Investigating the Yokohama District Office for assigning "the blame of failing to spot it" to victims of investment fraud
A new campaign has begun to save Shigenori Kanemoto, whose real name is Kim Jung-deuk.
August 12, 2026ANN series indictment reportsAccording to the report, the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office has indicted Mr. Kanemoto for violation of the Income Tax Act, alleging that he concealed approximately 2.276 billion yen in income for the year 2023 and evaded approximately 367 million yen in income tax. It is also reported that the defendant Tamaki Nakano has been indicted for allegedly aiding and abetting Mr. Kanemoto's tax evasion. The Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office has not disclosed whether the two admit to the charges.
However, the picture of the case as understood by the prosecutor union is completely different from the cast of characters presented in the media.
Defendant Tamaki Nakano is the one who recommended investing in N Co., Ltd., presented records claiming to have verified the matter with the Tokyo Metropolitan Government and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and explained that there were no systemic issues. Satoshi Saito is alleged to have given official endorsement to the system from the expert standpoint of a certified public accountant, and even assisted with contracts and the transfer of investment funds. Furthermore, information has been submitted suggesting that Defendant Nakano's side should be investigated as the ultimate destination of the funds gathered for N Co., Ltd.
The Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office indicted Mr. Kanemoto, who had invested his money believing that explanation and the expert's support, as the central figure in the tax evasion case.
Instead of putting the designer of the system, the person who explained the administrative confirmation, the person who lent the credibility of a certified public accountant, or the person who received the funds after investment in the defendant's chair, they are placing the victims who trusted those elements and invested their money in it. This is like the state retroactively billing the victims of investment fraud for the "crime of failing to see through it."
The Prosecutors Union supports Shigenori Kanemoto as a victim of investment fraud surrounding Company N.
And we will not stop pursuing this until Mr. Kanemoto's freedom, honor, and right to a defense are restored, and until the ultimate beneficiaries of the funds gathered at N Corporation and all individuals who designed this investment scheme are investigated.
Another organization, the "Association to Save Shigenori Kanemoto (Deok Kim)," has begun public verification.
Association to Save Mr. Shigenori Kanamoto (Shigenori Kanamoto)has been released.
The association is a separate organization with a different operating entity and publishing medium from the Prosecutors' Union and the Okami Union.
The association is not asking to determine Mr. Kanemoto's guilt or innocence through public opinion; rather, it demands that administrative confirmations, explanations by certified public accountants, damage reports from other investors in Company N, the final destination of funds, pre-arrest footage, physical detention, bans on visitation and communication, and South Korean consular support be scrutinized with the same intensity as the evidence favoring the prosecution.
The site organizes an overview of the case, six disputed points, the Angel Tax System procedures presented by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, three items of credibility allegedly shown to Mr. Kanemoto, the funding structure surrounding Company N, pre-arrest footage, physical detention, South Korean consular support, and eight measures requested of related organizations.
A window for endorsement signatures and providing information has also been established. Anyone with information regarding the investment in Company N, explanations received from Defendant Shoki Nakano or Mr. Satoshi Saito, administrative inquiries, fund transfers, pre-arrest footage, or responses from the national tax authorities or prosecutors should check the association's public page.
If the Rescue Association, which gathers broad support, calmly lays out the facts from the standpoint of demanding a fair investigation and trial, the role of the Prosecutors Union is to unhesitatingly put into words the abnormality of state power indicated by those facts.
The Rescue Association gathers evidence, and the Prosecutors Union pursues the public authorities. Precisely because they are separate organizations, they can support Mr. Kanemoto from their respective standpoints.
Shigenori Kanemoto is facing triple claims from the state after being a victim of fraud.
Fraud is not a crime where the victim gives money to someone they are suspicious of from the start.
It is established precisely because it creates a believable facade by combining administrative confirmation, expert titles, contracts, companies, business plans, future potential, and interpersonal relationships.
This time, it is said that at least the following credits were lined up before Mr. Kanemoto.
