Were you able to arrest the accomplice after requesting the passport surrender order?
It is reported that the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office has requested the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to issue a passport surrender order for an alleged accomplice who is believed to have emigrated overseas. According to reports, Tamaki Nakano was indicted following a joint investigation with the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau, and a passport surrender order has been requested for another accomplice because they have emigrated overseas.
So, after that, were you able to arrest that person?
Did the Ministry of Foreign Affairs actually issue an order to surrender the passport?
If it was issued, when and for what reason was it issued, and what was the return deadline?
If they have not issued it, was it because the Ministry of Foreign Affairs refused the request, because it did not meet the requirements under the Passport Act, or because they could not take disciplinary action based only on the materials provided by the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office?
If the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office explained the request for a passport surrender order to the media to show progress in the investigation, it also has a responsibility to explain the subsequent outcome.
If they only heavily report the stage of having made a request, and subsequently explain nothing about whether a return order was issued, whether the suspect's whereabouts were secured, or whether the investigation has been suspended, then what was conveyed to the public was not the results of the investigation, but merely the enthusiasm of the investigative agency.
The passport return order is not issued by the prosecution.
A passport revocation order is not a disposition issued independently by a prosecutor.
Article 19 of the Passport Act provides that, in certain cases, the Minister for Foreign Affairs or a consular officer may, after determining necessity, order the passport holder to return the passport by a specified deadline. In addition, when a decision to issue a return order is made, the person must be promptly notified in writing with the reasons attached.
In other words, just because the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office made a request to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not mean that a return order is automatically issued.
The prosecution must explain the investigative necessity, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as the administrative agency in charge of passport administration, must independently judge the legal requirements and necessity.
If the Ministry of Foreign Affairs accepted the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office's request as is, it raises questions as to which documents it was based on and what legal requirements it determined were met.
Conversely, if the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had not issued the order for return, the request made public by the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office would not have led to an administrative disposition.
In either case, there are facts to be explained.
It is unacceptable for investigative agencies to use a serious administrative measure like an order to surrender a passport as a media stunt and then remain silent when nothing comes of it.
Why are there no subsequent reports?
If the deputy chief prosecutor of the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office explained the request for the passport surrender order through the press club, at least the following matters should be clarified through the same press club.
Did the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issue an order for return?
If not issued, what is the reason?
Has the notification reached the target audience?
Has the return deadline passed?
Has the subject's passport expired?
Did you make a request for mutual legal assistance or extradition to the subject's country of residence?
Are the arrest warrant or international search still valid?
Whether the investigation is ongoing or effectively suspended.
Of course, I understand that there are times when not everything about an ongoing investigation can be made public.
However, having publicly announced that they "requested the order to surrender the passport" and having allowed the existence of overseas accomplices to be reported as an investigative achievement, it is disproportionate not to explain even the presence or absence of subsequent administrative dispositions.
If only the stages convenient to investigative authorities are made public while silence is maintained regarding the possibility that the results did not follow, the media ceases to be a verification of the investigation and becomes a loudspeaker for prosecutors' press releases.
If the investigation is delayed, it is possible that administrative instability has surfaced.
If this matter is not progressing, the cause is not necessarily just that the subject is overseas.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs which issues passport revocation orders, the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry which jurisdiction over business restructuring subsidies, the prefectures, Regional Bureaus of Economy, Trade and Industry, and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry that were involved in the verification procedures for the angel tax system, the national tax authorities that determine tax relationships, and the public prosecutors office that pursues criminal responsibility.
Multiple government agencies are involved in this matter.
However, if government agencies fail to take responsible positions on the certifications, confirmations, issuance decisions, or administrative responses they have issued themselves, and instead leave the final judgment to the National Tax Agency and the Public Prosecutors Office, the investigation will naturally become unstable.
Prosecutors are not specialized agencies for subsidy administration.
The National Tax Agency is not the primary administrative body that certifies compliance with the business objectives of the Business Restructuring Subsidy.
Regarding the angel tax system, the national tax authorities also determine the final tax application, but prefectural and other METI administrations are involved in the confirmation procedures for eligible companies and target investments.
If each jurisdictional administrative agency fails to clarify its own judgment, and only the prosecution builds a scenario asserting that "it was illegal," a massive void will emerge between the administrative determination and the criminal evaluation.
