Satoshi Saito and defendant Takuoki Nakano guaranteed the angel tax system was \"legal.\" Shigenori Kanemoto is not an expert on the angel tax system. On the other hand, it is claimed that he recommended investing in Company N to Shigenori Kanemoto...<\/span>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n\nShigenori Kanemoto's \"un-investor-like conversation\" may rather indicate a dependency on defendant Tamaki Nakano<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Even if there is little evidence in Shigenori Kanemoto's daily emails or LINE messages of detailed discussions regarding Company N's business operations, sales plans, technology, employees, or customers, that alone does not necessarily mean he had no intention to invest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If the defendants, including Tamaki Nakano, provided an all-in-one package ranging from administrative verification, investment destination selection, institutional requirements, contracts, stock acquisition, to post-investment support, it is possible that Shigenori Kanamoto was not an investor who researched all of his investment destinations himself, but rather an investor who participated in investment projects constructed by experts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The fact that investors strongly relied on experts may indicate the absence of investment intent, or conversely, it may indicate that they actually invested by believing the experts' explanations. To determine which applies, it is not enough to interrogate only Shigetori Kanamoto.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is necessary to confirm what Defendant Toshiyuki Nakano promised, what materials he presented, what questions the investors asked, and who answered them and how.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What matters isn't how many times the word "investment" is used, but who designed it as an investment.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The average investor isn\u2019t going to keep confirming every day on LINE that \u201cI am investing in the stock of N Co., Ltd. with the intention of assuming the associated risks.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even if the agreement is initially viewed as an investment, subsequent everyday conversations may center on specific topics such as tax implications, cash flow, business consultations, repayments, loans, and transactions with other companies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office is denying the intent at the time of investment on the grounds that there are few investor-like expressions in subsequent LINE messages, the chronological order is reversed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What needs to be examined is not only what words were used after the funds were transferred, but also what the defendant Nakano Shukki and others presented before the funds were transferred, and what Shigenori Kanemoto believed when he transferred 500 million yen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Is the interrogation, which keeps presenting a large volume of LINE messages, intended to verify my counterarguments, or to make me give up?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Among the information received by the Prosecutors' Union, what is particularly concerning is that Shigenori Kanemoto is reportedly growing weary of having to refute each of the numerous messages one by one and is approaching a state of mind where he is thinking, "Perhaps I should just admit it."<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A suspect who has been detained cannot return home to freely search for past materials. It is also difficult for them to check with company representatives, ask related parties about the circumstances at the time, or rearrange emails and accounting documents by themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In that state, if only the prosecution-selected LINE messages are presented one after another, pressing [the accused] with questions like \"Given this text, wouldn't you think it wasn't an investment?\" or \"Given this conversation, wouldn't you think there was no consulting?\", the suspect is forced into making unfavorable statements simply because they cannot construct a complete rebuttal on the spot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
No matter how many times you explain, if you\u2019re presented with the next piece of evidence, and even if you deny it, you\u2019re pressed to reach the same conclusion from a different angle, people may admit to it not because they\u2019ve recalled the facts, but simply to bring the interrogation to an end.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Is the statement obtained thereby the result of approaching the truth, or is it the result of the suspect being worn down by physical restraint and the information gap?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The contradiction of the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office: blocking outside refutation while internal interrogations leak out<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
On July 27, 2026, members of the Prosecutors Union attempted to call the Special Criminal Division of the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office to inform them that multiple union members who invested in N Co., Ltd. had made their investments believing the administrative inquiry records of Defendant Toshiki Nakano and the explanations of a certified public accountant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The person who took over the call identified themselves as \"Prosecutor Kobayashi.\" However, the Prosecutors Union does not conclude that Prosecutor Kobayashi is directly in charge of interrogating Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The prosecutors' union side did not try to extract investigative information on individual cases; instead, they attempted to convey that if Company N had no substance, investors who invested by believing the explanations of Defendant Tamaki Nakano and others might not be accomplices to tax evasion, but rather victims of investment fraud.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, after asking for the informant's specific name and contact information, Prosecutor Kobayashi stated, \"We cannot handle this\" and \"I am going to hang up,\" ending the call without listening to the purpose of the information to the end, and without providing information on where to submit materials or directing them to another contact window.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Any information attempting to come in from the outside regarding \"what defendant Kakuki Nakano explained to investors\" is blocked at the entrance. Meanwhile, investigators continuously show a massive amount of LINE messages to Shigenori Kanimoto, who is being held in custody, and pressure him by saying, \"You were aware that you were investing, weren't you?\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This raises the question of whether this is an investigation to verify the truth from multiple sources, but rather an effort to fit Shigenori Kanamoto's statement into an existing narrative without allowing external counter-evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The most objective witnesses are the \"would-be investors\" who didn't invest.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
