the incident in July 2026 where a prosecutor formerly belonging to the Special Investigation Department of the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office was dishonorably discharged for having an inappropriate relationship with a woman whose investigation they handled, engaging in sexual acts at a hotel where accommodation expenses were paid from public funds, and receiving electronic money, do you think this was the right decision?
The Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office apologized for this action, stating that it fundamentally shakes public trust in the impartiality of prosecutors' exercise of authority.
Do you think it is right that a prosecutor formerly belonging to the Saitama District Public Prosecutors Office leaked criminal record information obtained from a dedicated prosecutor terminal for the purpose of gaining the trust of a romantic partner, received a summary order for a fine, and was dismissed from office as a disciplinary measure?
Regarding the Pressance incident, do you think it is right that a current prosecutor, who allegedly made remarks such as "Don't underestimate the prosecution" and banged on the desk during questioning, is currently facing a criminal trial through the committal procedure for the crime of abuse of authority by a public official?
The prosecutor in question maintains their innocence, and this is not a case in which a guilty verdict has been finalized. However, the fact that a serving prosecutor has become a defendant in a criminal trial through a quasi-judicial committal procedure over interrogation practices is itself a significant fact in which the nature of prosecutorial interrogation is becoming the subject of judicial review.
Regarding the reported case where a former prosecutor published a memoir stating that during training at the Osaka District Public Prosecutors Office, a chief prosecutor told them things like "Are you trying to crush the case?", "You're useless," and "You can handle the work on three hours of sleep," and although the Osaka High Public Prosecutors Office acknowledged power harassment, no disciplinary action was taken, do you think this is right?
If the prosecutor expects the suspect to engage in moral self-reflection, the prosecutorial organization itself must first examine these actions one by one.
Before even considering whether it is right or wrong, there are actions that prosecutors find sickening and repugnant.
Union members of the prosecutors' union have expressed the frank opinion that having sexual relations with a female under investigation and receiving money and valuables by taking advantage of one's superior position cannot simply be described as "wrong," but is, "to put it bluntly, disgusting."
This is not an attack on the prosecutor's personal appearance, private life, or sexual orientation.
This is an evaluation of the act of converting an official relationship into a sexual or financial one with a person who was investigated through the exercise of state power.
Prosecutors are in a position to influence the freedom, reputation, property, and future of suspects, witnesses, and persons involved in a case.
If that prosecutor exploited the power dynamic with a subject of investigation for a personal relationship, engaged in a sexual relationship, and even received money and valuables, this is not the kind of problem that can be resolved by calmly discussing whether it is "right or wrong" and urging improvement.
It is a disgusting act in which the boundary between public authority and selfish desire has collapsed.
When our association describes it as "just plain creepy," it is not to deny the very existence of the individual.
This expresses the natural and frank sense of rejection felt by citizens toward the act of privatizing relationships with investigation targets by abusing the position of a prosecutor.
If a prosecutor questions citizens on morality by asking, "Do you think this is right?", they must be prepared to face the same question from citizens regarding such behavior repeatedly occurring within their own organization.
Do you not show specific facts to the suspect, while using vague words for the prosecutor's misconduct?
The prosecution relentlessly pressures the suspect, asking questions such as "Didn't you think it was wrong?" and "Do you think it's the right thing to do?"
On the other hand, when problems involving the prosecutors themselves come to light, abstract expressions such as "inappropriate relationship," "behavior that undermines trust," and "extremely regrettable" are lined up.
Why is it that while suspects are required to express concrete remorse, the actions of prosecutors—specifically, who was involved, what authority was used, what actions were taken, who was harmed, and at what point the organization became aware of the situation—are not thoroughly clarified?
If you are going to pressure the suspect by asking whether they think it is right, the same standard should be applied to the prosecutor.
Do you think it is right to have a sexual relationship with a person under investigation?
Do you think it is right to receive money and goods from people involved in an investigation?
Do you think it is right to use a publicly funded hotel for private activities?
Do you think it is right to disclose criminal record information for a partner?
Do you think it is right to make it difficult to report sexual harassment against subordinates due to concerns about the impact on the organization?
Do you think it is right to bang on the desk in the interrogation room and demand a statement through intimidating words?
Do you think it is right to call subordinates "useless" and demand that they work at the expense of their sleep?