Isn't trying to fill that gap with the suspect's statements what leads to the instability of the interrogation in this case?
As a matter of system principle, the regulatory administrative agency investigates subsidy fraud first.
In cases of general subsidy or grant fraud, the administrative agency that oversees the program and decides on the disbursement or issuance will first investigate the factual background.
For example, regarding employment relationship subsidies, the labor bureau examines application documents, wage ledgers, attendance records, business reality, and other materials, and if it determines that there has fraudulent receipt, it will revoke the decision to grant the subsidy, issue an order for repayment, publicize the business operator's name, and suspend payments for a certain period. In serious cases, it also cooperates with investigative agencies. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare also conducts investigations, makes public announcements, and handles repayments regarding fraudulent receipts of employment adjustment subsidies through prefectural labor bureaus.
There is a reason for this trend.
This is because the jurisdiction's administrative agency best understands the requirements for the grant's disbursement, possesses the application materials, and made the decision to disburse it.
Did you meet the payment requirements?
Were there any falsifications in the application?
Is it merely a clerical error?
Is it a change to the business plan?
Is it a violation of the delivery terms?
Is this a case in which a return should be ordered?
Is it a malicious case that requires even a criminal complaint?
In principle, the administrative agency that granted the subsidy has the initial responsibility to determine these matters.
The Act on Regulation of Execution of Budgets Pertaining to Subsidies grants the jurisdiction administrative agency the authority to investigate, cancel, and demand the return.
The Act on Optimization of Subsidy Implementation aims to prevent fraudulent applications and the misuse of subsidies, and to ensure the proper execution of budgets and making of grant decisions.
The same Act grants the head of each ministry and agency the authority to request status reports on subsidized projects, order corrective measures, rescind grant decisions, and order the return of subsidies.
Furthermore, Article 23 stipulates that, when necessary, administrative agencies may request reports from subsidy recipients, enter their offices, inspect accounting books and documents, and question related parties.
The same article also specifies that this investigative authority is not granted for criminal investigations.
This is important.
Administrative investigations and criminal investigations differ in both their purposes and their authority.
First, the administrative agency must determine, under administrative law, whether its grant decision was appropriate, whether the grant conditions were violated, and whether a refund should be requested.
As a result, in cases where receipt by fraud or other wrongful means is suspected and there is a need to pursue criminal liability, the matter proceeds to criminal accusation or cooperation with investigative agencies.
This order is the institutional basis.
The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry itself has explained that, in cases where there is suspicion of fraudulent receipt of subsidies, it will conduct on-site inspections of recipients and business partners as necessary, and if fraud is confirmed, the parties involved may be subject to measures under the Act on the Proper Administration of Subsidies or face criminal penalties.
Therefore, if fraud is suspected regarding the Business Restructuring Subsidy, the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, or the secretariat should inherently investigate the application details, performance reports, expenditure evidence, provision of services, equipment, and business reality, and clearly determine the necessity of revoking the grant decision and demanding repayment.
If that administrative judgment is left unmade and only the National Tax Agency and the Public Prosecutors Office are evaluating it as "fraud," the order of the system is reversed.
Why would the administrative agency that issued the grant decision leave the judgment to the National Tax Agency and the prosecution?
The Business Restructuring Subsidy is a program for which the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry designed the framework, conducted reviews, and made selection and grant decisions.
The applicant did not file a petition with the National Tax Agency or the Public Prosecutor's Office.
I have submitted a business plan to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry administration, undergone its review, and received adoption or a decision on grant delivery.
Nevertheless, if doubts regarding fraud arose later and the issuing administrative agency failed to verify the facts itself, leaving the evaluation to the National Tax Agency and the Public Prosecutors Office, that is tantamount to an abdication of administrative responsibility.
There are two possibilities for the administrative agency that made the grant decision.
One is the possibility that the initial grant decision was appropriate, but issues arose in the performance report or the use of funds submitted thereafter.
Another is the possibility that there were flaws in the initial screening itself, and it was issued without checking matters that should have been confirmed.
In any case, the first thing that needs to be explained is the government agency that made the grant decision.
Handing over the case to the prosecution does not eliminate the initial review responsibility.
Just because a criminal case has been initiated does not mean that the administrative agency is absolved from explaining its own adoption, verification, grant decisions, and finalization of amounts.
