Are Prosecutors Yamaguchi and Kobayashi also going to face a criminal trial for the crime of assault and abuse of authority by special public officials?
Being hostile to the public prosecutor's office makes you totally anti-social forces, doesn't it?
On August 10, 2026, footage from an interrogation by the Special Investigation Department of the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office, played in a courtroom at the Tokyo District Court, recorded a scene in which prosecutor Hiroshi Horiki at the time pressured the defendant, who continued to remain silent, in this manner.
Those who criticize the prosecutor's office are antisocial forces. Those who remain silent don't know if they are remorseful. Furthermore, they hurl remarks to the effect of, "You're about as bad as a yakuza boss," "Do you want to ruin yourself?" and "Don't drag your family into this."
This is not a script written by a villain in a crime drama. It is an interrogation by a special investigation prosecutor who is supposed to uncover the truth while protecting the rights of the suspect and properly applying the law.
X post by Naoya Fujiwara covering this news report, the following words are written:
Oh, the false accuser himself is connected to organized crime (big laugh)
The expression is harsh, but the reality goes beyond mere insults. It has already been decided that Prosecutor Horiki will face a criminal trial for the crime of abuse of authority by a special public official. The prosecutor who labeled a suspect hostile to the prosecution as an "anti-social force" has now found himself in the position of being tried by the court as a criminal defendant.
Now, what about Prosecutor Yamaguchi and Prosecutor Kobayashi of the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office, who allegedly pressured Shigenori Kanemoto and the witness to give statements fitting the prosecution's scenario, and brought up apologies, remorse, attitude, and standing?
If Prosecutor Yamaguchi's pressure to the effect of "If you don't say other people are bad, you will end up being the worst person," and Prosecutor Kobayashi's intimidation to the effect of "Watch your position when you speak" are true, can that be dismissed as mere unkind interrogation or poor choice of words?
Two active prosecutors have already become criminal defendants for the crime of special public officer abuse and cruelty on the grounds of coercive interrogation. There is no reason why only the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office can remain unrelated to this trend.
The right to remain silent is not a system granted only to suspects that the prosecutor happens to like.
Article 38, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan: No person shall be compelled to testify against himself.
Article 198, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: In conducting the examination referred to in the preceding paragraph, the suspect shall be notified in advance that they are not required to make a statement against their will.
The right to remain silent is not a favor granted to a suspect by a prosecutor. It is neither a reward granted only when the suspect has a good attitude, nor a privilege available only to persons cooperative with the prosecutor's office.
These are rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure.
If, after formally stating at the beginning of the interrogation, "You do not have to speak," the interrogator bombards a suspect who continues to remain silent with words such as antisocial forces, lack of remorse, trouble caused to family, and ruin, then the notification of the right to remain silent becomes mere ritual.
If you say, "You have the right to remain silent. However, if you remain silent, we will call you an anti-social element, judge that you are not showing remorse, and tell you that even your family will get dragged into it," then that is not the respect of rights. While taking the form of presenting choices, it is a mechanism of coercing statements where choosing one side inflicts psychological sanctions.
Report by TBS on August 10, 2026Next, footage is shown in which Prosecutor Horiki connects the refusal to answer to the presence or absence of remorse, repeatedly making statements that insult the defendant.
In the state redress lawsuit, the government is arguing that these interrogations do not exceed the bounds of social acceptability. However, prior to that, the Tokyo District Court issued a decision for quasi-prosecution, stating that the matter needs to be tried in a criminal trial.
Even if it was considered normal within the prosecution, the courts and the public are under no obligation to share that same sensibility. Rather, the very possibility that the prosecutor's office's "normal" violates the criminal code is what is at stake in this criminal trial.
The crime of violence and maltreatment by a special public official is not a crime that is established only when someone is struck.
Article 195, Paragraph 1 of the Penal Code: When a person performing judicial, prosecutorial, or police duties, or an assistant to such duties, commits an act of assault, insult, or maltreatment against a defendant, suspect, or any other person in the course of performing those duties, they shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than seven years.