If you answer "incorrect" even once, please show specific actions and legal grounds regarding Mr. Kanemoto as well, rather than abstract moral issues.
If you are going to make an issue of Mr. Kanemoto's intentions, please first examine the premises of his decision.
What is important in this case is not what Mr. Kanemoto currently answers in the interrogation room.
It is about what information was provided at the time of the transaction, which administrative responses and expert opinions were relied upon, and what contracts and service provisions were perceived to exist.
If Mr. Kanemoto had obtained responses from administrative agencies and certified public accountants, the prosecution should investigate the authors of those responses and the process by which they were formulated.
If you say the answer was wrong, you should show where and why it was wrong.
If there is a possibility that Mr. Nakano Tamaki distorted and explained administrative responses or expert opinions, that possibility should also be verified.
We should investigate without ruling out the possibility that services were actually provided, that an economic substance as an investment existed, or that there was a separate issue with only the subsequent fund transfers.
Even without doing that, simply asking Mr. Kanemoto after his arrest, "Do you think this is right?" will not make his intentions at the time clear.
Even if a person who has been physically restrained and repeatedly asked the same question by a prosecutor who holds sway over their disposition answers, out of fatigue and anxiety, that "it might not have been correct," that does not constitute an admission of criminal intent.
Asking someone who has not been told what is wrong whether they think something is wrong does not make sense as logic in the first place.
Open questions to the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office
Is it true that Prosecutor Kobayashi and Prosecutor Yamaguchi asked Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto, "Do you think this is the right thing to do?"
What specific action does the question target?
What law and which statutory elements do you consider that act to fulfill?
What is the specific false fact that Mr. Kanemoto is alleged to have been aware of?
Have you confirmed the content of the response that Mr. Kanemoto obtained from the administrative agency?
Have you interviewed the staff member who prepared or communicated the administrative response in question?
Did you confirm the explanation Mr. Kanemoto received from certified public accountants and other experts?
Did you provide the legal basis if you judge that the expert's explanation is incorrect?
Which consulting services provided by Company N do you determine did not exist?
What is the objective evidence showing that Mr. Kanemoto knew that the services did not exist?
What crime's subjective element is the question "Do you think it is right?" intended to confirm?
If Mr. Kanemoto answers, "I think it was not correct," do you plan to use those words as a statement admitting intentionality or conspiracy?
Do you believe that facts can be uncovered regarding the scandals involving prosecutors themselves by repeatedly asking, using the same method, "Did you think it was right?"
Before questioning morality, please explain the law.
The Prosecutors Union does not conclude that Shigenori Kanemoto is innocent based on this article alone.
The price for continuing to leak investigative information to the old media will soon return to the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office as a grand counter-attack.
Nor does this rule out the possibility that the prosecution will prove the facts of the crime using concrete objective evidence in the future.
However, the burden of proving the crime lies with the prosecution.
Repeatedly posing abstract moral questions to a suspect to elicit statements evaluating themselves as a bad person does not constitute proof.
Before asking "Do you think it's right?", please explain what is illegal.
Please provide evidence of which fact was false and that Mr. Kanemoto knew it.
If you are going to claim that a person who relied on the answers of administrative agencies and certified public accountants had criminal intent, please show specific circumstances that overturn that reliance.
And if prosecutors are going to question the morality of citizens, the prosecution organization itself must also answer the public's questions regarding the recent succession of scandals.
Do you think having a sexual relationship with a person under investigation is right?
Do you think it is right to receive money and goods from individuals involved in an investigation?
Do you think it is right to suppress reports of sexual abuse by relying on the organization's reputation?
Do you think it is right to disclose criminal record information for private purposes?
Do you think it is right to intimidate a suspect in an interrogation room and force them to follow the prosecutor's scenario?
The prosecutors' union's answer is clear.
I do not think either is correct.
And for some actions, the mild expression "not right" is not enough.
Using public authority to force a sexual relationship on a target of an investigation and accept money and goods—quite apart from whether it is right or wrong—is, frankly speaking, just creepy.
If a prosecutor asks citizens, "Do you think this is right?", they should first face the actions happening within their own organization.
Before examining Mr. Kanemoto's conscience, please examine the facts constituting the crime.
Show me the law and the evidence before demanding a moral answer.
