May 4, 2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To the Commissioner of the National Tax Agency
Hiroyuki Yamazaki, Director-General of the Collection Department, National Tax Agency (Former Director-General of the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau)
Mr. Toshiyuki Iwai, Director of the Supervisory Evaluation Office of the Commissioner's Secretariat and Welfare Manager, National Tax Agency (formerly Director of the General Affairs Department, Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau)
Atsushi Kitamura, Director-General, Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau
Go Shimazaki, Former Supervising Inspector, Inspection Division 3, Inspection Department, Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau
Nobuhiro Kawaguchi, Former Chief Inspector, 3rd Inspection Division, Investigation and Intelligence Department, Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau
Mr. Hiroshi Oka, Chief Inspector, 3rd Investigation Division, Investigation Department, Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau
Keisuke Ota, Inspector, Third Inspection Division, Inspection Department, Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau
Hidehito Nakamura, Senior Inspector, 21st Inspection Division, Inspection Department, Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Author<\/strong> Instruction manual<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2015\u2015 <\/strong>Institutional self-contradiction of explaining a two-year suspension of questioning as \"because in-person meetings could not be realized,\" and a document concerning a request for an in-person audit with the Commissioner of the National Tax Agency \u2015\u2015<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Dear Sir or Madam, I hope this message finds you well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The National Tax Union is the world's first free labor union organized for the purpose of defending the rights of defense for taxpayers and subjects of tax inspections, as well as ensuring transparency in the tax inspection system. The activities of our union have already been reported in the Nikkei, Asahi, Nishinippon, and other newspapers. Our union continuously promotes a political petition project demanding legislative amendments regarding the choice of methods for face-to-face audits, as well as activities demanding the introduction of a dedicated representative system for taxpayers similar to that of the National Tax Agency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regarding the criminal tax investigation initiated by the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau on May 28, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the \"Investigation\") concerning this document, as a result of carefully examining the series of factual accounts, audio recordings, submitted explanatory documents (exceeding 1,500 pages), and witness memos provided by our union members, we have determined that the execution of the Investigation involves significant institutional legal issues. Consequently, we are formally presenting these issues in the name of the union to the Commissioner of the National Tax Agency and Atsushi Kitamura, Director-General of the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau, and requesting a written response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sincerely yours<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u8a18<\/p>\n\n\n\n Part 1: Purpose of this Document<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This document organizes the following issues in the inspection and investigation of this case in light of statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and constitutional principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (1)<\/strong>The impact that the explanation given by the investigators\u2014to the effect that \"face-to-face investigations could not be realized\"\u2014regarding the fact that no substantive questioning surveys were conducted for two years has on the scope of the system as a whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (2)<\/strong>Discrepancy with field operations regarding the fact that a National Tax Agency seizure warrant does not include the authority to detain a subject's person, and that National Tax Agency investigators do not possess independent arrest powers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (3)<\/strong>The logical consistency between the statement that \"inspections and investigations are not subject to time constraints\" and the request to a union member staying overseas that \"we want to rush the in-person investigation.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n (4)<\/strong>The basis for the written and public back-and-forth policy in this case, based on the background of past tax audits at the Kagoshima Tax Office (oral processing that leaves no written record).<\/p>\n\n\n\n (5)<\/strong>The legal basis for this association member designating the Commissioner of the National Tax Agency as the counterpart for the in-person investigation (requesting the exercise of the right of command and supervision under the National Government Organization Act).<\/p>\n\n\n\n None of these points are intended to comment on the personality of any specific investigator; rather, they are intended to systematically organize the operational issues of this audit and investigation from an organizational perspective in light of legal provisions and judicial precedents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Section 2: Institutional Scope of the Two-Year Suspension of Inquiries and the Explanation \"Because Face-to-Face Contact Could Not Be Achieved\"<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This inspection and investigation has been ongoing for approximately two years since it was initiated on May 28, 2024, as of the time this document is submitted. During this period, union members have submitted explanatory documents exceeding 1,500 pages, structured the issues for presentation, submitted multiple medical certificates, and arranged for legal counsel to be present.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nevertheless, no substantive investigative questioning targeting the legal requirements has been conducted at all. This is supported by the written record not through the subjective evaluation of the union members, but by the objective fact that no record was created or delivered, as well as the course of events in which the investigator repeatedly stated even in a dialogue two years later that they would \"ask questions from now on.