It wasn't just the angel tax system—in Kagoshima, too, a "crime narrative" was completed ahead of the system
When I follow the Angel Tax System case involving Mr. Shigenori Kanamoto unfolding in Yokohama, I inevitably get a sense of déjà vu.
Actually, a very similar structured incident also happened in Kagoshima.
And appearing once again is Mr. Nakano Kazuyoshi.
Multiple records have been submitted showing that the prosecutor union allegedly told Makoto Watanabe and Satoshi Saito of Last One Mile that they intended to exploit the situation—where Mr. Nakano would become the target of criminal cases by the Japanese National Tax Agency and Public Prosecutors Office and be taken into custody in Japan—in order to help him avoid facing more serious criminal liability overseas.
Of course, our union does not determine or conclude the purpose to be a proven fact based solely on the contents of the recording or similar materials.
It is our position that this is critical information that investigative authorities must verify, including the authenticity of the recording, the speaker, the surrounding context, and the status of investigations by overseas authorities.
However, assuming that recording is authentic, the Kagoshima incident begins to show a completely different face.
Is this the case where Japan's National Tax Agency and Public Prosecutors Office cornered Mr. Tamaki Nakano?
Or is it a case where Mr. Toshiyuki Nakano used Japan's National Tax Agency and Public Prosecutors Office to manage a different crisis of his own?
This is no laughing matter.
If investigative agencies believe they are investigating an "informant," but are actually being led along a narrative designed by that very person, it is quite a serious matter for state power.
1 From "software not found" to "never existed from the beginning"—there is a huge logical leap there
Regarding the Kagoshima Business Restructuring Subsidy scandal,
Software does not exist.
↓
Therefore, both the orders and deliveries are fictitious.
↓
Subsidy applications are scams
↓
The related tax processing is also fictitious.
Information that such a story is being formed is coming to our union one after another from within the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau and the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office.
However, there is a fundamental problem here from the beginning.
The fact that the software cannot be verified now is not synonymous with the software not existing at the time.
Software is not like real estate or automobiles.
You can delete it.
If you stop the server, it will no longer be usable.
Sometimes, destroying a computer will make it unusable.
You can delete your cloud account.
You can delete the source code.
You can damage the device.
By changing the credentials, you can even make a service that existed until yesterday appear to "not exist" to third parties the very next day.
That is precisely why, if you are going to investigate the existence of the software,
Source code
Version control history such as Git
Server log
Cloud contract
API Usage Log
Device used
Account creation history
Operation screen
Specification
Requirements Definition Document
WBS
Email and chat
Backup
statements of actual users
It is usual to check
Even in the official guidelines for the Business Restructuring Subsidy, requirement definition documents, process schedules, WBS, etc., are expected as verification materials for system construction costs. The current official FAQ also guides the preparation of such documents for the submission of system construction costs.
In other words, the system itself
You can't understand the existence of software just by looking at a single finished product.
We operate the system under this premise.
Nevertheless, when it comes to the investigation, all of a sudden,
We don't have the physical item in stock. Yep, it's fictitious.
If that is the case, it is a bit too crude.
Such an argument would only fly with the National Tax Agency, said to be the weakest in the world, and the prosecution service that actually believes it.
2 What is even more troublesome is that Mr. Nakano Shatsuki himself had previously explained to the National Tax Agency that he "made it himself."
This is where it gets important.
According to documents verified by the prosecutors' union, Mr. Nakano had previously requested the National Tax Agency to
Regarding the software in question, I built it with the assistance of others, and delivered and verified it myself.
They are alleged to have repeatedly submitted instructions to that effect.
If this is authentic, it is extremely important.
Because later,
There was no such thing as software
If it shifts to that explanation, it will directly contradict the past self-explanation.
Which is the truth?
Was the previous explanation false?
Or is the later explanation of non-existence false?
You cannot proceed with the indictment without verifying this part first and relying solely on the subsequent explanation.
The basis of an investigation is that when statements change,
Why did it change?
is to investigate.
In this case, critical information has been provided regarding the reason.
