The outcome of inspection investigations that insist on face-to-face meetings, fail to verify documents, and ultimately dump everything on the prosecutors
There are significant institutional differences between a national tax investigation and a criminal interrogation by the prosecutors.
In National Tax Agency audits and investigations, there is no system in place to inform taxpayers of their right to silence in the same sense as criminal proceedings.
On the other hand, a suspect undergoing interrogation by a prosecutor in a criminal case is informed that they are not required to make a statement against their will.
While a detained suspect may not be able to refuse to appear for questioning itself, they can choose not to make statements in response to questions.
In other words, tax investigations by the National Tax Agency demand broad explanations while individuals are not physically detained, yet they do not proceed on the premise of a clear notification of the right to silence like criminal interrogations do.
In response, while the prosecution's interrogation restricts physical freedom through arrest and detention, the suspect is guaranteed the right to remain silent.
If the practices of the National Tax Agency and the Public Prosecutors Office connecting these two systems are inappropriate, it will lead to an extremely perverted result.
It is a paradoxical situation where, from the taxpayer's perspective, having the case referred to prosecutors and moving to criminal proceedings—where they have the right to remain silent—results in a clearer scope and timeframe for response, and is more advantageous than continuing to explain things to the National Tax Agency over a long period.
This is a reversal that originally should never have been allowed to happen.
The National Tax Agency insists on meeting in person to investigate.
The National Tax Agency itself defines the inspection investigation as a series of activities including the collection of evidence, the determination of constituent facts, and the interpretation and application of laws and regulations.
An investigation is not just about making a taxpayer sit in a chair and asking them questions verbally.
Reviewing account books, contracts, electronic data, remittance records, responses from related parties, administrative inquiries, service provision materials, and documents submitted by the taxpayer, and thereby establishing the facts, naturally constitutes an investigation as well.
National Tax Agency circulars also presuppose that investigations may proceed through internal processing without any questioning or inspection. Investigations by the national tax authorities are not legally required to be conducted face-to-face.
Nevertheless, if the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau and the Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau effectively adopted a policy of "refusing to conduct audits unless in-person," even though the taxpayer continuously submitted documents, materials, and explanations, it was not the taxpayer who stopped the audit.
It is the IRS itself.
Even if a taxpayer refuses an in-person statement, they can read the contract.
You can also check your remittance history.
Electronic data can also be analyzed.
Inquiries can also be made to relevant administrative agencies.
You can also ask specific questions in writing and request answers.
You can also check the submitted claims and objective evidence item by item.
If you fail to do these things and claim that "investigation is impossible because we are not meeting face-to-face," that is not a limitation of the investigation method.
It is an act of omission chosen by the IRS itself.
If I send the documents the National Tax Agency did not read, along with the questions I wanted to ask, to the prosecutor's office, will it trigger an investigation?
Even more critically, there are cases where the National Tax Agency forwards a large volume of documents submitted by taxpayers who do not comply with in-person audits to the public prosecutor's office as accusation materials without sufficiently reviewing them itself.
The IRS doesn't read written notices.
Therefore, no further questions will be asked regarding the document.
Do not confirm with the contracting parties.
Do not inquire with the person in charge who provided the administrative response.
Do not concretely verify whether or not services are provided.
In that state, the complete set of submitted documents will be sent to the prosecutor's office.
Then, the prosecutor tries to get an answer from the suspect's own mouth once again during the interrogation after the arrest. However, there are only 20 days.
What is the purpose of a National Tax Agency inspection and investigation, then?
The National Tax Agency is an organization that conducts specialized investigations into tax laws, accounting, actual transaction conditions, and taxation requirements, and files criminal accusations when criminal facts are recognized based on objective evidence.
If documents are not examined and they are sent to the prosecution simply because an explanation close to a confession could not be obtained in person, the National Tax Agency is not a specialized investigative institution.
This is the document transfer counter for the Public Prosecutors Office.
If the case moves to criminal proceedings, you have the right to remain silent.
During questioning by a prosecutor, the suspect has the right to remain silent.
The suspect may choose not to answer individual questions or to remain silent throughout the entire interrogation.
The fact that a person denies the charges or remains silent cannot be treated as evidence of guilt. Even in discussions within the Ministry of Justice, avoiding unfavorable treatment based on silence or refusal to sign interrogation protocols has been taken up as an important issue in the system of custody.
Then, if the National Tax Agency relies on face-to-face statements and refers a case to the prosecutors without sufficiently solidifying objective evidence, the prosecutors will face serious problems.
Even if arrested, the suspect will not confess.
Even when brought into the interrogation room, he does not admit to the crime.
I cannot create a statement report.