- A document proving that Corporation N has received administrative confirmation as a company eligible for the angel tax system.
- An explanation to the effect that the flow of funds to the Tokyo Metropolitan Government and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry was checked by Defendant Tamaki Nakano, and a response was obtained that there were no procedural problems.
- Explanation of the system and involvement in investment procedures as an expert by Certified Public Accountant Satoshi Saito.
- The appearance of being structured as a normal investment transaction, such as stock acquisition, investment agreements, bank transfers, and others.
- There is information that similar explanations were given to other investors who invested in Company N.
An administrative confirmation letter was presented, it was explained that confirmation had been obtained from the authorities, and a certified public accountant even assisted with the wire transfer. Under those circumstances, to demand that general investors "see through the fact that the company has no actual substance," "investigate the speaker's back account," or "sense that the documents submitted to the authorities were fraudulent" is not asking for ordinary diligence on the part of the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office.
It's the ability to see through objects.
Moreover, Mr. Kanemoto is facing a triple claim from the state, in addition to suspected financial losses through investment.
- Without the ultimate destination of the investment funds being clarified, he faces criminal prosecution as the central figure in the tax evasion case.
- It is reported that despite cooperating with the investigation for a long time, the person was arrested, and even after indictment, physical detention and a prohibition on visits with family members and others continue.
- Footage of the face and vehicle, taken months before the arrest, was broadcast nationwide from the day of the arrest.
Robbed of money, stripped of freedom, and even having one's face and social credit distributed nationwide.
If this is the state's response to the victims of the investment fraud, it is structured as though the National Tax Agency and the prosecutors took over the final stage of the alleged fraud initiated by Defendant Nakano and the others.
Why did trusting the administrative confirmation and the certified public accountant constitute the intent to commit tax evasion?
In determining Mr. Kanemoto's criminal liability, the central issue is not merely where the money moved after the investment.
It is what was explained before the investment, what materials were shown, whose expert judgment was trusted, and with what understanding the investment was made in N Co., Ltd.
The Angel Tax System is a tax reduction scheme established by the government to encourage investment in venture companies that meet certain requirements. Using the system to reduce tax burdens is an action that the system has intended from the beginning.
If that usage constitutes tax evasion, the prosecution must prove the following facts, rather than just using the five-character press catchphrase "abused preferential tax treatment."
- That Mr. Kanemoto knew that Corporation N had no business substance.
- Knowing that the explanation of the administrative confirmation or administrative inquiry was false.
- Knowing that Satoshi Saito's expert explanation was false.
- Understanding from the time of investment that it was a formal transaction solely for the purpose of avoiding tax burdens rather than an investment.
- There was a specific prior agreement and division of roles between him and Defendant Toshiyuki Nakano regarding the making of false statements.
If you work backward without showing these, concluding that "funds moved later," "dedractions were taken," and "therefore it was tax evasion from the beginning," what the prosecution is proving is not intent.
The prosecution is fabricating cases starting from the conclusion.
If the administrative inquiry records are true, the possibility strengthens that Mr. Kanemoto believed it was a lawful investment. If the administrative inquiry records are false, the possibility strengthens that Defendant Kazuki Nakano fabricated government credibility to induce investors to provide funds through fraud.
Either way, it does not justify the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office failing to investigate the investment fraud involving Company N and treating Kanemoto alone as the central figure in the tax evasion case.
Did the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office swap the cast instead of solving the case?
The indictment reports suggest that Kanemoto was the central figure in the tax evasion case, with Defendant Kazuki Nakano having been complicit in it.
However, when we rearrange the information sent to our union in chronological order, the roles that should be questioned line up in the opposite direction.
- Suspicion that Makoto Watanabe was involved in the overall concept combining systems, fundraising, human networks, and affiliated corporations.
- Information indicates that regarding Defendant Tamaki Nakano, a company named N was established, administrative confirmation was explained, investment was recommended to multiple investors, and the collected funds were managed.