This is the suspicion that Mr. Nakano was attempting to use the Japanese criminal case in order to distance himself from more serious accountability by overseas authorities.
If true, it is the very motive for the change in testimony.
If we do not investigate here, what else is there to investigate?
3. Is it considered fraud just because the "person who placed the order" and the "person who made it" are in the same economic sphere?
The same phenomenon as the angel tax system can be seen regarding the Business Restructuring Subsidy.
Are you trying to fabricate criminal charges later on for prohibited conditions that are not explicitly stated in the regulations?
According to the explanation provided to the prosecutors' union, in this case, Mr. Toshiyuki Nakano was involved in accounting and business operations on the side of the company carrying out the subsidized project, while also being deeply involved on the side providing the software.
Furthermore, there is an explanation that the development by the software company originally scheduled was delayed, or that it essentially amounted only to lawful advice, and that Mr. Nakano himself performed active technical work.
The important thing here is
holding multiple positions simultaneously and
Recording false outsourcing expenses for the subsidy application
is not to confuse.
Under the official guidelines of the Business Restructuring Subsidy, eligible expenses may include machinery and system construction costs, outsourcing costs, and others. Regarding outsourcing, written contracts and similar documentation are required, and it is important that the expenses actually exist and can be clearly distinguished from the subsidized project.
On the other hand, as far as the institutional documents show,
Just because the same person is involved in multiple corporations, the existence of the software itself is denied.
That is not the rule.
Looking at the current operation of public systems, the status of a concurrent officer itself is naturally assumed to exist. The FAQ on the commercialization status reports for the Business Restructuring Subsidy also explicitly addresses "concurrent officers."
Transactions with related parties may be subject to stricter screening.
System design, such as excluding profit margins from subsidy-eligible expenses for in-house procurement or intra-group transactions, actually exists in other subsidy programs affiliated with the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.
However,
Because they are related parties, the software does not exist.
That logic does not follow.
What should be questioned is
Has it really been developed?
Was it actually used?
Who worked on it
Did the claimed expenses actually occur?
Is the calculation of the amount declared as eligible for subsidy correct?
Were there any falsehoods in the application?
is.
Please investigate this item by item.
4 And a large number of people have "seen" the software—yet they still insist on pushing forward as if the software doesn't exist?
Furthermore, the prosecutor union also has
Mr. Nakano Kakuki touted the problematic software as the "Nakano System" and I saw it actually being used or in operation.
We have received information from multiple union members stating that
If this is true, it becomes a very simple story.
There was no software.
If you want to prove that, please interview those users.
What kind of screen was it?
What was accomplished?
When was it used?
Which device was used to access it?
Were there an ID and a password?
Who gave you the explanation?
Are there no screenshots?
Are there no logs left?
You just need to check them one by one.
Without asking any questions of witnesses or users,
There was no software.
If you state it so decisively, that is not an investigation, but a conclusion.
In Japanese, the process of reaching a conclusion and then gathering evidence is not typically referred to as “investigation.”
That kind of self-proclaimed level of investigation is just self-satisfaction on the part of the National Tax Agency, known as the world's weakest organization, and the prosecutors who believe them. It's no wonder they're called tax thieves.
5. Subsidy programs originally have a "program side"—so why do the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency and the secretariat disappear from the stage?
Here, a strange commonality with the angel tax system incident emerges.
The Business Restructuring Subsidy is not a system created by the Public Prosecutors Office.
This is a system by the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency.
The current official website also clearly states that this project is operated by a secretariat under the supervision of the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency and the Organization for Small & Medium Enterprises and Regional Innovation, Japan.
I have a request.
There is a grant decision.
I have a results report.
There is a commercialization status report.
There is acquisition property management.
Where necessary, it includes procedures for business succession and property disposal.
And yet, when it comes to criminal cases, for some reason,
The government agency that operates the system disappears into the wings, and suddenly only the world's weakest National Tax Agency and Public Prosecutors Office take center stage.
This phenomenon occurs.