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regarding this point, the investigator noted in the recorded record that the reason for this wasBecause face-to-face surveys have not been conducted<\/strong>We have repeatedly provided explanations to that effect. However, that explanation itself contains logic that has a significant impact on the scope of the entire system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (1) Extension of logic \u2015\u2015 A suspect who has left the country can stall the inspection unless they agree to an in-person meeting.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the investigator's explanation, the logic is that if an in-person investigation cannot be realized, the questionnaire survey cannot be completed, and therefore the progress of the inspection survey will halt. If this is generalized as a proposition, it means that the inspection system has no effective means against suspects who refuse to meet in person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And if we naturally extend the scope of this proposition, it leads to the conclusion that for a suspect who leaves the country the day after an inspection begins and lives abroad, the investigation will not progress no matter how many years pass, as long as they refuse to meet face-to-face. In other words, the conclusion is that the inspection system can lose its effectiveness simply depending on whether or not the suspect leaves the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is inconsistent in terms of institutional design. The moment the entity responsible for operating the inspection system officially explains that \"progress cannot be made unless in-person meetings are realized,\" it creates a structure where the effectiveness of the system itself depends on whether the subject leaves the country or not. Our union formally requests a clear, written response as to whether your bureau is truly in a position to accept this consequence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (2) Statutory arrangement<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The question and answer right stipulated under Article 131 and subsequent articles of the Act on General Rules for National Taxes does not have any provision limiting the choice of means to \"in-person only\"We have nothing in stock.<\/strong>None of written, telephone, online, or agent-mediated responses are systematically excluded as methods of exercising the power of inspection and questioning. The Supreme Court decision of July 10, 1973 (Arakawa Minsh\u014d case) merely requires a comparative balancing between the necessity of the investigation and the private interests of the opposing party, and does not provide a basis for compulsory face-to-face contact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Therefore, if questionnaire surveys were not conducted for two years on the grounds that in-person meetings could not take place, that is not an institutional necessity, but an operational choice. The explanation that \"things cannot proceed without in-person contact\" is not a necessity under the provisions, but merely a policy formed in operational practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Section 3: Discrepancy between Field Operations and Statutory\/Case Law Interpretations \u2014 Three Issues<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n During the course of this inspection and investigation, three statements were repeatedly made on-site to the persons of interest and union members. We will contrast each of these with the actual on-site statements based on audio recordings, along with their organization under relevant statutes and judicial precedents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Issue 1: The National Tax Agency's warrant of seizure does not include the authority to restrict a person's physical freedom.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the recordings and witness memos, it is documented that on the day of the warrant's execution, multiple witnesses were told to \"cancel all plans,\" and were also given the implication that \"refusal could result in arrest.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, a seizure warrant issued by the National Tax Agency is a warrant for search and seizure issued by a judge pursuant to Article 132 and subsequent articles of the National Tax General Provisions Act,authorizing compulsory measures against specific physical and digital targets regarding the places to be searched and items to be seized<\/strong>That is correct. The authority to restrain the subject's person is not included in the warrant in question. In other words, even during the execution of the warrant, while the subject has an obligation to cooperate with the seizure act itself, their personal freedom remains legally retained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Supreme Court precedents, even if the outward form is voluntary, the presence of coercive speech and behavior, suggestions of penalties, or the absence of substantive choices can be evaluated as de facto compulsion. In this case, the fact that the persons of interest were asked to change their schedule and were de facto compelled to remain at the location for a long time is an issue that directly connects to the scope of Article 1 of the State Redress Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Issue 2: Inspectors are not judicial police officials and do not possess independent arrest authority.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n While inspectors are in a position to exercise the right to question and inspect under the Act on General Rules for National Taxes,I am not a judicial police official under the Code of Criminal Procedure.<\/strong>Generally, the authority for a summary arrest is exclusive to the police and prosecutors, and inspectors do not have the institutional authority to independently decide on an \"arrest.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite this, records show that on-site statements to the effect that \"there is a possibility of arrest if you do not comply with an in-person meeting\" have been made to multiple persons of interest. This explanation is based on the premise of a non-existent authority, and the fulfillment of the constituent requirements for Article 223 (Coercion) and Article 193 (Abuse of Authority by Public Officers) of the Penal Code may emerge as issues for debate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Issue 3: The obligation for face-to-face surveys is not stipulated in the text of the law.