- Information indicates that Satoshi Saito used his title as a certified public accountant and his expertise to endorse the system, thereby supporting contracts and money transfers.
- From the perspective of an investor who trusted these explanations, materials, and expert support regarding Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto, and invested in N Co., Ltd.
- Suspicion that the funds after the investment moved from N Corporation to the outside and ultimately ended up belonging to the defendant Nakano's side.
If you reposition those who explained the system, those who vouched for it as experts, those who collected the money, and those who received the money at the upper stream of the investigation, Mr. Kanemoto no longer looks like the mastermind of a tax evasion case, but rather as a victim who invested funds into a cleverly crafted investment scheme.
However, in the scenario painted by the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office, Defendant Nakano appears to be treated as someone who was clever enough to deceive the nation and its administrative systems, yet acted as an accurate and honest explainer solely toward Mr. Kanemoto and other investors.
Why would someone who has been separately indicted on suspicion of defrauding the state be considered to have never, under any circumstances, defrauded investors?
If the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office truly intends to uncover the truth of the case, instead of placing Mr. Kanemoto on the same side as the defendant Nakano, it should investigate the entire process—including institutional design, solicitation, fund management, and final profits—involving defendant Nakano, Mr. Satoshi Saito, and Mr. Makoto Watanabe.
The job of the prosecution is not to complete a fabricated scenario.
The Code of Criminal Procedure clearly defines the purpose of criminal proceedings.
Article 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The purpose of this Law is to clarify the truth of criminal cases while ensuring the maintenance of public welfare and the guarantee of the fundamental human rights of individuals, and to apply and realize penal statutes appropriately and promptly.
The purpose is not to make the prosecution's pre-fabricated theory look like the truth.
It is to clarify the truth of the case while guaranteeing the fundamental human rights of individuals.
Nor does the Public Prosecutors Office Act position prosecutors merely as individuals responsible for securing convictions.
Article 4 of the Public Prosecutor's Office Act: Public prosecutors shall, in criminal cases, institute prosecution, request of the courts the proper application of laws, and supervise the execution of judgments; and when they find it necessary for their official duties in connection with other matters coming within the jurisdiction of the courts, they may request notifications from the courts, state their opinions, or perform duties which other laws and ordinances have placed within their jurisdiction as representatives of the public interest.
Public prosecutors are representatives of the public interest.
It is unacceptable for the public interest representative to gather only fund transfers disadvantageous to Mr. Kanemoto, while leaving administrative confirmations, expert explanations, victim reports from other investors, and information on the ultimate beneficiary favorable to Mr. Kanemoto outside the investigative records.
If it sucks in only the evidence that can be used for a conviction and erases only the evidence showing innocence or victimhood, it is not an investigative agency, but an evidence black hole that completes the prosecutor's scenario.
Regarding the submitted rebuttal evidence, records should be kept on who received it, which case record it was bound into, whether it was handed over to the prosecutor in charge and the trial counsel, and if it was not used, who decided not to use it and for what reason.
It is completely unacceptable for a state institution that deprives people of their freedom and subjects them to criminal trials to simply brush things off by saying, "We don't know if it was received" or "We don't know if it reached the person in charge."
Stopping counter-evidence at the entrance while broadcasting pre-arrest footage nationwide: A "one-way justice system"
In the Kanemoto incident, there is also a clear bias in the flow of information.
Mr. Kanemoto was arrested on July 23, 2026. However, in the news reports on the day of the arrest, footage of his face and vehicle from several months prior was used, which displayed captions such as "Yokohama City, January of this year" and "Asahi Ward, Yokohama City, March."
On the other hand, there is information that regarding the outside report attempting to convey the investment fraud targeting N Co., Ltd., a person claiming to be Prosecutor Kobayashi of the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office ended the call without listening to the specific details to the end and without providing instructions on where to submit the materials.
Stop incoming contradictory evidence at the entrance. Broadcast pre-arrest footage going from the inside to the outside nationwide.
