The prosecutor is arrogant and files charges based on emotional arguments.
The so-called "Mamitsuka Memo," which is believed to have been created amid the relationship between tax accountant Takeji Mamitsuka, a former IRS (National Tax Agency) official, and senior officials of the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau and the National Tax Agency.
Among them, regarding the prosecution's decision to indict or not to indict,
Because the prosecutor has a strong sense of pride, they will go with emotional arguments.
It is said that a very distinctive analysis to that effect is described.
If it were just this, it could be dismissed as merely an account of an alumnus's experience at the National Tax Agency or a personal assessment of prosecutors.
However, when rereading our union's series of articles regarding the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office published in August 2026 in chronological order, something extremely interesting becomes clear.
What appears repeatedly there is
It's neither law nor evidence.
attitude
Is it the right thing to do?
Do you even intend to apologize?
Do you hate me?
I thought I had been standing by your side.
Such words are profoundly human and closely tied to emotion.
Is this a coincidence?
Mind your position when you speak.
First, regarding Prosecutor Kobayashi.
In an article published by the Prosecutors Union on August 5, 2026, regarding the witness interrogation of Mr. Shigenori Kanamoto, Prosecutor Kobayashi asked the witness,
You need to speak in a way that is appropriate for your position.
It is reported that information has been received stating that they stated
Furthermore, glaring menacingly at the witness,
Is that really the right attitude to have?
Are you really sure about that content?
Is that the right thing to do?
It is also recorded that he repeated.
The prosecutors' union itself clearly states that these facts need to be verified through audio and video recordings, interrogation notes, and written statements.
However, assuming this statement is true, a question arises here.
Why,
That explanation and behavior violate the regulations of this angel tax system. What are your thoughts on that?
Isn't it?
What appears in its place is
Know your place
Is that really the right attitude to have?
Is it the right thing to do?
is the word.
Is this a question for fact-finding?
Or is it language that appeals to the other person's attitude, sense of ethics, and the power dynamic with the prosecutor?
The "pride" of the Mamizuka memo and the "position" in the interrogation
Let us now return to the contents of the Mamizuka memo.
Prosectors have a strong sense of pride.
This is the gist of the analysis.
Of course, the remark "You need to watch your place when you speak" alone is not enough to conclude that Prosecutor Kobayashi himself was overly proud.
However, at least the structure is very similar.
A witness gives an explanation that differs from the direction expected by the prosecution.
Rather than pointing out the contradiction with objective evidence there,
Consider your position
and returns.
Is evidence the issue in this situation?
Or,
the very attitude of not complying with the prosecutor's theory
is it?
If what the Mamizuka memo meant by "pride" and "emotional argument" refers to this kind of interrogation attitude, the coincidence between the two cannot be ignored.
Do you hate me?
Next is Prosecutor Yamaguchi.
According to an article by the Prosecutors Union dated August 4, 2026, Prosecutor Yamaguchi visited Shigenori Kanamoto, who was being detained, on a Saturday and
Do you hate me?
is said to have asked.
(Information leaks from the prosecution organization are a natural part of their culture, as evidenced by the fact that photos of Mr. Kanemoto before his arrest were already circulating in the media. Therefore, statements by Prosecutor Kobayashi and Prosecutor Yamaguchi also continue to be leaked from within the prosecution.)
This is a very symbolic word.
What should normally be asked in a criminal interrogation is
Who did what.
What evidence is there?
What kind of understanding was there?
Who did you conspire with and what did you conspire about?
is the fact that.
However,
Do you hate me?
That kind of question is different in nature from those.
Because it is a phrase that confirms the personal relationship itself between the prosecutor and the suspect.
After learning about the expression "emotionalism" in the Mamizuka memo, reading this record of statements leaves a strong sense of dissonance due to the exact match.
I intended to be as supportive as possible.
Regarding Prosecutor Yamaguchi, yet another remark has been made public.
According to an article by the prosecutors' union,
I feel like I've done my utmost to be supportive, and I want to be there for Mr. Kanemoto, but I think it's my own inadequacy that things ended up this way.