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The question and inspection authority under Article 131 and subsequent provisions of the Act on General Rules for National Taxes does not contain a provision limiting the choice of means to \"in-person only.\" Written communications, telephone calls, online methods, and dealing through representatives are none of them excluded under the system as methods for exercising the question and inspection authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nevertheless, it is confirmed in the audio recordings that multiple investigators (Chief Examiner Oka and Inspector Ota from the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau, and Chief Examiner Nakamura from the Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau) each stated in different contexts to the effect that \"an audit cannot be conducted without face-to-face contact.\" While this suggests the existence of an operation policy shared across the organization, our union's position is that such a policy is not derived from the provisions of the statutory text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Part 4: Article 31 of the Constitution and the Presumption of Innocence \u2013 Limits of Restricting Freedom Based Solely on Suspicion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Here, we will review the most fundamental constitutional principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.\" In addition to this, the principle of the presumption of innocence, as set forth in Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is a fundamental principle governing criminal procedures in general in Japan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty -- under this principle, substantially restricting a target's economic activity and social life based solely on suspicion, even if taking the outward form of a formal voluntary investigation, can trespass into the realm of substantial compulsion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this case, the fact that the persons of interest were suggested the \"possibility of arrest,\" strongly pressured to change their schedules, and detained for a long time corresponds to the \"Even if the outward form is arbitrary, judge based on the substance.<\/strong>is evaluated under the criterion of<\/p>\n\n\n\n Legal arrangement from our union to taxpayers and witnesses nationwide<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Through this document, the National Tax Union hereby informs taxpayers nationwide and relevant persons of the following legal clarification: specifically, while subjects are under an obligation to cooperate with the seizure act itself during the execution of a warrant by the National Tax Bureau, their personal freedom is not stripped away. Even during the execution of a warrant, the option systematically exists for the subject themselves to proceed to their scheduled commitments while allowing the seizure of the targeted items to move forward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whether there is a legal basis for the request to \"cancel the schedule\" is a separate issue, and even if the \"possibility of arrest\" is insinuated, the National Tax Agency does not have independent arrest authority. These are natural prerequisites in a nation that presumes innocence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Section 5: Contradiction in terms \u2014 The logical inconsistency of claiming \"we can do it infinitely\" and \"we want to hurry\" at the same time<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Here is the logical, most critical issue in this case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (1) Position A: \"Inspections and investigations are not subject to time constraints.\"<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the recording, the investigator repeatedly stated the following regarding the point that no results have been confirmed for two years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We conduct research every day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is no set duration for inspection audits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is no need to rush to a conclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In other words, the organization explicitly stated its position that inspection investigations are not subject to time constraints.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (2) Position B: \"Wanting them to return home quickly and wanting to rush the in-person investigation\"<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n However, that same person has repeatedly made requests to union members residing overseas with the following intent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Please return to your country as soon as possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I want to rush the face-to-face survey<\/p>\n\n\n\n It cannot proceed unless it is in person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are records showing that these demands continued even after the union member submitted a medical certificate and even after they attempted suicide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (3) Logical contradiction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n If there are no time constraints, why is there a need to rush the return? Why is there a need to rush an in-person meeting?\u2014Position A and Position B logically cannot both hold true at the same time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is, in formal logic,self-contradiction<\/strong>It is organized as follows. When the same entity simultaneously asserts Proposition A (no time constraints) and Non-A (need for haste), the entity's entire statement structurally lacks a truth value in formal logic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this case, there are records showing that this was not merely an isolated slip of the tongue, but rather something repeated continuously as an organization throughout the chain of command, from the investigators to those with supervisory authority. In other words, statements made by the parties confirm that the chain of command for this inspection and investigation is operating in a state that lacks logical consistency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Section 6: Precedents \u2014 History of Past Tax Audits at the Kagoshima Tax