The angel tax system is not a system created solely by national taxes either.
The angel tax system is a scheme that grants income tax incentives for investments in companies that meet certain requirements, in order to promote investment in startups.
Under this system, there is a confirmation procedure for eligible companies and eligible investments. If it is confirmed that the requirements are met after the investment, a confirmation certificate issued by the prefectural governor is provided. The company delivers this confirmation certificate and other documents to the investor, who then uses them for their tax return.
In other words, investors do not create the Angel Tax System based solely on their own judgment.
An application is submitted by the company, verified by the administration, a confirmation certificate is issued, and tax returns are filed using that document.
Given that this administrative confirmation exists, if any questions arise later regarding the substance of the investment or the fulfillment of requirements, the administrative agency that issued the confirmation document must explain what it confirmed, based on which materials, and upon which requirements it determined that the conditions were met.
Was there a flaw in the verification process?
Did the company submit false documents?
Did the administration limit the scope it should have checked?
Did circumstances change after the confirmation?
Was it reasonable for the investors to rely on the confirmation letter?
Instead of sorting these out, for the National Tax Agency and the Public Prosecutors Office to pursue only the investors' subjectivity is putting the cart before the horse.
The chain of government recognition, national tax denial, and prosecutorial arrest
The most critical issue in this case is that the responsible party for administrative decisions has become obscured.
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry administration adopts and grants subsidies.
Prefectures and other administrative agencies issue certificates regarding the Angel Tax System.
Certified public accountants and other experts shall respond regarding the application of the system.
Investors act based on these responses from government agencies and explanations from experts.
Subsequently, the National Tax Agency issued an assessment that differed from the administrative determination.
The Public Prosecutor's Office makes an arrest based on the National Tax Agency's assessment.
However, the government agency that initially granted the certification or approval does not explain why the situation has changed from its original determination.
If this structure is permitted, citizens will no longer be able to trust confirmation documents or issuance decisions from administrative agencies.
Even if you trust the confirmation of one government agency, another government agency will later deny it.
Even if you consult an expert, the prosecutor will later ask, "Did you think it was the right thing to do?"
Even if you follow the government's response, that administrative agency takes no responsibility, and only the national tax authority and prosecutors arrest citizens.
This does not ensure legal stability.
The arrest controversies involving the Kagoshima and Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Offices are calling into question the very raison d'être of national tax investigations.
What the investigations by the Kagoshima and Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Offices show is not merely an issue of two criminal cases.
If the National Tax Agency comprehensively evaluates everything from subsidy administration, industrial policy, investment contracts, stock transactions, and consulting substance to administrative responses, and the prosecution takes over that evaluation to make arrests, what is the purpose of the specialized reviews and certifications of each administrative agency?
The administrative agency that granted the subsidy does not conduct investigations.
The administrative agency that verified the angel tax incentive will not explain.
The official who gave the administrative response does not come forward either.
Only the National Tax Agency evaluates everything as "fictitious," "sham," or "fraudulent," and the Public Prosecutors Office detains individuals based on that evaluation.
This structure does not make the authority of the National Tax Agency look strong.
Rather, it demonstrates extremely unstable administrative management, where government agencies pass the buck to one another and ultimately concentrate decision-making in the National Tax Agency and the Public Prosecutors Office.
If the National Tax Agency can freely overturn the certifications of other administrative agencies, then subsidy screenings, angel tax system confirmations, and administrative inquiries are all unnecessary.
Conversely, if the decisions of each administrative agency have significance, the National Tax Agency and the Public Prosecutors Office must clearly explain the grounds for denying those decisions.
Proceeding with arrests without that explanation is an act that destroys the professionalism of the administration.
If the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau claims that it "only conducts face-to-face investigations," now is the time for the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau to explain in person.
The National Tax Union recognizes that the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau persisted in conducting face-to-face audits and did not sufficiently conduct written inquiries and verifications.
If the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau continues to maintain the stance that the truth cannot be uncovered without face-to-face meetings, we expect Regional Tax Bureau Director General Atsushi Kitamura to explain the following matters in person, backed by his overwhelming legal theory.
What kind of investigation did the administrative agency that granted the Business Restructuring Subsidy conduct?
Has a decision to revoke the grant and an order for return been issued?