It is said that such a statement was made.
At first glance, it is a very human-like remark.
However, the problem is that those words are being uttered in the setting of criminal interrogations.
The prosecutor's role is not to become a friend of the suspect.
It is not even about not being disliked.
It is not about making them feel "close and supported."
It is to collect objective evidence, evaluate it fairly, and determine whether a crime has been committed.
Right there,
Love it or hate it
Did you stay close?
Were I of any help?
If emotional elements of that kind were involved, that would overlap precisely with what the Mamizuka Memo refers to as "emotionalism."
And yet, while admitting his own inadequacy, Prosecutor Yamaguchi proceeded with the indictment.
Furthermore, "Are you willing to apologize?"
And here is the article from August 6, 2026.
During the questioning of Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto, a prosecutor from the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office,
Are you willing to apologize?
It is claimed that there was a question to that effect.
Furthermore,
After all, it's because of this that I'm ending it.
is also said to have stated.
Here, too, the same structure appears.
What crime are you apologizing for?
Who are you going to apologize to?
What law or regulation are you apologizing for violating?
If the underlying criminal facts have been established by objective evidence, I can understand why there would be a situation to confirm whether or not there is remorse.
However, at the stage where the establishment of the crime itself is being contested,
Are you willing to apologize?
If you are going to ask that first,
Before establishing the facts,
Reflection
attitude
Guilt
This raises the question of whether they are trying to extract a statement by appealing to such emotions.
This is why it's over
Even more symbolic is
After all, it's because of this that I'm ending it.
is the word.
What is "konna"?
Does this mean the evidence is gone?
Are there no new investigative leads?
Or,
Was it because the suspect did not give the answers the prosecutor expected?
The Prosecutors Union is raising questions about the connection between Mr. Kanemoto's failure to provide testimony that met the prosecution's expectations and this statement.
If "like this" refers to the suspect's attitude,
The words of the Mamizuka memo come to mind again.
We will go with an emotional argument.
is.
And the heaviest remark
Furthermore, very serious statements regarding Prosecutor Yamaguchi are published in the prosecutors' union.
To Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto,
If Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto does not testify that this person is bad, Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto himself will be the worst person. From the outside, it looks like Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto and Mr. Noriyoshi Nakano planned it.
It is said that they made statements to that effect.
If this is true, the problem becomes all the more serious.
This is,
Please feel free to talk about the facts you saw.
It is not.
Regarding the person the prosecution wants to hold responsible,
Will you confess that it was bad?
Or,
Am I treated as the worst person myself?
because it can only be read as presenting a binary choice like that.
Of course, the exact context must be verified by the audio and video recording.
However, even assuming this statement exists as it is,
Instead of dismantling the statement with objective evidence,
Coercing someone into making a false confession by exploiting their fear of punishment
It is questioned whether it was not structured.
What did the Mamizuka memo know?
Let's lay everything out here again.
In the Mamizuka memo,
The prosecutor has no knowledge of taxes, but has a strong sense of pride.
We will go with an emotional argument.
Memos stating to that effect are widespread.
And there remain recordings and other evidence showing that both the Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau and Prosecutor Kobayashi were aware of the existence of this Mamizuka memo.
After that, the prosecutors' union
Regarding Prosecutor Kobayashi,
Mind your position when you speak.
Is that really the right attitude to have?
Are you really sure about that content?
Information has been received that such a statement was made.
As for Prosecutor Yamaguchi,
Do you hate me?
I intended to be as supportive as possible.
There is utterance information.
Furthermore, during the interrogation,
Are you willing to apologize?
After all, it's because of this that I'm ending it.
Even statements like that are recorded.
And,
If I do not testify that someone else is to blame, I will end up looking the most guilty.
There is even information regarding that kind of remark.
When this many line up, there is only one question.
Why do the interrogation details that emerged later overlap so closely with the prosecutor profile of "pride" and "emotionalism" that Mamizuka drafted in advance?
If it's a coincidence, it would all be resolved by disclosing the audio and video recordings.