It was the same with the angel tax system.
Before checking or cancellation procedures by the department in charge of the system,
abuse
reflux
kickback
The criminal case term began to circulate in the media.
Even with the Business Restructuring Subsidy,
There is no software
Fictional
Fraud
A detective story like that runs ahead.
However, you should ideally ask the person in charge of the system.
What was checked in this application?
What was verified in the performance report?
What documentation was submitted for the system development costs?
How was the concurrent holding of positions by the persons involved explained in the application?
Who reviewed the actual deliverables?
What administrative return or cancellation procedures were scheduled if the subsidized project was unfulfilled or inappropriate?
After hearing that,
Nevertheless, it is fraud through false application.
If that is the case, it makes it very clear as a criminal case.
There is no need to start a police drama without ever featuring institutional government offices on stage.
6. Why does Mr. Kakuki Nakano deny the "proof of existence" that he himself submitted?
This is the biggest mystery of this case.
Mr. Nakano previously
I built myself
Made with advice
Delivered
I have confirmed.
I had submitted documents to the National Tax Agency to that effect.
Meanwhile, after that,
There is no software
The case is proceeding in that direction.
Normally, an investigator would ask this.
Mr. Nakano, which one is the truth?
It is not a difficult question.
However, if the information sent to the prosecutors' union is true, there is even a recording that could hold the key to understanding that response.
This is a statement to the effect that Mr. Nakano was attempting to avoid more serious accountability overseas by placing himself within the Japanese criminal procedure.
If this is true, it is not the usual scenario of "someone who doesn't want to become a criminal" running away from a criminal case.
Was there an advantage to being treated as a criminal in Japan in order to escape an even more serious separate matter?
Did you think you could easily fool Japanese prosecutors and the National Tax Agency, even though overseas investigative agencies are too sophisticated to be deceived?
This creates a rather unusual composition.
In that case, retracting my previous explanation,
There was no software.
This also creates at least some motivation to do so.
That is precisely why the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office, and especially its Deputy Prosecutor General, must follow through on their words and conduct a thorough investigation, including international cooperation.
Recording, audio recording.
An overseas incident.
Timing of the move to Japan.
The period when the software became unavailable.
Past explanations to the IRS.
Subsequent changes in statements.
You just need to arrange everything in chronological order.
7 This is not a story about finding Nakano Toshiyuki innocent.
To avoid any misunderstanding.
The prosecutors' union is not claiming that Mr. Nakano bears no criminal responsibility.
It's quite the opposite.
It states that a thorough investigation should be conducted to determine which actions the individual actually performed.
If there were falsifications in the subsidy application, responsibility should be held.
If a nonexistent purchase order was created, it should be investigated.
If you have acquired someone else's funds, you should trace the whereabouts of that money.
If the software was intentionally damaged or deleted, that should be investigated as well.
If there is suspicion of harm caused to investors or others overseas, international investigative cooperation should be conducted.
However,
Adopting only Mr. Nakano's explanation that "there is no software" and failing to look at other explanations, users, past materials, or logs,
That is a completely different story.
Although the deputy chief prosecutor of the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office spoke eloquently about international cooperation, are they truly practicing international cooperation worldwide?
That is not investigating Mr. Nakano.
We are just being played with by the story provided by Mr. Nakano.
8 Are the National Tax Agency and the Public Prosecutors Office being "expelled" by Mr. Kakki Nakano?
Mr. Nakano has long used extremely provocative language regarding the National Tax Agency,
"If we use national taxes, we can even make the prosecution visible."
Eradicate the Internal Revenue Service
Information has been received that he/she was expressing such views to those around them.
This also requires verification of the authenticity and context of the statement.
However, if they truly had such a strategy, the current situation is quite ironic.
Under the angel tax system,
The national tax authorities and the prosecutors take up the case before the regulatory authorities do.
Even with the Business Restructuring Subsidy,
Before the institutional side can even confirm the deliverables and results, a criminal narrative of "software non-existence" is completed.
And Nakano is at the center of both.