Objective evidence that the IRS had not gathered does not appear automatically even after the arrest.
As a result, prosecutors are forced to reinvestigate, within a limited and extremely short period of custody, facts that the National Tax Agency should have verified during the voluntary stage.
This is not about streamlining the criminal justice system.
It is a system operation that attempts to compensate for the National Tax Agency's insufficient investigations through arrests and detentions.
The moment it makes people think, "Getting arrested would be over sooner," the inspection system has already lost.
There is a legal upper limit to the detention period after arrest.
Generally, if detention is approved following post-arrest procedures, the detention period until the prosecutor institutes a prosecution is basically 10 days, and if there are unavoidable reasons, it may be extended for an additional maximum of 10 days.
However, remaining silent for 20 days does not automatically result in a decision not to prosecute or an acquittal.
Even with complete silence from the suspect, if there is sufficient objective evidence, it is possible for them to be indicted and found guilty.
Also, due to the splitting of cases and re-arrests, physical detention may effectively be prolonged.
Therefore, the understanding that "if you remain silent for 20 days after being arrested, it will be over" is not legally accurate.
However, the issue at hand is not just whether that understanding is correct.
The unreasonable nature of the National Tax Agency's audit operations is leading taxpayers and experts to entertain such ideas.
In any inspection or investigation, the end date is not even disclosed.
No matter how many times I submit the same explanation, there is no response.
It is not shown which transaction is in question.
They say they won't investigate unless we talk in person.
There is no sign that the document was read even though it was submitted.
I don't know when the investigation will end.
On the other hand, in a criminal case, at least the alleged facts are presented, a defense counsel can be appointed, the right to remain silent is notified, and there is a statutory period for pre-indictment detention.
Furthermore, it becomes clear at the time of the arrest that the National Tax Agency could not file criminal charges because there was no objective evidence.
If this comparison made taxpayers think, "It's easier to deal with moving to criminal proceedings than going back and forth with the National Tax Agency for years," then the investigation system is completely inverted.
Arrest is not inherently an option for taxpayers to obtain procedural stability.
It is an exceptional compulsory measure permitted only when the state proves the suspicion of a serious crime and the necessity of taking the person into custody.
If that arrest is perceived as more predictable, shorter in duration, and clearer in the protection of rights than a voluntary tax investigation by the National Tax Agency, there is a fundamental flaw in the tax investigation procedures themselves.
The dangerous misconception that staying silent means getting by with just one hour a day
Interrogations of suspects who continue to remain silent can, in practice, be of short duration.
If it is clear that no answers will be obtained, investigative agencies may sometimes reduce the questioning time.
However, it is not a system where remaining silent guarantees that it will always finish in one hour a day.
The system allowing lawyers to be present in the interrogation room is also not generally guaranteed in Japan.
Even while remaining silent, you may be asked to appear for questioning and subjected to questioning for a considerable period of time.
Arrest and detention themselves also impose a heavy burden on one's work, family, business partners, health, and social reputation.
Therefore, the National Tax Union does not recommend arrest or remaining silent as a "short-term completion course."
Rather, it warns against a situation where such dangerous explanations could end up circulating as know-how for handling inspections.
The National Tax Agency relies on face-to-face statements without gathering objective evidence.
The public prosecutor's office also fails to scrutinize the materials from the National Tax Agency and relies on confessions obtained after arrest.
If the suspect remains silent, the investigation will not progress.
If this reality becomes widely known, there is a risk that extreme measures—such as "just submitting paperwork, refusing to speak with the National Tax Agency, and remaining silent during criminal proceedings"—will spread among experts and taxpayers.
Who would be in the most trouble if such a response became widespread?
I am not a taxpayer.
The National Tax Agency and the Public Prosecutors Office have relied on statements without gathering objective evidence.
It does not incite crime; it incites resistance against the system.
It is not appropriate to go so far as to conclude that the IRS itself is creating tax evasion crimes.
However, it is a serious problem that the unreasonable investigation methods of the National Tax Agency create an incentive for taxpayers to choose unhealthy counteractions.
If we don't talk face-to-face, I won't look it up.
They do not respond even when documents are submitted.
It does not present objective evidence.
They will not even clarify the end date of the investigation.
In the end, I will file a criminal complaint with the prosecution.
If this practice continues, taxpayers will lose trust in their interactions with the IRS.
They come to think that even if they cooperate with the investigation, their explanation will not be fairly considered.
You come to suspect that no matter what you submit, it is just used to fit a pre-determined narrative.
And that leads to the conclusion that it is rational to make no statements from the very beginning and handle everything solely through written documents and lawyers.
This is fatal to the self-assessment tax system and the tax investigation system.