Could such a magnificent alternating one-way traffic control be completed by accident?
Furthermore, defendant Nakano Toshiyuki was reported anonymously at the time of his initial arrest, and although the reporting later changed to his real name, footage capturing his face and actions prior to his arrest was not repeatedly broadcast nationwide like in Ms. Kanemoto's case.
In scandals involving national tax officials or prosecutors themselves, photographs and footage of their faces are not widely circulated, and there are even cases where filming and recording are prohibited altogether at prosecutorial briefings.
The Supreme Public Prosecutors Office should investigate who is making the selections: preparing social sanctions against suspects even before arrest, protecting the faces of individuals inconvenient to the national tax authority and prosecutors, and refusing evidence unfavorable to the prosecution.
Even if the news media does not reveal the names of their sources, it is possible to verify who shot the footage, the purpose of the filming, the date it was taken, the date it was acquired, whether it was provided by a public institution, and whether the original footage and metadata are preserved.
If you have the power to broadcast Mr. Kanemoto's face nationwide, please also take responsibility for explaining where that footage came from.
Please show the reason why heavy treatment was concentrated only on Mr. Kim Jung-deok, who is of South Korean nationality.
Shigenori Kanemoto is Mr. Jung-deok Kim, a South Korean national.
Assuming that uncommonly specific pre-arrest footage was prepared exclusively for Mr. Kanemoto, that he was arrested despite having cooperated with a long-term investigation, and that the prohibition on visiting with family and others continues even after indictment, it must also be examined whether his South Korean nationality or overseas business operations influenced such treatment.
Having Korean nationality or conducting business overseas does not in itself constitute preparation for flight.
If the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office is going to claim a risk of flight, they should present specific actions unique to Mr. Kimimoto, such as acquiring airline tickets, clearing out his residence, concealing his passport, transferring assets overseas, and preparing to make his whereabouts unknown.
If they are going to claim the risk of evidence destruction, they should disclose the devices, account books, contracts, and remittance records already secured by the national tax authorities and the prosecutors, and specify the concrete evidence that will be lost if physical detention is not continued.
If the prohibition of visits and contact with family members is to be continued, it is necessary to show whose contact with whom would have what kind of effect on which evidence.
Depriving people of their freedom based merely on narratives tied to their identity—such as "they might flee because they are Korean" or "they are a flight risk because they have overseas business operations"—is not evidence-based criminal justice.
Another organization, the Association to Save Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto (Kim Shigenori), is demanding that the Consulate-General of the Republic of Korea in Yokohama confirm matters regarding consular notification, consular access, health status, interpreters, the right to defense, humanitarian treatment, and the presence of any unreasonable treatment based on nationality.
If the Japanese prosecution is fair, there is no reason to refuse verification by the South Korean consular authorities.
The prosecutors' union will continue the six pursuits to save Shigenori Kanemoto.
The Prosecutors Union doesn't just end with words of support for Mr. Kanemoto.
Mr. Kanemoto is treated as a victim, and in order to restore his freedom and honor, we will continue the following pursuit.
- Compile who received what explanation from whom among all investors who invested in Corporation N.
- Verify the records of inquiries made to the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and other administrative organs, as well as the confirmation documents issued to N Corporation.
- Follow the explanation of the system, contract drafting, remittance support, and involvement as a certified public accountant by Mr. Satoshi Saito.
- Track the funds entering Company N by transaction unit, including the destination, purpose, instructor, and ultimate beneficiary.
- Tracking the filming, provision, and acquisition routes of the pre-arrest footage, and the reason why different standards for reporting facial photographs were applied only to Mr. Kanemoto.
- Record the circumstances of physical restraint, the prohibition of visits with family members, etc., and South Korean consular assistance, and question the reasons specific to this case in a public forum.
The signatures and information sent to the rescue association, and the prosecution union's pursuit of public authority, are independent activities.