If they haven't been issued, why did you decide they could be arrested for fraud?
What documents did the administrative agency that issued the angel tax system confirmation certificate review?
Was that confirmation canceled?
What is the basis for determining that the investor acted intentionally while the administrative confirmation remained valid?
Why can criminal intent or conspiracy be recognized in a person who relied on the answers of administrative agencies and certified public accountants?
Was the passport surrender order requested by the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office actually issued?
Have you been able to secure the accomplice who was said to be abroad?
If it has not been done, which administrative judgment or evidence is lacking?
If in-person audits are such an excellent method, the Internal Revenue Service should not only summon taxpayers to appear, but also come out before the public itself to answer these legal questions.
If things continue this way, the tax office's inspection and investigation will destroy the credibility of all administrative agencies.
Administration is established through the division of labor.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is responsible for passport administration.
The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency are responsible for industrial policy and subsidies.
Prefectures shall conduct verification administrative work based on the system.
The national tax authorities determine the application of tax laws.
The public prosecutor's office determines whether a crime has been committed based on evidence.
Citizens can trust the administration precisely because each institution is responsible for its own laws, authority, and judgment.
However, when an incident occurs, neither the administrative agency that granted the subsidies, the administrative agency that verified the tax status, nor the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which has jurisdiction over passports, offers any explanation; only the National Tax Agency and the Public Prosecutors Office shoulder all the responsibility for the decisions.
And the National Tax Agency and the Public Prosecutors Office arrest citizens without clarifying the decision-making process of each administrative agency and demand subjective remorse.
If this chain continues, it is not only the credibility of the National Tax Agency that will be lost.
The credibility of the administrative confirmation letter will be lost.
The credibility of the subsidy grant decision will be lost.
The point of consulting an expert is lost.
The transparency of passport administration by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is being lost.
Ultimately, even the fundamental way of acting in a state governed by the rule of law—checking with administrative agencies in advance and acting according to their responses—is lost.
Open questions to the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office
Is it true that you requested an order to surrender the passport regarding the accomplice who was said to have emigrated overseas?
What is the request date?
Did the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issue an order to return the passport?
When issued, what is the return deadline?
If it has not been issued, did the Ministry of Foreign Affairs determine that the requirements were not met?
Is the subject's passport still valid?
Has the suspect been apprehended?
If they have not been arrested, what is the reason?
Have you requested mutual legal assistance or extradition to the subject's country of residence?
Why did you announce that you requested an order to surrender a passport, but not the result?
Did the administrative agency in charge of the Business Restructuring Subsidy conduct its own fraud investigation?
Has a decision to revoke the grant or an order for repayment been issued?
If the prosecutors determined it was fraud at a stage where administrative agencies have not made a finding of wrongdoing, what is the legal and factual basis for that?
What kind of explanation did you receive from the administrative agency that reviewed the angel tax system?
Has this confirmation letter been canceled?
What is the objective evidence to determine that investors who trusted the confirmation of administrative agencies had intent?
Now that you have made the announcement, please explain it through to the end.
If the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office explained the request for a passport return order for overseas accomplices to the media, please also explain the subsequent results.
If an arrest has been made, please publicize that fact.
If the arrest has not been made, please explain why it has not.
If the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not issue an order for return, please clarify that fact.
Please explain why the prosecutor's office determined it was fraud first, if the administrative agency responsible for the Business Restructuring Subsidy has not made a determination of fraud.
Please explain how an investor who relied on the Angel Tax System confirmation can be arrested if that confirmation is still valid.
It is not administrative stability when administrative agencies fail to explain their own decisions, and only the National Tax Agency and the Public Prosecutors Office hold citizens accountable.
An administration where the whereabouts of responsibility have vanished.
Left as it is, what the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau's inspection will reveal is not the fact of tax evasion.
It is the instability of the administration as a whole, in which no one in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency, prefectural governments, Regional Taxation Bureaus, or public prosecutors' offices takes ultimate responsibility for their own decisions.
If you truly believe the National Tax Agency and the Public Prosecutors Office are correct, please explain, using laws and evidence, not just the outcome of the arrest, but where, why, and how the decisions of each administrative agency were mistaken.
And the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office, which announced that it had requested an order to surrender a passport, should disclose through the press club everything that happened after the request until the very end.