Although the charge includes the word "assault," the provisions do not only target physical violence. "Humiliation" and "maltreatment" are also explicitly specified.
Insults that trample on a person's dignity, intimidation backed by state power, and mental distress inflicted to force a change in testimony may fall under Article 195 of the Penal Code, depending on the specific circumstances.
Currently, there is more than one incumbent prosecutor who has become a criminal defendant on the grounds of interrogation.
- Prosecutor Daisuke Tabuchi of the Osaka District Public Prosecutors Office's Special Investigation Department reportedly banged on his desk, shouted things like "Don't underestimate the prosecutors," and pressured a witness into making statements aligned with the prosecution's wishes. Following a quasi-judicial committal decision by the Osaka High Court in August 2024, his first criminal trial hearing took place on July 10, 2026.
- Prosecutor Hiroshi Horiki, who was then assigned to the Special Investigation Department of the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office, was accused of repeatedly making insulting and threatening statements to a suspect who continued to remain silent. On June 24, 2026, the Tokyo District Court decided to subject him to trial for the crime of assault and abuse of authority by a special public official.
- In both cases, the prosecutors decided not to indict the prosecutors belonging to their own organization, but the victims requesting justice filed for judicial committal, and the court determined that a criminal trial should be held.
Kansai Television's article reporting on the criminal trial of Prosecutor Daisuke TabuchiThen, the background is introduced where the Osaka High Court took seriously the fact that the interrogation intimidated the opposing party, degraded their dignity, and attempted to forcefully extract statements aligned with the interrogator's wishes.
The Japan Federation of Bar Associations President's Statement dated July 6, 2026Furthermore, Prosecutor Horiki is raising as an issue the fact that he continued interrogating the suspect for 41 consecutive days, totaling approximately 205 hours, even though the suspect had clearly expressed their intention to remain silent.
In other words, the criterion for a prosecutor to proceed to a criminal trial is not solely whether or not someone was struck. At issue is what kind of words were used, how many times they were repeated, for the purpose of obtaining what kind of statement, and what kind of pain was inflicted on the victim's personality and psyche, all while under physical restraint or in a setting backed by state power.
What was Prosecutor Yamaguchi's "If you don't say others are bad, you become the worst"?
According to information submitted to the prosecutors' union, Prosecutor Yamaguchi of the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office reportedly made statements to Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto to the following effect.
- A remark to the effect that if he did not state that another targeted person was to blame, Shigenori Kanemoto himself would be considered the most to blame.
- A remark to the effect that, from a third party's perspective, it looks as though the accused, Tatsuyoshi Nakano, and Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto had planned it.
- Being asked, "Are you willing to apologize?" without any specific illegal acts or legal grounds being clarified.
- It is said that after failing to receive the expected answer, they stated, "In the end, because of this, I'm calling it quits."
- It is said that on Saturday, he visited Shigenori Kanamoto, who had shifted to remaining silent, asked him, "Do you hate me?", and explained that he had treated him fairly and tried to be as supportive as possible.
Stating that "if you don't say another person is bad, you yourself will end up looking the worst" is not a question that allows one to freely explain the facts.
It presents the roles in the case prepared by the prosecution and forces the suspect to choose whether to cast themselves as the principal offender or to pin the main role on someone else. The mental pressure on a suspect is obvious when presented with this stark choice by a prosecutor who holds them in custody and wields significant influence over the decision to indict and the sentencing recommendation.
Prosecutor Horiki pressed the silent suspect by saying, "anti-social forces," "yakuza," and "I don't know if you're reflecting." It is alleged that Prosecutor Yamaguchi indicated to Shigenori Kanamoto, who was remaining silent, that unless he testified that someone else was at fault, he would be considered the most culpable.
Although different words were used, the structure overlaps in that it does not respect silence or denial and implies disadvantages for not making the statements demanded by the prosecution.
The word "empathetic" does not serve as a get-out-of-jail-free card under criminal law either. If the audio and video recordings of the interrogation capture words compelling the shift of responsibility, demands for an apology, or the evaluation of attitude after remaining silent, the evaluation depends not on what Prosecutor Yamaguchi called his actions, but on what those actions forced upon Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto.