Tax inspection administration cannot function without a minimum level of trust with taxpayers.
If the current audit practice of dumping cases on prosecutors when face-to-face statements cannot be obtained is what is destroying that trust, then the National Tax Agency is stripping itself of its own investigative capabilities.
What did the document known as the "Mamizuka Memo" teach?
In this case, information has been received indicating that the document or information known as the "Mamizuka Memo" was traded at a high price and widely distributed over a long period of time.
Objective verification is required regarding its specific details, creator, distribution route, and the involvement of national tax authorities or prosecutorial personnel.
At an unconfirmed stage, it cannot be concluded that a specific public official created or leaked it.
However, if that memo had explained a course of action involving refusing an in-person audit by the National Tax Agency, submitting only written documents, and remaining silent after the case was transferred to the prosecutors, the National Tax Agency and the Public Prosecutors Office surely would not have overlooked it.
This is because the background that allows such information to exist as a commodity lies in the predictable vulnerabilities of the investigative methods used by the National Tax Agency and the Public Prosecutors Office.
It relies on in-person statements.
I don't read documents thoroughly.
Do not gather intentional objective evidence before filing an accusation.
I expect a confession after the arrest.
If the right to silence is exercised, the effectiveness of the interrogation is diminished.
If this set of characteristics was identified from the outside and sold as a response manual, it is not merely a matter of information leakage.
It means that the investigative structure of the national tax authorities and the prosecution itself was commercialized.
Is it really okay to leave it alone?
Assuming that internal information detailing how to handle tax inspections, or a document disguised as such, was sold at a high price and widely circulated as if it originated from officials at the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau and the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office, both agencies should at least investigate the following matters:
Does the document actually exist?
Who created it?
Are internal documents from the National Tax Agency or the Public Prosecutors Office being used?
Does it contain confidential information regarding interrogation policies, accusation materials, targets of investigation, or evidence relationships?
Did public officials or former public officials get involved in the distribution?
Who acquired it by paying money?
Was that information used to respond to inspections or criminal proceedings?
Did the investigative authorities turn a blind eye while being aware of the distribution of the documents?
We cannot simply dismiss this without checking and brush it off by saying "we know of no such document."
If methods to neutralize the investigative techniques of the National Tax Agency and the Public Prosecutors Office were being sold, the impact would not be limited to just a single case.
All future inspection cases.
The future where the Public Prosecutors Office is overwhelmed by inspection cases alone
The National Tax Agency is successively filing criminal accusations with the public prosecutors office regarding inspection cases that it cannot resolve on its own.
The prosecutor's office will review taxes, accounting, contracts, administrative approvals, overseas transactions, and intangible services from scratch.
The suspect remains silent.
Because the National Tax Agency has not solidified objective evidence, the prosecutors will gather evidence again after the arrest. They only have 20 days.
We will interview administrative agencies and experts once again.
Analyze a large volume of documents, electronic data, and remittance records.
If cases like this increase, what will happen to the District Public Prosecutors Office?
Personnel allocated to cases that inherently require prompt responses, such as murder, robbery, sex crimes, child abuse, special fraud, organized crime, and crimes by public officials, will decrease.
As a result of the National Tax Agency's insistence on face-to-face investigations and abandonment of written verification, the public prosecutors' office is forced to redo the tax audits.
That is not cooperation between the national tax authorities and the prosecution.
They are merely compensating for the National Tax Agency's lack of investigative capacity with the labor of prosecutors.
And then, that prosecutor fails to organize the tax law issues with objective evidence, repeatedly asking the suspect, "Didn't you think it was wrong?" and "Do you think it's the right thing to do?"
It is only natural that the public prosecutors office is swamped with work.
An arrest is not a system intended to supplement the National Tax Agency's investigative capabilities.
Arrest and detention require legal conditions such as the risk of flight or destruction of evidence, in addition to reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime has been committed.
The National Tax Agency's inability to answer questions in person is not, in itself, a reason for arrest.
The National Tax Agency's insistence on face-to-face meetings and failure to consider the taxpayer's written explanations does not imply that the taxpayer is fleeing or destroying evidence.
Furthermore, the expectation that a confession might be obtained after arrest does not constitute a justification for physical detention.
An arrest is not a system for the National Tax Agency to redo, in an environment where one cannot go home, the questioning it was unable to conduct during the voluntary stage.
Detention is also not time to make up for the inspector's poor reading comprehension.
If the National Tax Agency is going to file criminal charges, it should gather enough objective evidence before doing so to prosecute the suspect even if they remain completely silent.
If that has not been done, the possibility of insufficient pre-indictment inspection investigations should be verified first.
