What is actually happening in operational practice regarding the return system stipulated in Article 222, Paragraph 1 and Article 123, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A rigorous pursuit based on legal theory, possible only because it is a union HP<\/p>\n\n\n\n
National Tax Union | Official Statement<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This statement sets forth our union's formal legal view on the process of requesting the return of seized items in this inspection and investigation, as well as the structural problems in seized item management that it reveals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The progress of the request for the return of seized items in this case is as follows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As a first step, from 2025 to 2026, Nobuhiro Kawaguchi, Chief Examiner of the Third Criminal Investigation Division of the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau, responded to our union member with the intent that if they wanted the seized items returned, they should \"come and get them.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As a second step, in response to this handling, our union members went to collect the seized items while bringing the seizure inventory. The seizure inventory is an official document that the investigative agency that carried out the seizure is obligated to issue pursuant to Article 120 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as applied mutatis mutandis by Article 222, Paragraph 1 of the same Code, and serves as the legal basis document for identifying the identity of the seized items.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As a third step, at the time of the pick-up, suspicious behavior was exhibited, followed by two weeks of ignoring phone calls. Subsequently, Chief Inspector Hiroshi Oka of the same department stated, under the instruction of Regional Commissioner of Taxation Atsushi Kitamura, that \"the originals cannot be returned,\" which further escalated to the stance that \"even viewing them is not permitted.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That is, while at the stage of Chief Inspector Kawaguchi it was operated under the premise that \"we will return them if you come to pick them up,\" by the time they were actually picked up, Chief Inspector Oka had altered the very premise of the response to \"originals cannot be returned and cannot be viewed.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The current law establishes a clear system regarding the return of seized items.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Article 123, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that \"seized items for which there is no need to retain shall be returned by ruling without waiting for the conclusion of the defendant's case,\" expressly setting forth as a legal principle that seized items for which the necessity of retention has ceased should be returned without waiting for the conclusion of the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore, Article 222, Paragraph 1 of the same Act stipulates that the provisions of Article 123 and others apply mutatis mutandis to seizure by investigative agencies, and therefore, the investigative agency also has a legal obligation to return seized items in national tax criminal investigations once the necessity for retention has ceased to exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In other words, the return of seized items is clearly institutionalized under the Code of Criminal Procedure as a statutory obligation that must be fulfilled, first, when the necessity for retention has ceased; second, by the agency that executed the seizure; and third, without waiting for the conclusion of the case. This is not a discretionary operational service such as \"we will return them if you come to pick them up\" or \"we will return them if you provide an explanation.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Now, it is necessary to accurately evaluate the legal implications when a response such as \"the original cannot be returned\" is given, as in this case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Article 123, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that \"seized articles may be temporarily returned by a ruling upon the request of the owner, possessor, custodian, or sender.\" This is the so-called provisional return system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The purpose of the provisional return system is to enable flexible management by returning the original items\u2014while still requiring their resubmission as necessary, taking into account the impact on the seized party's daily life and business operations, even though the necessity for continued seizure has not entirely disappeared.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That is to say, the current law provides, first, that for seized items for which the necessity of retention has ceased, the return of the originals is mandated pursuant to Article 123, Paragraph 1, and second, that for seized items for which the necessity of retention still remains, the return of the originals is also possible in the form of provisional return pursuant to Article 123, Paragraph 2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In other words, the structure of current law makes the return of originals the rule and the continued retention the exception.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Based on the aforementioned legal structure, the legal assessment of responding with \"the originals cannot be returned\" for seized items that have been held for two years without a single questioning or inspection being conducted is extremely clear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
First, if the necessity for detention has ceased, the return of the original document is a statutory obligation under Article 123, Paragraph 1. The option of \"cannot be returned\" does not exist under the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Secondly, if it is claimed that the necessity for retention still persists, an obligation arises to explain to the person from whom the items were seized the specific details of that necessity (namely, which seized items will be utilized as evidentiary materials for establishing which facts, and in what manner). The continuation of retention without such an explanation is evaluated as arbitrary retention lacking an objective basis for the review of necessity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Third, since the provisional return system (Article 123, Paragraph 2) has been institutionalized, alternative means for the return of originals are clearly provided by law. The response that \"originals cannot be returned\" suggests that the provisional return system has not been considered within the organization, raising doubts about the administration's own understanding of the system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even more serious is the response given at the time of pick-up, stating that \"even viewing is not allowed.