The person Prosecutor Kobayashi allegedly intimidated was a witness, but Article 195 of the Penal Code does not apply only to "suspects."
Regarding Prosecutor Kobayashi, information has been received that when a witness gave an explanation different from the prosecution's hypothesis, he glared at the person and repeatedly made statements to the following effect.
- A statement to the effect of "Are you really okay with that attitude?"
- A remark to the effect of "Are you really sure about that content?"
- A remark to the effect of "Is that the right thing to do?"
- A remark to the effect that one should mind their position before speaking.
It is also reported that when one of the witnesses asked back, essentially saying that if the prosecution already had the desired answers in mind they should just hand over a draft, Prosecutor Kobayashi appeared to panic.
Article 195 of the Penal Code does not limit its scope to defendants and suspects. It stipulates "defendants, suspects, or other persons." Because one is a witness, there is no loophole in the statutory provisions that would exempt them from being subjected to abuse or maltreatment by a prosecutor.
Witnesses are not called to support the prosecution's hypothesis. They are called to speak about the facts they have seen and heard.
Simply because that content differed from the prosecution's theory, if they are repeatedly questioned about their attitude, correctness, and position, the witness begins to think, "Rather than telling my true memory, it's faster to give the answers the prosecution wants to be released sooner."
This is not limited to psychological pressure on a single witness; it contaminates the testimonial evidence itself, creating the risk that another person could be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted based on that testimony.
In Prosecutor Daisuke Tabuchi's case as well, it was determined that coercion to forcibly obtain compliant testimony carries the risk of inducing false testimony. If Prosecutor Kobayashi's words and actions were carried out for the purpose of influencing a person of interest toward testimony that aligns with the prosecution's scenario, the same legal issue arises.
Whether Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto is guilty or not and whether the interrogation by Prosecutors Yamaguchi and Kobayashi constitutes a crime are two different issues.
The prosecution might counter with arguments such as, "We were investigating a serious case," "The suspect did not tell the truth," and "Rigorous questioning was necessary."
However, whether the suspect is ultimately found guilty and whether the interrogating prosecutor violated Article 195 of the Penal Code are separate matters of criminal liability.
Defendant Naoyuki Ikuta, who was interrogated by Prosecutor Horiki, received an 11-year prison sentence in the first instance and is reportedly appealing. Even so, the Tokyo District Court decided that it is necessary to examine Prosecutor Horiki's interrogation in the criminal trial.
It is not a system where prosecutors can do whatever they want just because the suspect is guilty. A guilty verdict is not a retroactive license for insults, threats, and coerced confessions in the interrogation room.
In Shigetoku Kanemoto's angel tax system case as well, whether or not a tax law violation has occurred should be determined based on evidence regarding investments, payments, shares, administrative confirmation, fund transfers, intent, and conspiracy. Regardless of what that conclusion may be, the legality of the interrogations conducted by Prosecutors Yamaguchi and Kobayashi must be independently verified.
Can an organization that cannot understand even a single sentence of Article 38 of the Constitution possibly understand the angel tax system?
Article 38, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, which establishes the right to remain silent, is a single sentence.
No person shall be compelled to testify against himself.
Can an organization that converts a single sentence to mean that someone who remained silent is unrepentant, hostile to the prosecution, and an antisocial force accurately analyze complex transactions related to the angel tax system?
In the case of Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto, at least the following matters should have been sorted out originally:
- Under which investment agreement, who, when, and how much did they pay?
- How the shares were actually issued, and how shareholder rights and the capital increase registration were handled.
- What materials the administrative agency reviewed and what kind of confirmation document or response it issued.
- What is the objective criteria for distinguishing between normal reinvestment and illegal money kickbacks planned from the beginning?
- Whether consulting and other services actually existed and which deliverables were created.
- Among defendant Tamaki Nakano, Mr. Satoshi Saito, Mr. Watanabe Makoto, and Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto, who designed the system, who explained its safety, who decided to use it, and who profited from it?
If these are not organized by evidence and laws, but rather translated such that reinvestment means kickback, denial means lack of remorse, silence means hostility, and criticism of the prosecution means anti-social forces, then this is not an investigation, but a word association game.