However, the destination we are aiming for is the same.
We must put an end to investigations that rely solely on evidence unfavorable to Mr. Kanemoto, present the full picture of the case in open court, and reveal the masterminds and ultimate beneficiaries behind the investment fraud allegedly carried out through N, Inc.
Open letter of inquiry to the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office, Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and news media
Questions for the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors' Office
- What are the specific communications, statements, prior agreements, instructions, or actions that indicate Shigenori Kanemoto had the intent to evade taxes?
- Regarding the conspiracy with the defendant Shukki Nakano, what evidence is there to show the dates, times, locations, means of communication, and division of roles?
- Have you obtained all the records of inquiries to the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and other administrative agencies that Defendant Nakano presented to the investors?
- Did you verify the questions and answers of the administrative inquiry including their context, without cutting out only a part of them?
- Did you interview Satoshi Saito, the person himself, and the relevant parties regarding the institutional explanation, contract support, and transfer support he provided to Mr. Kanemoto?
- Did you hear the explanations given at the time of solicitation from all other investors who invested in N Corporation? Please disclose the number of people you heard from.
- Regarding the funds deposited into N Co., Ltd., did you track all accounts, all recipients, all transaction descriptions, all originators, and all ultimate beneficiaries on a transaction-by-transaction basis?
- Clarify the amount of funds ultimately attributed to Defendant Nakano and their legal and economic designation.
- What evidence did you use to rule out the possibility that Mr. Kanemoto is a victim of investment fraud?
- Have you investigated the conduct of Prosecutor Kobayashi, who is alleged to have failed to listen to the victim’s account of the investment fraud in its entirety and to have failed to provide guidance on where to submit supporting documents?
- Are the receipt date, recipient, binding destination, and handover to the trial prosecutor recorded regarding the rebutting evidence submitted by the prosecutors' union, the rescue association, investors, and related parties?
- Despite the fact that Mr. Kanemoto cooperated with the investigation for an extended period and appeared for questioning repeatedly, what specific circumstances made his arrest necessary?
- What is the necessity of continuing physical detention after indictment, and what are the specific reasons for continuing the prohibition of visits and communications with family members, etc.?
- When, from which agency, and by what method was the report made to the South Korean consular authorities?
- Did you use Mr. Kanemoto's South Korean nationality or overseas business as a circumstance to establish the risk of flight?
- Do you accept the independent verification of this investigation and evidence management by the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office or a higher-level office?
Questions for the Tokyo Metropolitan Government and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
- When, regarding which application, and from which administrative agency did Company N receive confirmation for the angel tax incentive?
- What items did you review regarding the application, business plan, share-related documents, payment materials, and investment contract submitted by Company N?
- Have you received any inquiries from Defendant Tamaki Nakano or parties related to N Co., Ltd. regarding the transfer of funds after investment, loans, reinvestment, or remittances to related companies?
- Do you preserve the full text of the question, the full text of the answer, the answering department, and the date of the answer when an inquiry is received?
- Have you received inquiries from the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office or tax authorities regarding the application details or administrative inquiries of Company N?
- Will you explain the differences to the investors of N Corporation if the administrative determination and the criminal law evaluation differ?
Questions for the Media and Law Enforcement Agencies
- Who is the entity that filmed the footage of Mr. Kanemoto displayed with "Yokohama City, January of this year" and "Asahi Ward, Yokohama City, March"?
- When did each news outlet obtain the footage?
- Did you receive any video footage or information regarding Mr. Kanemoto’s movements from the National Tax Agency, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the police, other public agencies, or their officials?
- Are you preserving original footage, shooting date and time, location information, file creation date and time, and other metadata?
- Defendant Nakano Shukki, what was the reason for the difference in the standards for using photographs and video footage between Mr. Kanemoto and the National Tax Agency officials, prosecutors, and other parties involved in the case?