Office<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Here, we organize the precedents that serve as the direct reason why the union member in this case has carefully considered attending an in-person meeting during the inspection investigation and has instead adhered strictly to public written correspondence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This union member previously underwent a tax audit by the Kagoshima Tax Office. During the process involving third-party audits of related corporations and the submission of account books spanning approximately three years, initial expense disallowances of about 74 million yen were indicated. However, in the end, all related corporations were determined to have no irregularities, and the tax office explained that \"all transactions were free of illegality\" and withdrew the administrative guidance (a notice stating that there was found to be no reason to make a reassessment or determination has already been issued).<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, all explanations during the withdrawal were given orally in closed-door, face-to-face meetings, and no documentation was created by the Kagoshima Tax Office. Responses given when union members insisted on a request for reassessment (tax refund) were also made in face-to-face settings without written records, and reportedly amounted only to responses along the lines of \"There is no problem with [claiming these as] expenses, but please spare us the refund request.\" In other words, no records were left in a form that could withstand subsequent verification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our Union's Organization: The Lack of Verifiability in Face-to-Face Processing That Leaves No Written Record<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Oral handling that leaves no written record destroys post-hoc verifiability. The fixation of facts, the organization of issues, and the tracking of the decision-making process\u2014all of these vanish within oral handling. While the absence of records may be convenient for the administration, from the perspective of the taxpayer's right of defense, it entails an unprovable risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Based on this, the union member in question has chosen written, public correspondence as the primary format for handling this inspection and investigation. Written records remain. Written records are verifiable. Written records can be made public. Written records withstand future debate. This is a rational choice based on past experience, and our union fully supports this choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Section 7 Legal Basis for Requesting an In-Person Audit by the Commissioner of the National Tax Agency<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The union member in question has clearly stated their policy of designating the Commissioner of the National Tax Agency, the superior authority, as the counterpart for the in-person investigation. This is not merely an appeal to authority, but has institutional reasons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is the assessment of our union members that, based on the records of this inspection and investigation thus far, no sufficient forum for discussion has been established with the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau regarding the interpretation of statutory provisions, the distinction between the presumption of innocence and the scope of the Regional Taxation Bureau's authority, and the ensuring of logical consistency. Furthermore, our union confirms that we have not received any substantive counterarguments from your bureau regarding the various issues organized in this document through our past written communications and dialogues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Under the National Government Organization Act, the Commissioner of the National Tax Agency is the chief executive of the National Tax Agency, and Regional Taxation Bureau Directors-General are under their command and supervision. In other words, regarding the tax investigation in this case, which has been conducted under the command of Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau Director-General Atsushi Kitamura, the Commissioner of the National Tax Agencyinstitutional responsibility to exercise the right of direction and supervision to rectify the situation<\/strong>are in a position to bear. It is an extremely legitimate act for union members to request a face-to-face investigation by the Commissioner of the National Tax Agency, as it requests the exercise of the Commissioner's right of direction and supervision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition, the so-called Mamizuka Memo contains records stating that \"national tax executives are also motivated\" and \"whether to do everything, do it in a solid area, or only the main body,\" which already suggests in writing that the decision-making entity in this case goes beyond the framework of the field site. Since the scope of the decision extends to the executive level, it is the unanimous position of the union members and our union that the entity conducting the face-to-face investigation should also be set at a level corresponding to that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Section 8: Member Policy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n We will clearly organize the current policy of the union members and our union.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (1)<\/strong>The person to be designated for the face-to-face interview is not Atsushi Kitamura, Regional Commissioner of the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Agency. The reason for this is that, based on past records, under the former's leadership, it must be evaluated that a sufficient forum for discussion has not been formed from the perspectives of statutory provisions, judicial precedents, or consistency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (2)<\/strong>If an in-person meeting does not materialize, we will continue a public, written exchange without time constraints. Since the investigators themselves stated as an organization that \"inspection investigations are not subject to time constraints,\" the union members are similarly prepared to continue responding in writing without time constraints. From the perspective of symmetry, this is a fair approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (3)<\/strong>All documents, all recordings, and all