To confirm the type of business operations Defendant Tatsuyoshi Nakano was conducting, it is extremely important to interview not only those who actually invested in N Co., Ltd., but also those who received solicitation but ultimately chose not to invest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Those who passed on the investment did not benefit from the angel tax system and are in a relatively minor position of needing to change their statements to defend themselves in the current criminal case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
By confirming to those people what kind of administrative inquiry records were shown to them by defendant Tamaki Nakano, how the business of Company N was explained, how reinvestment and loans after the investment were explained, how Certified Public Accountant Satoshi Saito was introduced, whether there was a promise that the principal would be returned, and why they ultimately decided against investing, the business operations can be objectively reconstructed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If multiple prospective investors testify that they were given the same explanations as Mr. Shigenori Kanameta\u2014such as \"official investments confirmed by government authorities,\" \"projects also verified by a certified public accountant,\" and \"investments to become a shareholder of Company N\"\u2014it increases the likelihood that Mr. Shigenori Kanameta's understanding was formed not by excuses fabricated after his arrest, but by the sales explanations widely used by Defendant Toshiyuki Nakano.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Conversely, if a special promise to return the majority of the funds only to Mr. Shigenori Kanamoto, or a secret agreement that the funds would not be used for business purposes, was demonstrated, that difference would serve as crucial evidence to prove intent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Regardless of which conclusion is reached, a survey of prospective investors is unavoidable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office will not receive outside information, conduct comprehensive face-to-face investigations yourselves.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The prosecutors' union is not demanding the unconditional summons of all unrelated union members.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I am requesting the identification of any individuals who had contact with any of the following: investment solicitation for Corporation N, explanation of the angel tax incentive system, administrative inquiry records of Defendant Kakuki Nakano, explanations by Mr. Satoshi Saito, contracts, wire transfers, share issuance, or post-investment fund transfers, and that they be interviewed to the necessary extent without omission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At a minimum, it is necessary to confirm with the following individuals: investors who actually invested, prospective investors who decided against investing, individuals who attended investment briefings, individuals who received administrative inquiry records, individuals who received explanations of Company N's business plan, professionals involved in contracts or wire transfers, individuals in charge of stock issuance or capital increases, employees and contractors who actually performed work at Company N, and individuals involved in the creation, shipment, and explanation of consulting materials.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Rather than detaining Shigenori Kanamoto alone for days and continuously showing him hundreds of LINE messages, it is far closer to the truth to ask the same questions to multiple independent individuals and check whether their explanations match.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Open questions to the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office<\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n- Are you presenting a large number of emails and LINE messages to Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto and questioning him with the intent that \"he may not have been aware that he invested in N Co., Ltd.\"?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Regarding the messages presented during the interrogation, are you reviewing the preceding and following conversations, attachments, phone calls and meetings conducted on the same day, and even other group chats as a whole?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Has Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto not been conducting interrogations where, every time he refutes one message, he presents another and repeatedly pushes for the same conclusion?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Are you checking whether Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto has fallen into a psychological state of thinking \"it's easier to just admit it\" due to exhaustion from rebutting?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Are you taking measures to ensure that statements made to escape fatigue or physical restraint are not evaluated as voluntary and credible statements?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Are you recording and videotaping the entire interrogation process so that the repetition of questions, break times, and changes in statements can be verified afterwards?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- I am aware of the information that Defendant Tamaki Nakano was soliciting by integrating administrative inquiries, business explanations, contracts, share acquisitions, and application procedures with the intent of \"packaging even the investment intent.