Open questions to the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau and Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau
Even if the taxpayer does not consent to an in-person interview during a tax inspection and investigation, will the investigation proceed by examining the submitted documents and evidence?
Is there a practice of refusing written questions or answers solely on the grounds of failing to comply with an in-person hearing?
Do you keep a record of who examined the documents submitted by the taxpayer, when, and to what extent?
Have you asked specific follow-up questions to the rebuttals stated in the document?
Are you considering whether there is objective evidence available to prosecute even if the suspect remains completely silent before the accusation?
Do you treat the failure to obtain an in-person statement as a disadvantage in the decision to prosecute?
Are there any records of the National Tax Agency itself verifying the contents of the documents submitted to the Public Prosecutors Office?
Are you planning to supplement the matters that the National Tax Agency could not confirm through interrogations by the prosecutor after the arrest?
Do you know about the distribution of the document or information known as the "Mamizuka Memo"?
Did you investigate whether the document in question contains internal information from the National Tax Agency or the Public Prosecutors Office?
Open questions to the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office and Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office
Are you making sure that objective evidence is in place to prove the crime, even without the suspect's statement, when receiving an accusation from the National Tax Agency?
Are you checking whether the National Tax Agency has thoroughly reviewed the documents submitted by taxpayers?
Does the practice not make up for the National Tax Agency's insufficient investigation through questioning after arrest?
Do you know of any cases where the frequency or duration of interrogations was significantly reduced as a result of the suspect remaining silent?
Are you requesting custody only for cases that can be proven solely with objective evidence even if the suspect's statement cannot be obtained?
Does the prosecutor spending a long time on tax case reinvestigations affect the investigation of other serious crimes?
Are you investigating information that a document outlining inspection response procedures was circulating at a high price?
Are you verifying the possibility that investigation information or internal documents have been leaked to the outside?
If you are having trouble because they are remaining silent, please gather evidence before the arrest.
The National Tax Union does not teach taxpayers how to evade taxes, destroy evidence, or obstruct investigations.
Nor does it belittle arrest or detention.
This does not mean that remaining silent will necessarily result in non-prosecution or an acquittal.
The warning is that if the National Tax Agency and the Public Prosecutors Office continue investigations that rely heavily on statements, information and response methods designed to exploit their weaknesses will spread throughout society.
The right to remain silent is not what is causing that.
Nor is it a taxpayer right.
Facts cannot be established without face-to-face statements; this is a structural weakness on the investigative authorities' side.
Please read the document.
Please check the contract.
Please analyze the remittance records.
Please ask the person in charge who provided the administrative response.
Please look up the person who provided the services.
Please check the creator, creation time, and modification history of the electronic data.
Gather evidence that holds up even if the suspect does not say a single word.
That is an inspection investigation, and it is a criminal investigation.
Do not pass the IRS's work off to the prosecution.
The National Tax Agency insists on face-to-face investigations, fails to sufficiently review written documents, and files criminal accusations with the prosecutor's office without gathering solid objective evidence.
The prosecutor's office will make an arrest and seek to obtain a statement.
When a suspect remains silent, the effectiveness of the interrogation is lost.
The prosecutor will restart from scratch the investigation that the National Tax Agency did not conduct.
The public prosecutors' office is overwhelmed by inspection cases, losing personnel to allocate to other serious crimes.
We must stop this chain.
It is the National Tax Agency that conducts inspection investigations.
Primarily, the National Tax Agency also bears the responsibility of gathering objective evidence to support the existence of intent prior to filing an accusation.
The Prosecutor's Office is not an agency to arrest taxpayers from whom the National Tax Agency could not get answers in person and question them instead.
Arrest is not an alternative to face-to-face investigation.
Detention is not an additional investigation period granted to the National Tax Agency that did not read the documents.
Cases that cannot be proven if the suspect remains silent must not be turned into criminal cases through physical detention.
If the IRS truly believes it can prove tax evasion, it should show evidence, not rely on a confession from the taxpayer.
And if the information known as the so-called "Mamizuka Memo" was circulated as a method to exploit the National Tax Agency's and the Public Prosecutors Office's reliance on statements, do not leave this unaddressed and thoroughly investigate the creator, distribution channels, actual sales situation, and whether there was any internal information leakage.
Leaving this issue unaddressed will not lead to an efficient inspection system.
Taxpayers who do not trust the National Tax Agency, suspects who say nothing, prosecutors redoing tax audits, and local prosecutors' offices too consumed by investigation cases to touch other crimes.
Do not tell me that the right to remain silent is responsible for creating that future.
The cause lies with the National Tax Agency, which cannot investigate without face-to-face statements, and the Public Prosecutors Office, which cannot build a case without a confession.