The angel tax system is not magic words used by prosecutors to turn transactions they find "suspicious" into tax evasion. It is a system that evaluates multiple laws, administrative procedures, stock transactions, accounting processes, and the perceptions of the parties involved in chronological order.
What happens when you entrust the interpretation of a complex tax system to an organization that cannot even uphold a single sentence of the Constitution? They fill in the gaps with interrogations, make up for a lack of legal structure with confessions, and if they cannot get the statement they want, they take issue with the person's attitude and lack of remorse. Today's video showed the whole country that danger.
Did the "National Tax Extermination Plan" by Makoto Watanabe and Defendant Toshiyuki Nakano plan to send the prosecutors themselves to the courtroom?
Information submitted to the prosecutors' union indicates that defendant Tamaki Nakano had repeatedly made remarks to those around him to the effect of "driving out the national tax authorities" and "using that tax money to drive out the prosecution."
There is also information that Defendant Nakano, in coordination with Makoto Watanabe, spoke of an intention to enlist the national tax authorities and prosecutors as allies, use being arrested in Japan as a means to evade pursuit by overseas authorities, and shift the blame onto another individual.
There is also a tip that a recording exists in which Mr. Watanabe mentions a plan to harbor Defendant Nakano and, together with Defendant Nakano, have a specific individual arrested.
The full scope of these recordings and plans can be verified by cross-referencing the original recordings, creation dates and times, preceding and following conversations, communication records, and records of contact with the national tax authorities and prosecutors.
However, if that plan actually existed and the National Tax Agency and prosecutors were used to arrest Shigenori Kanamoto and others, an ironic result is beginning to unfold.
- If we turn this into a case without understanding the complex tax system, the investigative capability of the National Tax Agency will be questioned.
- If confessions and shifting the blame are demanded rather than evidence, the investigative capabilities of the prosecution will be called into question.
- Intimidating a suspect who remains silent or a witness whose testimony differs from the expected theory makes the prosecutor in charge themselves subject to investigation under Article 195 of the Penal Code.
- Even if the prosecution decides not to indict one of its own prosecutors, the victims can request a quasi-judicial committal to trial and ask the court to initiate a criminal trial.
The plan that was supposed to crush the target using the national tax authority and the prosecution ultimately resulted in exposing the national tax authority's legal understanding, the prosecution's interrogation methods, and the responsible prosecutor's criminal liability to society.
Is this the outcome of the words attributed to Defendant Nakano: "Using the National Tax Agency to eliminate the National Tax Agency, and using that same National Tax Agency to eliminate the public prosecutors"?
If Makoto Watanabe and Defendant Nakano attempted to use the powers of the national tax authorities and the prosecution for their own purposes, the fact that they were the ones who were used does not absolve them of responsibility. Prosecutors who willingly followed illegal instructions and intimidated suspects or witnesses still bear their own criminal responsibility.
Records to preserve for judging the issue of Prosecutors Yamaguchi and Kobayashi
Whether Article 195 of the Penal Code applies is judged not from a single clipped remark, but from the circumstances of the interrogation as a whole. The records that the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office and the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office must immediately preserve and submit for independent verification are clear.
- Audio and video recordings of all interrogations, interviews, and visits under the guise of casual conversation involving Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto.
- Prosecutor Yamaguchi's interrogation memo, draft statement, report to superiors, investigation meeting minutes, and approval materials.
- The audio recordings, video footage, interrogation memos, witness statement records, and supervisor reporting records from the witness interview by Prosecutor Kobayashi.
- Draft questions, preparatory meetings, emails, and chats showing the content of statements the prosecution was trying to obtain from a witness.
- Original recordings and communications of Defendant Kazuki Nakano featuring statements such as "we have the National Tax Agency and the prosecution on our side" and "eradicating the National Tax Agency."
- Records regarding communications, meetings, provision of information, and investigative cooperation between Makoto Watanabe, Defendant Nakano, Satoshi Saito, and officials from the National Tax Agency and the public prosecutor's office.
