Personally, I didn't intend to put Shigenori Kanemoto at a disadvantage, and I believe I have dealt with him fairly. There are things I can do and things I cannot, but I have tried my utmost to be supportive.
According to information sent to the prosecutors' union, Prosecutor Yamaguchi gave an explanation to the effect that in an interview after Shigenori Kanemoto turned to remaining silent.
At first glance, it sounds like a mild-mannered reflection by a prosecutor who considered the suspect's state of mind and treated them as fairly as possible.
However, when compared with another remark that Prosecutor Yamaguchi is said to have made to Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto prior to that, the meaning of the word "close" looks completely different.
If you do not confess that the target person is the bad guy, Shigenori Kanemoto himself will become the worst person. From the outside, it looks like Toshiyuki Nakano and Shigenori Kanemoto planned it.
If this statement was actually made, wasn't Prosecutor Yamaguchi's idea of "being close to" actually not being close to Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto's claims and rights?
Make Shigenori Kanemoto participate in a case story pre-drawn by the prosecution and have him testify that another person was the ringleader. In exchange, make Shigenori Kanemoto's own responsibility appear relatively light.
There is growing suspicion that cooperating with such shifting of responsibility was called "empathy."
Are "I want to help you" and "Tell me others are bad" the same meaning?
Empathizing with a suspect originally means listening to what that person says without preconceptions, fairly examining both favorable and unfavorable evidence, and taking care not to drive them to mental desperation while in custody.
Respecting the right to silence and not treating the refusal to make a statement disadvantageously also includes specifically checking for contradictions if the person's explanation conflicts with objective evidence.
However, what is said to be Prosecutor Yamaguchi's statement differs from that kind of empathy.
If he does not say that the target person is bad, Shigenori Kanemoto himself will become the worst person. Conversely, if he gives a statement making the target person the ringleader, Shigenori Kanemoto's position will become relatively lighter.
This is not a question to ask about the suspect's factual recognition.
It is a pressure tactic that forces a person to choose between playing the role of the primary culprit—the heaviest criminal role prepared by the prosecution—or offering up another individual as the mastermind.
Wasn't Prosecutor Yamaguchi siding with the prosecution's narrative rather than Mr. Shigenori Kanamoto?
If Prosecutor Yamaguchi had truly supported Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto, the first thing he should have done was to verify the facts explained by Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto using objective evidence.
When making inquiries to government agencies, who explained what premises, and what responses were received? What substance was there to the investments and contracts? Was consulting actually provided? Who utilized the system first, and who explained it as an expert?
If you proceed with the interrogation without checking these and focus on "who is to blame," the person you are empathizing with is not the suspect.
This is a narrative of the case previously drawn up by the prosecution.
If the reality of the phrase "clinging closely to Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto" was actually about clinging together to the prosecutor's narrative and completing another person's role as the culprit, then that phrase is extremely deceptive.
Reducing the sentence in exchange for blowing the case out of proportion
If a statement is obtained identifying the target person as the ringleader, Shigenori Kanamoto may be treated as a subordinate participant who was heavily influenced rather than the central mastermind who planned the incident.
In that sense, Prosecutor Yamaguchi's idea of "closeness" also seems to work in the direction of mitigating Shigenori Kanemoto's responsibility.
However, behind the scenes, a larger and more organized story of the incident emerges, in which another person designed the entire incident and manipulated numerous people involved.
Instead of making one suspect's responsibility relatively light, restructure it into a larger case centered around another person.
As a result, it becomes easier for the prosecution to frame it not as a single or small-scale complex tax case, but as a large-scale case involving a mastermind, accomplices, and division of roles.
The framework of prosecuting a major incident and tracking down the central figures is likely to be viewed favorably within the prosecutor's office as an investigative achievement.
Of course, there is no evidence at this time to conclude that Prosecutor Yamaguchi was motivated by personal glory or personnel evaluations.
However, a doubt remains as to whether they were trying to simultaneously obtain a statement that would lighten the suspect's responsibility and a statement that would make the case appear larger by telling the suspect, "If you don't say the other person is to blame, you will end up looking the most guilty."