medical certificates related to this matter shall be handled with an emphasis on written record and transparency. Oral processing that leaves no written record, such as the past circumstances at the Kagoshima Tax Office, shall not be adopted in this matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (4)<\/strong>Information shall be widely open to the general public. Since inspections and investigations are exempt from the application of the Administrative Procedure Act pursuant to Article 3, Paragraph 1, Item 14 of the said Act, the execution of duties by public officials in such investigations is organized and understood to inherently entail tolerating, as a trade-off, being subject to recording, publication, and systematic monitoring by citizens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Section 9: Matters requiring a written response<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Based on the above, our union formally requests that Atsushi Kitamura, Director-General of the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau, provide specific written responses to each of the following matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (1)<\/strong>Regarding the position explaining that substantive questioning investigations were not conducted for two years on the grounds that \"face-to-face investigations were not realized,\" as a logical extension of that position, does your bureau accept or not accept the conclusion that a departed suspect can continuously stall inspection investigations as long as they do not comply with a face-to-face meeting? Please give a clear answer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (2)<\/strong>I would like to request your written confirmation that your office agrees with the legal interpretation that a tax seizure warrant issued by the National Tax Agency does not include the authority to detain the subject's person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (3)<\/strong>We would like to request written confirmation from your office that there is no disagreement with the legal interpretation that National Tax Agency inspectors are not judicial police officers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that they do not possess independent arrest authority. In addition, we ask that you provide your organizational stance regarding cases where the \"possibility of arrest\" was suggested to persons of interest and taxpayers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (4)<\/strong>Please provide a written explanation regarding the logical consistency between the statement that \"inspection investigations are not subject to time constraints\" and the request made to a union member currently staying overseas to \"speed up the in-person investigation.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n (5)<\/strong>Please disclose the factual background understood by the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau as the higher-level agency, as well as the presence or absence of written records regarding the history of past tax audits at the Kagoshima Tax Office.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (6)<\/strong>I would like you to disclose the contents of the report your bureau made to the headquarters of the National Tax Agency regarding the fact that the partner in this case has designated the Commissioner of the National Tax Agency as the person for the face-to-face investigation, as well as the contents of the instructions received from the headquarters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (7)<\/strong>Please provide written confirmation that no internal suppression or concealment has taken place regarding all documents, recordings, medical certificates, and witness notes concerning this inspection and investigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Our union has no intention whatsoever of commenting on the personality of any specific individual investigator regarding the handling of this inspection and investigation. The purpose of this document is to organize the operational issues of this inspection and investigation from an institutional perspective in light of statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and constitutional principles, and to request that your bureau exercise its accountability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our union, together with its members, intends to continue this public, written correspondence in an open forum without time constraints. This is a symmetrical and consistent response to your agency's official stance, in which you stated that \"tax inspections are not subject to time constraints\" and that \"the Regional Taxation Bureau possesses coercive powers that are not bound by the Administrative Procedure Act.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n We hereby officially request that your agency provide a sincere and specific written response to each issue raised in this document, based on your accountability as a government administrative body.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sincerely yours<\/p>\n\n\n\n National Tax Union<\/strong> \u4ee4\u548c\uff18\u5e74\uff15\u6708\uff14\u65e5 \u56fd\u7a0e\u5e81\u3000\u9577\u5b98\u3000\u6bbf\u56fd\u7a0e\u5e81\u3000\u5fb4\u53ce\u90e8\u9577\uff08\u524d\u718a\u672c\u56fd\u7a0e\u5c40\u9577\uff09\u5c71\u5d0e\u3000\u535a\u4e4b\u3000\u6bbf\u56fd\u7a0e\u5e81\u3000\u9577\u5b98\u5b98\u623f\u76e3\u7763\u8a55\u4fa1\u5b98\u5ba4 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":13,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"swell_btn_cv_data":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-112","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-kokuzei"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=112"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":113,"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112\/revisions\/113"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=112"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=112"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=112"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
National Tax Union<\/strong>
Association for the Early Accusation by Union Members<\/strong>
Victims' Association Demanding the Quick Return of Confiscated Goods<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Association for the Early Accusation by Union Members<\/strong>
Victims' Association Demanding the Quick Return of Confiscated Goods<\/strong><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"