If the person in question,
To manipulate the national tax authorities and the prosecution according to one's own plan
If that was the goal, the current turn of events is quite ideal for them.
Even as a prosecutors' union, this is no laughing matter.
Law enforcement agencies have the authority to arrest people.
That is precisely why the damage caused by being manipulated by the informant's agenda is incomparable to that of a private company.
9 Same Theater, Different Systems: Five Common Questions in the Angel Tax System Case and the Subsidy Case
Yokohama and Kagoshima.
The Angel Tax System and the Business Restructuring Grant.
The systems are different.
However, to us, they look quite similar in structure.
First, detailed verification by the regulatory authority does not come to light.
Secondly, criminal investigations led by the National Tax Agency and the Public Prosecutors Office will come first.
Third, some provocative words—"reflux," "kickback," and "soft non-existence"—are used in place of legal requirements.
Fourth, there is no visible administrative data, service data, or investigation status of users that contradicts that story.
Fifth, Mr. Nakano is deeply involved in both.
Is it a coincidence?
Of course, it might be a coincidence.
So you should just look it up.
10 I want to ask the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office—Who proved "there was no software," and with what?
A very specific question from the Prosecutors Union to the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office.
1. Have you checked the explanation previously submitted by Mr. Nakano to the National Tax Agency, to the effect that he built, delivered, and verified the software himself?
2. Did you question the person in question about the contradiction between that content and the current explanation that "the software does not exist"?
3. Did you interview any relevant parties who had information indicating that they had viewed or used the software?
4. Did you investigate the source code, server logs, cloud history, devices, and backups?
5. Have you checked the requirements definition document, schedule, WBS, contracts, invoices, and performance report materials from the time of the subsidy application?
6. Did you ask the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency, the subsidy secretariat, or other officials in charge of the program what was confirmed at the time?
7. Regarding the fact that Mr. Nakano was involved with both the subsidiary business company and the software side, what institutional requirement are you applying to classify that fact itself as illegal?
8. If transactions between related parties or in-house development parts are the issue, do you distinguish whether it is a fictitious order or an issue of calculating subsidized expenses?
IX. Did you confirm recordings or other evidence stating that Mr. Nakano intended to exploit Japanese criminal cases to evade foreign criminal liability?
10. Did you cooperate with foreign agencies on this matter? Isn’t the Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office just all talk?
If you have reviewed all of this and concluded that it is a "fraud," you should present that evidence in court.
If you haven't checked,
Why were you in such a hurry?
The First-Ever "Nakano Shaki Theater"—Who is the person that truly deserves to be on stage?
The Business Restructuring Subsidy is a program designed to support businesses in taking on new business ventures.
System construction costs have also been planned for under the system, and outsourcing costs have been permitted under certain conditions. The system is structured to verify the actual substance through documents such as contracts, performance reports, deliverables, acquired property, and the status of commercialization.
So what is needed in this case is very simple.
Was there software?
Who made it?
Who used it?
Who was paid how much?
Was that amount eligible for the subsidy?
Which part of the application was false?
Why did Mr. Nakano change his explanation?
Who benefited from that change?
Is there a connection to overseas incidents?
You just need to look this up.
Are the National Tax Agency and the Public Prosecutors Office about to be "driven out" by Mr. Nakano's sophisticated strategy?
Or did they already have sufficient evidence, knowing everything when they filed the charges?
For now, we don't know.
That's why I can't take my eyes off of it.
The only thing I can say is
You cannot erase an entire history of development, delivery, usage, and subsidy programs with just a single line saying "the software isn't here now."
That is all.
Because Nakano System was a famous and brilliant system that had impressed many investors through the angel tax system.
In the angel tax system, just the single word "reflux" (or "capital return").
In the Business Restructuring Subsidy, a single word: "non-existent".
Criminal cases are not something to be created with a single convenient word.
It is something built on rules, evidence, and chronology.
If the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office and the National Tax Agency are truly not spectators of Nakano's farce, but rather investigative authorities, I would first like them to thoroughly investigate behind the scenes.