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Here, it is necessary to accurately organize the legal relationships under the Code of Criminal Procedure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The owner, possessor, custodian, or sender of seized items has not completely lost ownership or possessory rights over the seized items. Seizure is a disposition that temporarily restricts the exercise of these rights based on the necessity of investigation or inquiry, and is not a disposition that transfers ownership itself to the state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In other words, the original right holder of the seized property remains the person from whom it was seized, and the investigative agency merely holds temporary possession of it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Under this legal structure, the denial of even inspecting one's own property and possessed items in the seizing agency's storage facility is, first, an unjustified restriction on the essential content of the owner's and possessor's rights of ownership and possession; second, a violation of the principle of good faith, as it summons the person whose property was seized under the premise of \"we will return it if you come to pick it up,\" only to alter the terms on-site; and third, as an operation that makes it impossible to even confirm the existence, identity, and storage condition of the seized items, it is a practice that structurally deprives the party from whom the items were seized of the ability to verify the Chain of Custody.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Our union is also aware that the inspection of seized items may sometimes be restricted due to investigative confidentiality. However, the seized items in this case include personal movable property directly linked to the seized party's daily life and economic activities, such as a business card case, passport, and credit cards, and it must be said that there is objectively little room to conceive of any investigative confidentiality in these items.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Now, I will organize the legal implications of the shift in the handling of this case\u2014the abrupt turnaround from \"please come and pick it up\" to \"neither the original nor viewing is permitted.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The logically possible outcomes are limited to one of the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this case, it means that there is a breakdown in information sharing between decision-making within the organization and on-site responses, indicating a structural flaw in organizational governance regarding seized property management.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this case, it suggests that there is an inexplicable problem with the location and storage conditions of the seized items themselves that cannot be explained to the general public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this case, it turns out that practices were implemented to prompt the person from whom the items were seized to visit the location in order to evade the obligation of return under Article 123, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is evaluated as the intentional nullification of the right to request a return.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Regardless of which possibility it is, the conclusion remains the same: the structural fact that the right to claim a refund, which is clearly institutionalized under current law, has been rendered a dead letter in practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In fact, during tax investigations by the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau, despite the bureau lacking the power of arrest, statements threatening arrest for refusing face-to-face investigations were actually made to multiple individuals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The hollowing out of the right to claim the return of seized property is not merely an operational issue in a single case. Its seriousness lies in the following three points:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
First, the restitution system prescribed by Articles 123 and 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a legislative safeguard designed to keep the potent authority of seizure over citizens' property rights (Article 29 of the Constitution) within the necessary minimum scope. If this safeguard becomes a dead letter in practice, the very legal limits of the coercive measure of seizure will collapse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Second, rendering the right to claim a return obsolete makes the actual storage status, location, and management reality of seized items unverifiable by the person from whom the items were seized. This has the effect of structurally concealing risks such as loss, unauthorized use, or tampering of the seized items.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Thirdly, rendering the right to claim a return obsolete leads directly to the practice of \"withholding returns unless explanations are provided,\" causing seized items to function effectively as \"hostages\" and serving as a coercive measure to extract explanatory responses during voluntary investigations. This deviates from the purpose of seizure envisioned by the warrant system (securing materials for fact-finding).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Based on the above, our union requests a formal written response from the personnel of the 3rd Investigation Division of the Investigation and Intelligence Department of the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau, as well as to Atsushi Kitamura, Director-General of the Regional Taxation Bureau.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
First, how the organizational policy changed between the response stage under Chief Investigator Nobuhiro Kawaguchi and the response stage under Chief Investigator Hiroshi Oka, including the background of the change and the identification of the decision-makers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Secondly, regarding seized items for which a considerable period of time has elapsed since the seizure and no questioning or inspection has been conducted even once, what is the specific necessity for continuing their retention for each seized item?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Third, whether the organization considered utilizing the provisional return system under Article 123, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and if not, the reasons why.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fourth, on which provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the legal basis for refusing the inspection of seized items founded?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fifth, what system is provided as a means for the person from whom items were seized to verify the existence, identity, and storage condition of the seized items?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The return procedure stipulated in Article 123, Paragraph 1 and Article 222, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a fundamental safeguard of modern criminal procedure law. The hollowing out of this system in practice will, in the long run, undermine social trust in the compulsory measure of seizure itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the second installment, we will continue to thoroughly examine, from a legal perspective, the reality of the management of seized items arising from this case\u2014specifically, whether they are actually being stored, whether the chain of custody is being maintained, and whether the possibility of loss can be ruled out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n