\"<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Have you reviewed the document titled \u201cTo Our Investors\u201d that the defendant, Shukki Nakano, provided to investors?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Have you verified with each administrative agency whether there is a record that the defendant, Toshiyuki Nakano, made inquiries to the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency, Tokyo Metropolis, Kagoshima Prefecture, tax offices, and others?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Have you confirmed the information that Satoshi Saito, acting as a certified public accountant, explained the system to Shigenori Kanemoto and was involved in the transfer of 500 million yen?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Did you ask the other investors who actually invested in N Co., Ltd. what they were told by Defendant Toshiyuki Nakano?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Have you identified and interviewed the prospective investors who were solicited for investment but ultimately did not invest?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Is there any evidence showing that Shigenori Kanemoto alone was promised the return of principal, capital reflux, and the avoidance of investment risks, unlike other investors?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Have you conducted comprehensive face-to-face investigations of employees, contractors, business partners, document preparers, and experts to verify the actual business operations of Company N?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Do you know the fact that Prosecutor Kobayashi ended the call without listening to the end of the investment fraud victim information that the prosecutors' union tried to provide?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- If you do not accept information from external sources, will the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office itself conduct comprehensive interviews with investors, potential investors, government officials, and experts?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Are you treating Shigenori Kanemoto's denials or silence to his disadvantage in the continuation of physical detention, disposition decisions, and the evaluation of the credibility of his statements?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
If you want to check investment intent, instead of showing your LINE until Shigenori Kanamoto gives up, please go around to the sales destinations of Defendant Toshiyoshi Nakano.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Whether Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto understood the capital contribution to Company N as a legitimate investment or recognized it as a formal payment to avoid tax burdens is the central issue in this case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, that answer cannot be found simply by extracting hundreds of messages from Shigenori Kanemoto\u2019s LINE account and criticizing him for using few terms typical of an investor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What did Defendant Tamaki Nakano sell as a product? Which administrative response did he show? What kind of business did he explain existed? What did Satoshi Saito guarantee? Why did Shigenori Kanemoto transfer 500 million yen? Did other investors receive the same explanation? What made those who passed on the investment suspicious?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Only by examining this preliminary stage can we evaluate Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto's perception at the time of investment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even if you try to communicate that information from the outside and they hang up, the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office should use their own feet to investigate to that extent. Check not only the investors, but also prospective investors, attendees at briefing sessions, document recipients, administrative officials, certified public accountants, and business associates of Company N.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Clarifying the truth does not mean repeatedly hitting a detained individual with the investigative agency's hypothesis and waiting until that person gives up their denial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is about accepting information that does not fit their own narrative, cross-checking accounts from independent parties, and testing multiple possibilities with equal intensity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Before tiring out Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto, please investigate what Defendant Toshiyuki Nakano sold and how he made investors trust him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If they continue to press the point that he \"had no awareness of investing\" without looking into that, what the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office is verifying is not the truth of the case, but solely the point of when Shigenori Kanemoto will give up on defending himself.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u91d1\u672c\u91cd\u5fb3\u6c0f\u306b\u300c\u6295\u8cc7\u610f\u601d\u304c\u306a\u304b\u3063\u305f\u300d\u3068\u8feb\u308b\u6a2a\u6d5c\u5730\u691c\u306e\u53d6\u8abf\u3079\u304b \u691c\u5bdf\u30e6\u30cb\u30aa\u30f3\u306b\u306f\u3001\u6a2a\u6d5c\u5730\u65b9\u691c\u5bdf\u5e81\u7279\u5225\u5211\u4e8b\u90e8\u306b\u3088\u308b\u91d1 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":183,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"swell_btn_cv_data":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-425","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-kensatsu"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/425","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=425"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/425\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":430,"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/425\/revisions\/430"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/183"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=425"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=425"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=425"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/87fc59da-3a2d-4036-b70b-c6814056a01d-300x169.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\t\t\t\t\t