Is this not a formal plea bargain, but rather a shifting of blame behind closed doors?
In Japanese criminal procedure, for certain crimes, there is a plea-bargaining system where the prosecution takes certain measures in exchange for the suspect or defendant cooperating in the investigation of another person's crime.
However, that system has procedures such as eligible crimes, content of the agreement, consent of defense counsel, documentation, and others.
An investigator telling you in the interrogation room, "If you don't say the other person is to blame, you will take the sole blame," is entirely different from an agreement based on formal procedures.
If it leads to expecting that one can save oneself by pointing to the mastermind envisioned by the prosecution and making statements that shift responsibility to that person, it looks like an informal deal of shifting blame conducted in a closed room.
Moreover, to a suspect whose physical freedom is restricted, the words "You will be blamed the most" are not merely an opinion.
It is extremely strong psychological pressure exerted by those who prosecute, those who continue detention, and those who influence criminal disposition.
If you don't cooperate with the prosecution's narrative, they will make you out to be the worst person.
Both of the options reportedly presented to Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto fall within the prosecution's case narrative.
If the target person is said to be the bad guy, then the target person becomes the mastermind, and Mr. Shigenori Kanamoto assumes a subordinate role.
If the target person is not said to be bad, it will be treated as planned by Mr. Toshiyoshi Nakano and Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto, making Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto himself the worst person.
There are no options there in which the prosecutor's initial hypothesis is proven wrong, such as "the possibility that, as a result of examining objective evidence, no one is found to have had the intent to evade taxes" or "the possibility that investors were misled by Mr. Toshiyoshi Nakano's explanation."
In other words, the culprit is fixed from the very beginning, and they are only being made to choose who plays the role of the culprit.
Instead of establishing the existence of a crime through evidence, responsibility is negotiated in the interrogation room.
If you call that "empathizing," then what the prosecutor is empathizing with is not the truth, but the convenience of prosecution.
Did "I want to help you" mean that you wanted me to become an accomplice of the prosecution?
It is said that Prosecutor Yamaguchi expressed that while he wanted to be of help to Mr. Shigenori Kanimoto, the outcome was due to his own inadequacy.
However, how was Prosecutor Yamaguchi trying to help Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto?
Did you collect objective evidence, report circumstances denying intent to your supervisor, and request the elimination of unnecessary physical restraints?
Or were they trying to move Shigenori Kanimoto to a lesser role by obtaining a statement making the target person the ringleader?
If it is the latter, it would mean that wanting to "lend a hand" was actually a request to become a collaborator in completing the prosecution's case narrative.
If Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto has to testify to things he has not actually seen or heard, or to things that differ from his own understanding, in order to be saved, that is not salvation.
This is the reward for submission to the prosecution, available only to those who submit statements framing others as criminals.
Did Prosecutor Yamaguchi himself also face pressure from his superiors to deliver results?
This leads to the possibility of Prosecutor Yamaguchi herself being a victim of workplace harassment, a point that the prosecutors' union has continued to point out.
A memoir has been made public stating that at the Osaka District Public Prosecutors Office Special Investigation Department, a prosecutor who obtained a denial statement from a suspect was berated by a supervising prosecutor, saying "Are you trying to kill the case?" and "You're useless," and was pressured to create a confession record.
If prosecutors who allowed denials within the prosecutor's office were treated as lacking competence, and bringing major cases to completion was demanded as an achievement, could not the same pressure have been applied to Prosecutor Yamaguchi?
If testimony portraying the target person as bad cannot be obtained from Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto, the central figure of the case cannot be determined. The large-scale case storyline fabricated by the prosecution will also not be completed.
As a result, Prosecutor Yamaguchi himself is evaluated by his superiors as having no investigative ability, being unable to produce results, and killing the case.
Isn't it possible that this fear led to the remark, "If we don't say the target person is bad, Shigenori Kanemoto will end up looking the worst"?
Was “standing by her side” Prosecutor Yamaguchi’s self-defense or a cry for help?
After Shigenori Kanemoto remained silent and the prosecution was unable to obtain the statement they sought, Prosecutor Yamaguchi reportedly visited him on Saturday and asked, “Do you dislike me?”