- Investigation policies, approvals, and records of consultations with higher-level agencies concerning who is to be considered the primary culprit and what statements are to be obtained from whom.
- Materials related to contracts, administrative responses, shares, remittances, provision of services, and reinvestment submitted by Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto's side, and the records determining their acceptance or rejection.
If recordings and footage remain, they should be disclosed to protect Prosecutors Yamaguchi and Kobayashi. If the provided information was exaggerated or mistaken, the records will make that clear. Conversely, if coercion matching what was reported to the prosecutor union remains, those records must not be sealed within the organization.
Public questions to the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office, Tokyo High Public Prosecutors Office, Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office, Prosecutor Yamaguchi, and Prosecutor Kobayashi
- Did Prosecutor Yamaguchi make a statement to Mr. Shigenori Kanamoto to the effect that if Mr. Kanamoto did not state that another targeted person was at fault, Mr. Kanamoto himself would be treated as the most at-fault person?
- Did Prosecutor Yamaguchi suggest that Kimimoto's criminal liability, detention disposition, or treatment could change depending on whether or not he made a statement implicating another person as the mastermind?
- Did Prosecutor Yamaguchi ask Mr. Kanemoto, "Do you have any intention of apologizing," without presenting specific criminal facts and legal grounds?
- Did Prosecutor Yamaguchi treat Mr. Kanemoto's silence or explanation differing from the prosecution's hypothesis as a negative behavioral evaluation or as a reason for terminating the interrogation?
- Did Prosecutor Yamaguchi make statements to the effect of, "After all, because of this, I'm ending it," and "Even if we convey this to the staff, it might not reach the prosecution"?
- Did Prosecutor Kobayashi make statements to the witness to the effect of "Are you really satisfied with that attitude and content?", "Is that the right thing to do?", and "You need to consider your position when you speak"?
- Did Prosecutor Kobayashi repeatedly ask the same question to a witness who gave a statement different from the prosecution's theory, thereby applying psychological pressure to change the answer?
- Is there any fact that a witness pointed out to the effect that "if the prosecution has a desired answer in mind, please give me a manuscript"? Did you record that statement in the interrogation memo?
- Did supervisors, lead prosecutors, an investigative meeting, or higher-level offices exist that instructed Prosecutors Yamaguchi and Kobayashi to obtain statements making a specific person the principal offender?
- Have you examined whether the interrogations and witness interviews conducted by Prosecutors Yamaguchi and Kobayashi could fall under "abuse or maltreatment" as stipulated in Article 195 of the Penal Code?
- Have you verified by applying the criteria set forth in the quasi-prosecution rulings for Prosecutors Hiroshi Horiki and Daisuke Tabuchi to the words and actions of Prosecutors Yamaguchi and Kobayashi?
- Are you preserving the entire process of the interrogation of Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto, the Saturday meeting, and the record of the witness interview by Prosecutor Kobayashi?
- Has the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office obtained recordings and communication records in which Defendant Tamaki Nakano allegedly stated, "We have the national tax agency and the prosecutors on our side" and "We will drive out the national tax agency"?
- Have you investigated the authenticity and the preceding and following communications regarding the recordings and documents showing that Mr. Makoto Watanabe and Defendant Nakano shared a plan to have a specific individual arrested and held responsible?
- To what extent did Prosecutor Yamaguchi and Prosecutor Kobayashi investigate Satoshi Saito's preliminary use of the system, his explanations as an expert, his introductions, his attendance at remittances, and his other involvement?
- If a criminal accusation or complaint is filed against Prosecutor Yamaguchi or Prosecutor Kobayashi, will the case be transferred to an investigative body with no conflict of interest rather than being handled within the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office?
- In the case of a non-prosecution disposition, will you specifically set forth the verified audio and video recordings, the established facts, and the reasons for the decision so that it can withstand an application for the institution of a trial (quasi-prosecution)?
measures demanded by the prosecutor union
- Immediately preserve the recordings and videos, memos, draft written statements, investigation meeting records, and consultation records with higher-level authorities regarding the interrogation of Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto and the hearing of witnesses by Prosecutor Kobayashi.
