The union will thoroughly examine, as a structural issue, the mechanism in which a de facto determination of guilt begins to operate at the stage when an administrative investigation is initiated.
Global Union (National Tax Union) | Tokyo Metropolitan Area Youth Union Federation
April 22, 2026 | Official Statement
This statement is the official declaration by our union regarding the ongoing human rights violations against our members and the structural deficiencies in Japan's tax administration that have become apparent through them. This statement has no intention whatsoever to attack the personality of any specific individual, and everything is written as an institutional evaluation of the exercise of public authority in an official capacity. The names of all individuals appearing in this matter are explicitly stated as subjects of administrative accountability based on the public facts of their involvement in the tax inspections, third-party investigations, seizures, face-to-face demands, and other related activities as part of their official duties.
Furthermore, our union has consistently held the prosecution authorities in high regard. What is at issue in this case is a structure that could potentially undermine the authority of the prosecution—specifically, that false information suggesting the prosecution was moving toward filing a complaint, indictment, or arrest, even though it was not, was disseminated externally by the National Tax Agency—rather than an assertion that there is any flaw on the part of the prosecution. Rather, our union understands that the independence and strictness of the prosecution authorities are precisely the primary reasons why this case has not led to a criminal complaint.
Even after being indicted, "presumption of innocence" remains—yet, what happened at the administrative investigation initiation stage?
One of the most fundamental principles of the modern constitutional state is the presumption of innocence. This principle is established as a universally shared foundation based on the intent of Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan, and Article 336 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, among others.
The content is clear. Even if indicted, until a conviction is finalized, everyone is presumed innocent. This is a fundamental norm of modern law that applies equally to investigative agencies, administrative bodies, the media, and society as a whole.
However, in this case, far from an indictment or even a criminal complaint being filed—that is, at the initial stage of administrative investigation where criminal proceedings have not even begun—the following events occurred:
First, public officials used fabricated evaluative terms that do not exist in any provision of the Penal Code—such as "tax evasion contractor" and "B-bookkeeper"—against our union members during on-site audits. These are highly derogatory evaluation terms that completely bypass any procedural standing in criminal proceedings and possess the character of functioning as a defamation of social reputation.
Secondly, through the so-called Mamizuka Memo, the following investigative information was distributed to a wide range of third parties other than our union members.
- The awareness that prosecution is "inevitable"
- the expression that the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office and the Fukuoka High Public Prosecutors Office are "motivated"
- The implication that accusation, indictment, and arrest are within the concrete scope
- The expression that National Tax Agency executives are "motivated"
- practical procedures for obtaining seizure warrants, collaboration with customs, and the possibility of sharing information on suspects returning to the country
However, to this day, more than a year and two months after it was stated in February 2025 that "criminal charges are unavoidable," no criminal complaint has been filed, and no moves toward a formal indictment by the public prosecutor's office have been confirmed whatsoever.
Here, our union clearly states an important premise of this statement: presumption of innocence even after being accused, presumption of innocence even after indictment, and innocence until a final judgment of guilt—this is the absolute principle of a modern state governed by the rule of law. Despite this, why was the word "arrest" directed at the individual involved and circulated externally at the very earliest stage of initiating an administrative investigation, which is not even at the threshold of criminal proceedings?
This single point elevates this case beyond a mere inspection investigation, positioning it as an instance of systematic misunderstanding regarding the fundamental principles of a modern constitutional state.
And here lies an extremely serious problem: the National Tax Agency, being an administrative body, has absolutely no power of arrest. Arrest is a compulsory disposition power exclusively granted to judicial police officials such as the police and prosecutors, as well as prosecutors, pursuant to Article 199 and subsequent articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the authority of the National Tax Agency in national tax offense investigations is strictly limited to voluntary or quasi-criminal investigative powers such as questioning, inspection, seizure, and custody.
Nevertheless, the Mamizuka Memo frequently uses the expression "arrest," and was structured and circulated in a way that made it appear as though the possibility of arresting our union members could be realized at the discretion of the National Tax Agency.
There are only two possible meanings for this.
The first possibility is that the National Tax Agency conveyed to external parties the premise that the prosecution authorities genuinely intended to accuse, prosecute, and arrest. However, since more than a year and two months have passed since the February 2025 statement and no accusation has been carried out to this day, this premise has retroactively lost its backing. In other words, as a result, the information flow originating from the National Tax Agency ended up instilling the impression in external parties as if the prosecution authorities had a policy of making an arrest regarding this case at that time.
The second possibility is that the National Tax Agency independently formulated such a policy and circulated it externally at a stage when the involvement and judgment of the prosecution authorities had not yet been finalized. In this case, this would amount to usurping the judgment of the prosecution authorities, constituting a serious incident that undermines the order of authority distribution among state organs.
In any case, the conclusion remains the same. The independence and authority of the prosecution agency are precisely what must be protected, and the responsibility for the dissemination of information that could undermine that authority does not lie with the prosecution agency, but rather with the information control system originating from the National Tax Agency—this is our union's consistent stance.
And the most important fact in this case is the objective fact that no indictment has actually been filed. It is our union's understanding that this is the result of the prosecuting authorities making a careful and rigorous determination regarding this matter concerning "probable cause" under Article 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the fulfillment of the constituent elements, the establishment of intent, the continuity of evidence, and other factors. The independence and rigor of the prosecuting authorities are functioning precisely in this case as the final bulwark of a modern constitutional state.