Furthermore, he explained that he had tried to treat everyone equally and be as supportive as possible.
This also sounds like an attempt to seek forgiveness or understanding from Shigenori Kanemoto regarding the interrogation he conducted.
I didn't actually mean to put you at a disadvantage.
There were things I could do and things I couldn't do.
To help you, I needed you to say that another person was in the wrong.
If such a meaning was included, it is possible that Prosecutor Yamaguchi was also cornered between his boss's orders and his own conscience.
However, even if Prosecutor Yamaguchi was a victim of power harassment, coercing Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto into making statements that shift the blame is not justified.
When a prosecutor, pressured by a superior to deliver results, shifts that pressure onto a detained suspect, it is an act of reproducing internal prosecution harassment within the interrogation room.
If you truly want to be supportive, please also investigate evidence that is inconvenient for the prosecution.
If Prosecutor Yamaguchi had truly intended to support Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto, the course of action he should have taken is clear.
Who explained what to Shigenori Kanemoto before he decided to invest? What inquiries were made to administrative agencies and what responses were provided? Who was the person that used the system first and explained its safety as an expert?
Did the consulting materials and services actually exist? Did Mr. Tamaki Nakano's explanation match the administrative responses and objective materials? Is there any communication showing that Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto had a specific awareness of tax evasion from the beginning?
Investigating these matters impartially is an investigation that shows consideration for the suspect.
If you fail to check evidence that is inconvenient for the prosecutor's theory and focus solely on obtaining statements that paint others as the bad guys, that is not standing by the suspect.
The prosecutor is simply leaning into their own prosecution narrative.
Open questions to the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office
- Did Prosecutor Yamaguchi say that he “had intended to stand by” Shigenori Kanemoto?
- Specifically, what kind of investigative or treatment measures did Prosecutor Yamaguchi mean by "close support"?
- Did Prosecutor Yamaguchi state, in essence, that if Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto did not testify that the person in question was at fault, he himself would be considered the most culpable?
- Did you suggest that confessing to making the target person the ringleader would possibly reduce the criminal responsibility or disposition of Mr. Shigenori Kanamoto?
- Is this interrogation strategy—which seeks to shift blame—based on Prosecutor Yamaguchi’s own judgment? Or is it based on instructions from his superiors or the investigative committee?
- Isn't there a system in place where obtaining testimony from Shigenori Kanemoto that is unfavorable to the person of interest is evaluated as an achievement by the prosecutor in charge and the investigative team?
- Did you ever receive any consultations from Prosecutor Yamaguchi regarding demands for results from superiors, instructions to elicit testimony in a specific direction, or power harassment?
- Have you preserved the audio and video recordings, interrogation notes, statements, and records of reports to your supervisor regarding the interrogation in question and the Saturday meeting?
Make sure you don't choose the wrong person to support.
What Prosecutor Yamaguchi should have embraced was not the prosecution's narrative.
The facts as Shigenori Kanemoto actually perceived them, the objective evidence, his right to remain silent, and the possibility that the prosecution’s assessment is incorrect.
"If you blame others, your own responsibility becomes lighter."
If you do not call others bad, you end up looking the worst.
Presenting such an either/or choice and encouraging cooperation with that choice should not be called “standing by someone.”
That is not an act of searching for the truth together with the suspect.
It is the act of luring a suspect into cooperating with the prosecution to jointly fabricate a story that frames another person as the culprit.
That statement made Shigenori Kanamoto's responsibility appear lesser, while simultaneously framing the incident as larger and more systematic, making the prosecutors' achievements look greater.
If that was the reality of what Prosecutor Yamaguchi called "clinging," then the one who was clinging was not Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto.
Their own case story and achievements within the prosecutorial organization.
If you truly want to help Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto, there is no need to make others look bad.
Please examine all evidence fairly, including evidence that is unfavorable to the prosecution.
And if Prosecutor Yamaguchi himself was being pressured by his superiors to “wrap up the case” and “get a confession from the ringleader,” please don’t direct that cry for help toward the suspect.
Testify outside the prosecutor's office as to who wrote the narrative of the case and who ordered the taking of statements framing someone else as the culprit.