- Isolate Prosecutor Yamaguchi and Prosecutor Kobayashi from the investigation into the legality of the interrogation, the preservation of evidence, interviews with related parties, and access to the records.
- Establish an independent investigation committee centered on former judges, attorneys, and experts in psychology and interrogation practices from outside the prosecution organization.
- Verify whether prosecutor Yamaguchi's and prosecutor Kobayashi's words and actions constitute maltreatment or abuse under the same standards as the quasi-prosecution decisions for prosecutor Daisuke Tabuchi and prosecutor Hiroshi Horiki.
- Investigate not only the individual prosecutor in charge, but also the chain of command, including the supervisor who ordered the procurement of the statement, the chief prosecutor, the investigation meeting, and the higher-level office.
- Disclose the necessary interrogation records so that, respecting the wishes of Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto and the witness, criminal complaints, accusations, requests for quasi-trial (committal procedures), and other legal proceedings can be considered.
- Introduce a system where, as a rule, the entire process of witness interviews is also audio and video recorded, allowing for post-facto verification of whether prosecutors guided the statements in a specific direction.
- Comprehensively re-examine the Angel Tax System case not through statements and attitudes, but based on investment contracts, shares, administrative confirmation, remittances, services, reinvestment, the system guide, and the attribution of profits.
- Investigate all communication and meeting records regarding the contacts, provision of information, cooperation with investigations, and formation of the case's narrative between Makoto Watanabe, Defendant Toshiyuki Nakano, Satoshi Saito, and officials from the National Tax Agency and the prosecution.
- Do not end the investigation results with just the conclusion that "appropriate action was taken," but instead make public the established facts, verified documents, chain of command, legal evaluation, and disciplinary actions taken.
Next to be asked "Watch your position and mind your words" are Prosecutor Yamaguchi and Prosecutor Kobayashi.
Naoya Fujiwara's post, "Aren't the framing artists themselves anti-social forces?", was written as irony. However, the reality in which prosecutors themselves become criminal defendants has already begun.
Prosecutor Daisuke Tabuchi is pleading not guilty in a criminal court. Prosecutor Hiroshi Horiki will also be tried in a criminal court in the future as a defendant for the crime of abuse of authority by a special public official.
The next entity to be investigated is the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office.
If Prosecutor Yamaguchi pressured Kimimoto Shigenori by telling him that if he did not state that others were at fault, Kimimoto himself would become the worst person, those words are not merely investigative persuasion. If Prosecutor Kobayashi intimidated a witness trying to tell the truth by telling them to consider their position, it is not the witness's position that is in question, but the position of the prosecutor himself, who is entrusted with state power.
We cannot afford to let an organization that converts even a single sentence of Article 38 of the Constitution into words like remorse, hostility, and anti-social forces think it understands the complex requirements of the angel tax system.
Filling gaps in an unfamiliar legal system with forced confessions. Compensating for insufficient evidence by intimidating witnesses. Pressuring anyone who offers an explanation differing from the prosecution's theory regarding their attitude, righteousness, and standing, demanding that they offer up someone else as the culprit.
If that was an investigation by the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office, Shigenori Kanemoto should not be the only one held accountable in a criminal trial.
Even if the "National Tax Extermination Plan," allegedly orchestrated by Makoto Watanabe and defendant Tatsuki Nakano, was a scheme to crush others using the national tax authority and the prosecutors, the prosecutors who themselves abused that public authority cannot end up as mere victims who were exploited. As the entity that conducted illegal interrogations, they will be held accountable under their own names.
Before demanding that Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto and the witnesses "speak with their positions in mind," Prosecutors Yamaguchi and Kobayashi, please explain yourselves with your own positions in mind.
Disclosing the audio and video recordings will provide the answer.
If proper questioning is recorded there, it will serve as evidence to protect both prosecutors. If it records the exercise of the right to silence being treated unfavorably, pressure being applied to shift responsibility, and an attempt to intimidate a witness into changing their statement, then the next place that should be opened is not an internal training conference room.
This is an open criminal court session trying the crime of assault and maltreatment by a special public official.