We do not intend to conclude solely from this that Prosecutor Kobayashi or Prosecutor Yamaguchi conducted illegal interrogations.
There is no need to do so.
This is because there is a very simple way to check.
All you have to do is check the audio and video recordings of the interrogation.
Really,
Think about your position before you speak.
did you say?
Really,
Do you hate me?
Did you hear that?
Really,
I thought I had been standing by your side.
did you say?
Really,
Are you willing to apologize?
did you say?
Really,
Did you explain to the effect that if they do not state that another person is at fault, they themselves will end up being the most at fault?
If there is an audio or video recording,
The discussion will be over in a few minutes.
The most terrifying thing is if the Mamizuka memo was correct
If the Mamizuka memo is mere speculation, that's the end of it.
However,
The time the memo was created was before these interrogations,
There,
Prosectors have a strong sense of pride.
I have no knowledge of taxes, so I'm going with emotion.
an analysis regarding such prosecution decision already exists, and
In subsequent questioning,
Position
attitude
Likes and dislikes
Closeness
Apology
whether or not to testify that others are at fault
if such highly emotional and psychological elements appeared one after another,
Can this be dismissed as a mere coincidence?
Instead, the real question is
Why was Tax Accountant Mamizuka, who worked at the National Tax Agency until retirement age, able to predict the prosecutor's actions so specifically in advance?
is that point.
Was it inside information obtained by working at the Criminal Investigation Department of the National Tax Agency until retirement?
Is it because he was well-versed in the practical consultation procedures between the national tax authorities and the prosecution?
Or had they already obtained some information regarding the investigation policy at the time?
Was "going with emotional arguments" just a mere phrase?
In criminal justice,
Whether the suspect likes or dislikes the prosecutor should fundamentally not matter.
Whether the prosecutor feels "supportive" should not even matter in the first place.
It should not matter in the first place whether the witness's "attitude" is to the prosecutor's liking.
All I need is
What happened?
What evidence is there?
What law was violated?
That's all.
Nevertheless,
Know your place
Are you really okay with that attitude?
Do you hate me?
I thought I had been standing by your side.
Are you willing to apologize?
That word keeps popping up in connection with the same investigation.
Meanwhile, the Mamizuka memo states:
The prosecutor has a strong ego and lacks tax knowledge, so they will go with emotional arguments.
It is said that such a record exists.
If you are going to treat this as irrelevant,
I would like the prosecution to explain this, by all means.
What to do at the trial is simple.
I will output the Mamizuka memo.
Determine the creation date.
Verify authenticity.
Furthermore,
I will produce the audio and video recording of the interrogation.
Confirming Prosecutor Kobayashi's statement.
Confirm Prosecutor Yamaguchi's remarks.
Arrange in chronological order.
And you can just ask the court.
Why did the Mamizuka memo match the subsequent interrogations to this extent?
If it does not match,
Audio and video recordings prove it.
If it matches,
I must move on to the next question.
Was the decision to prosecute really based solely on the evidence?
Or,
Pride
emotion
attitude
whether a confession was obtained
Did elements that should have been separated from criminal responsibility find their way in?
What I want from the prosecution is not a rebuttal. It is the disclosure of records.
In this case, I don't want you to make an emotional rebuttal to the prosecution.
Rather,
I would like you to provide the records, not your emotions.
The fact that the Mamizuka memo was wrong.
The fact that the prosecutors acted on evidence rather than emotion.
That the interrogation did not involve leading questions.
These can be clarified by checking the records.
That is precisely why, in the end, I pose a very simple question.
The prosecutor has a strong ego and lacks knowledge about taxes, so they will rely on emotional arguments.
Was this merely a collection of random thoughts by a former National Tax Agency official who worked there until retirement?
Or,
Was it a record that shockingly and accurately anticipated the words and actions of the prosecutor that would later appear in the actual interrogation?
It is not about making an impression; it is about delivering results.
These are the audio and video recordings of the interrogation and the creation date and time of the Mamizuka memo.
If you line both of them up,
The answer will be found.