- Did you provide Mr. Kanemoto's side with an opportunity for an interview, rebuttal, or explanation before using the pre-arrest footage?
measures demanded by the prosecutor union
- The Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office should immediately investigate the investment fraud case involving N Co., Ltd. as a separate case from the case involving Shigenori Kanemoto’s violation of the Income Tax Act.
- Interview all investors in N, Inc. as potential victims and investigate any common sales pitches, administrative verifications, and the involvement of certified public accountants.
- Investigate all processes of institutional design, solicitation, contracts, remittances, fund management, and final profits regarding Defendant Joki Nakano, Mr. Satoshi Saito, Mr. Makoto Watanabe, and other related parties.
- Trace all accounts of Company N and related parties to reveal the ultimate beneficiaries of the investment funds.
- Include in the official case file the records of administrative inquiries, confirmation letters, investment agreements, Mr. Satoshi Saito’s explanatory materials, and other counterevidence indicating Mr. Kanemoto’s understanding.
- Promptly disclose the evidence that should be disclosed to the defense counsel and hand over everything to the trial prosecutor.
- Immediately re-examine Mr. Kanemoto's physical restraint and the prohibition of visits with family members, etc., based on the facts specific to this case.
- Ensure notification to Korean consular authorities and consular access, and verify whether there was any unreasonable treatment based on nationality.
- Conduct an independent investigation into the pre-arrest footage regarding the filming entity, the distribution channel, the leakage of investigation information, and the involvement of public institutions.
- The Supreme Public Prosecutors Office shall verify the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office's receipt of external information, evidence management, provision of information to the press, and decisions regarding physical detention, and make the results public.
- Do not conduct searches, intimidation, or unfavorable treatment against Mr. Kanemoto, his family, supporters, investment victims, and informants.
- If evidence is confirmed showing that Mr. Kanemoto is a victim of an investment scam, the prosecution shall promptly review the maintenance of the public prosecution and take the necessary measures to restore his lost freedom and honor.
I will never leave Shigenori Kanemoto alone.
The "Association to Save Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto (Kim Shindok)" is demanding a fair investigation and trial, sufficient rights of defense, South Korean consular support, and a public review of the case.
The prosecutors' union goes a step further than that.
Believing the administrative confirmation and the explanation of the certified public accountant, Mr. Kanemoto, who provided funds to N Co., Ltd., is not someone who abused the system, but a victim cleverly exploited by the credibility of the system and the experts.
The Prosecutors Union will not accept an investigation that places Mr. Kanemoto at the center of the tax evasion case without investigating who acquired the funds after the investment, without investigating who designed the system, and without asking what other investors were told.
Mr. Kanemoto's face was photographed even before his arrest and distributed nationwide on the day of the arrest. However, neither the entity that took the photographs nor the distribution route has been explained. It is reported that attempts to present counter-evidence are blocked at the outset, and the prohibition of visits with family members and others continues even after indictment.
Even with this much state power at your disposal, if you can only explain it with a single phrase like "he abused preferential tax measures," it is not Mr. Kanemoto's argument that is weak.
This is the scenario fabricated by the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office.
Saving Mr. Kanemoto is not just about saving a single business owner.
Protecting a society where citizens who trusted administrative confirmation letters, investors who trusted certified public accountants, and everyone who utilized a system by relying on experts are not later told by the state, "You are a criminal because you couldn't spot the fraud yourself."
The prosecutor union is a separate organization.Association to Save Mr. Shigenori Kanamoto (Shigenori Kanamoto)I will continue to introduce their activities so that signatures, evidence, testimonies, administrative documents, and financial records related to Mr. Kanemoto's case are consolidated.
And we will continue our public pursuit against the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office until the evidence unfavorable and favorable to Mr. Kanemoto are presented in the same courtroom, the investment fraud allegations against Company N and the ultimate beneficiary of the funds are investigated, and the necessity of physical detention and social sanctions is examined one by one.
We will never leave Shigenori Kanemoto alone.
The Prosecutors Union will not stop until the victim recovers their freedom and honor.
