The third pillar of the modern state under the rule of law is the principle of due process. Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan provides that "No person shall be deprived of life or liberty, nor shall any other criminal penalty be imposed, except according to procedure established by law," and it was clearly affirmed by the Grand Bench ruling of July 1, 1992 (Narita Shinpou Incident) that this principle extends to administrative procedures as well.
Here, our union calls on the general public to calmly reread the provisions of the Act on General Rules for National Taxes. The provisions concerning the authority for questioning and inspection, set forth in Article 74-2 and subsequent articles of the Act on General Rules for National Taxes, contain no explicit limitation stating that they must be conducted in person.
This is an objective fact under the law. A straightforward reading of the provisions shows that alternative methods such as written documents, telephone, online, and agent representation are not legally excluded. In fact, in this case, there is a history of documents being mailed by Mr. Nobuhiro Kawaguchi and Mr. Keisuke Ota (both belonging to the First Investigation Division of the Investigation and Intelligence Department, Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau at the time) to our union member. This is a fact proven by the Regional Taxation Bureau itself, demonstrating that written communication can be established without any practical issues.
Nevertheless, in this inspection and investigation, despite the fact that former Director-General Tsuyoshi Shimazaki's remarks and behavior assuming tax evasion caused many taxpayers to suffer from mental illness, and even after medical certificates for mental illness were submitted multiple times thereafter, they continued to demand face-to-face investigations, and furthermore, without the Regional Taxation Bureau ever voluntarily contacting overseas-based union members by phone even once, they demanded only face-to-face meetings
evaluating "not answering the phone" and "not being able to meet" as "non-cooperation"
positioning the refund decision as the de facto consideration for "coming in for an explanation"
This operation was continued.
This gives rise to the issue of the burden of proof on the side denying the freedom of choice of means. Our union member sent a notice to Mr. Nobuhiro Kawaguchi to the effect of, "If there is an obligation to handle phone calls, please show the legal basis for it." However, since then, Mr. Kawaguchi has remained completely silent, failing to provide any basis provisions, explain the necessity or reasonableness, or propose any alternative means.
Logically, this silence can only mean two things. First, the possibility that they were brandish the evaluation of "non-cooperation" without grasping the legal basis that could effectively compel phone support. Second, the possibility that no legal basis exists to mandate phone support in the first place, and because that absence is obvious, they cannot provide a basis. In either case, the legitimacy of the practice of "forcing in-person meetings" cannot be established unless a basis is provided.
Furthermore, what cannot be overlooked in this matter is the handling of Takeji Mamizuka, a tax accountant (former National Tax Agency investigator) who appeared as our union member's representative in February 2025. In this case, your bureau documented detailed information, including investigative information, in writing (the Mamizuka Memo) and shared it during a face-to-face investigation session held exclusively with the representative tax accountant alone, rather than with the suspect in person.
Here, a major contradiction arises. That is, Mr. Keisuke Ota stated in another situation, to the effect that "face-to-face investigations with a representative cannot be done because they get cunning advice." If the presence of a representative poses the risk of "cunning advice," then a setting where the principal is absent and only the representative is present is precisely the situation that carries the greatest risk of "cunning advice." Nevertheless, he allowed this and even went so far as to document and share it. At this very point, the argument for "excluding representatives" completely collapses logically.
And the Mamizuka Memo created there was consequently distributed to a wide range of third parties, leading to a family member of our union member attempting suicide and the union member themselves developing a mental illness. This is a case where the transgression of due process manifested as serious harm to actual life and physical safety.
List of project stakeholders recorded by our association as official facts
This statement explicitly identifies the public fact that the following parties were involved in this matter in their official capacities, as a subject of administrative accountability. All descriptions are based on publicly available organizational information and the titles confirmed by our union members as direct communication counterparts, and are not intended as character assessments.
National Tax Agency
Hiroyuki Yamazaki, Director of the Collection Department (Former Director-General of the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau)
Toshiyuki Iwai, Director of the Office of Director for Supervision and Evaluation, Minister's Secretariat, and Director for Welfare (Former General Affairs Division Director, Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau)
Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau
Director Atsushi Kitamura
Go Shimazaki, Supervising Inspector, Inspection Division 3, Investigation and Inspection Department
Hiroshi Oka, Chief Inspector, Inspection Division 3, Investigation and Inspection Department
Nobuhiro Kawaguchi, Chief Inspector, Inspection Division 3, Investigation and Inspection Department
Keisuke Ota, Inspector, Inspection Division 3, Inspection Department
Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau
Hideto Nakamura, Chief Inspector, Inspection Division 21, Inspection Department
Toru Nakajima, Inspector, 21st Inspection Division, Inspection Department
We continue to strongly request a formal written response from all parties concerning the following structural issues, which our union member has pointed out through a cumulative total of over 350 instruction manuals.
First, why did investigative information, including "arrests," circulate externally at the pre-indictment and pre-complaint stages? Who, at what point, and based on which information sources determined that "indictment is inevitable"?
Secondly, why did you use evaluative coined terms such as "tax evasion contractor," "B-kanya," and "false capital contribution," which do not exist in the Penal Code or laws related to national tax offenses, outside the framework of the principle of legality in criminal law?
Third, why did you continue to coerce in-person meetings without notifying union members of the existence of the option to respond in writing, despite the fact that there is no explicit restriction in the Act on General Rules for National Taxes stating that it "must be in-person"?
Fourthly, what is the legal basis for continuing to coerce in-person attendance even after the submission of a medical certificate for a mental illness? How do you explain its consistency with the principle of proportionality, the principle of least infringement, and the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation under the Act for Eliminating Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities?
Fifth, what is the specific legal basis for continuing to retain seized items (such as business card cases, personal computers, and credit cards) that have not been subjected to questioning or inspection even once, more than two years after their seizure? Is seizing only the passports of foreign union members an act of discrimination against foreigners? Or is it simply your agency's institutional culture to seize anything and everything in sight?
Sixth, when, through what route, by whom, and to what extent was the document known as the Mamitsuka Memo distributed, and why is it not subject to criminal charges for violation of the confidentiality obligation under Article 100 of the National Public Service Act?
Conclusion: To properly implement the principles of the modern constitutional state in tax administration
Our union does not desire conflict with tax administration. We are convinced that correctly implementing the three major principles of a modern constitutional state—the presumption of innocence, the principle of legality, and due process—in the field of tax administration serves the interests of taxpayers, witnesses, National Tax Agency officials, prosecutors, and society as a whole.
The structure where a de facto guilty verdict begins to run at the administrative investigation initiation stage. The structure where fabricated evaluative terms not found in the Penal Code are circulated externally. The structure where procedural choices without explicit statutory limitations are unilaterally stripped away. None of these stem from individual malice; rather, they are structural issues that must be re-examined as an organization. For this very reason, our union is issuing this statement as an evaluation of structures rather than an evaluation of character.
We once again express our respect to the prosecuting authorities. The fact that no indictment has been filed in this case is proof that the independence and rigorous decision-making function of the prosecuting authorities are functioning as the final bulwark of a modern state governed by the rule of law, and our union highly appreciates this.
Our union will continue to make every effort to structurally clarify this matter through the exercise of the right to organize and the right to collective action, making full use of the latest technology, including the world's first dues-free operation, an international human rights declaration based on the International Covenants on Human Rights and ILO Conventions, real-time AI-generated minutes, and tamper-proof evidence preservation using blockchain.
Global Union (National Tax Union)
All union members
Web:https://globalunion-grp.org/okami/
