When I listened to the suspect's story without preconceptions, statements emerged denying the intent to commit tax evasion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Then, the prosecutor in charge of the interrogation was verbally abused by the supervising prosecutor, who yelled, \"Are you trying to kill the case?\" and \"You're useless!\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore, when a large volume of recorded data that could potentially corroborate the suspect's explanation was found, instructions were given to \"ignore it without reporting to the boss.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even so, the prosecutor created a confession protocol in line with the storyline demanded by the mentor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although he later blew the whistle out of guilt, the power harassment was recognized, but no disciplinary action was taken on the grounds that it was \"his first time, so he is forgiven.\" Regarding the alleged remark asking for evidence to be concealed, it was reportedly handled as if the person who received the instruction, rather than the prosecutor who gave it, had \"misunderstood.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is the content of a memoir by a former male prosecutor, introduced in an article published by Shoko Egawa on August 4, 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Read \"Prosecutor Who Resigned Over Power Harassment Exposes Special Investigation Unit's Illegal Investigation Coercion in Memoir\"<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Prosecutors Union does not consider the issues that have come to light this time to be the personality of a single supervising prosecutor or a special incident that occurred in a single district public prosecutors office.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The boss decides the conclusion of the case in advance and demands that the subordinate obtain a confession that fits that conclusion. When the subordinate conducts the interrogation using standard methods and statements different from expectations emerge, the boss berates them for a lack of ability. When evidence is found that might contradict the prosecutor's narrative, the boss refuses to examine it and tries to omit it from the report to their superior.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This structure eerily overlaps with the issues that the prosecutors' union has repeatedly pointed out regarding the interrogation of Shigenori Kanamoto by the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The memorandum published this time does not record the exact wording of an order to \"drive them into a corner with a tax evasion case.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n What is stated in the memoir is that regarding training on tax evasion cases at the Special Investigation Department of the Osaka District Public Prosecutors Office, there was a situation where a former male prosecutor perceived that \"making them confess was the supreme objective.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n After a former male prosecutor listened to the suspect\u2019s account without any preconceptions, the suspect\u2014who had reportedly admitted to the charges during the National Tax Agency investigation\u2014denied any intent to evade taxes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is said that he was then subjected to verbal abuse to the following effect by the prosecutor in charge of financial and economic crimes who was acting as his mentor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Are you trying to cover up the case?<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"The suspect is denying the charges because they don't take us seriously.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n You put me through a boring interrogation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It's junk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I've been slacking off on the job, so I can't conduct a proper interrogation.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n In other words, there is suspicion that instead of proving crimes by examining evidence, the ability of the prosecutor in charge was evaluated based on whether they could force the suspect to confess.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Put simply, this can be read as pressure to \"make them admit to tax evasion\" and \"not let the case end with a denial.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n What is important in the memoirs is an interrogation called \"open.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is explained that \"open\" here refers to an interrogation where the investigators listen to the person's explanations directly, rather than forcing or leading them toward the answer the prosecution expects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The male former prosecutor read through the massive case records and listened to the suspect's story with an open mind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As a result, the suspect denied the intent to evade taxes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Normally, the investigation would start from here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why did a person reportedly admitting to the allegations at the national tax stage deny them during the prosecution stage? Were there any coerced statements or misunderstandings in the statements made at the national tax stage? Do contracts, communications, accounting materials, or third-party statements exist to support the suspect's new explanation?<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the suspect's explanation is false, you just need to dismantle it with evidence. Conversely, if the explanation is rational and consistent with objective evidence, the investigative side's theory must be revised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, it is said that what the supervising prosecutor took issue with was not the truth or falsity of the denial, but rather the interrogation method that allowed the denial to happen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Listening to the other person's explanation is seen as a "boring interrogation," and being denied is seen as "being looked down on."<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this workplace, are prosecutors who extract confessions held in higher regard than those who uncover the truth?<\/p>\n\n\n\n A former male prosecutor writes that what the supervising prosecutor wanted was a confession protocol created through \"prosecutorial fiction.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n A protocol of statement is originally intended to accurately record the content actually stated by the declarant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, if the prosecutor first creates a scenario of the case, repeatedly asks questions that fit that scenario, and replaces the other party's words with legal expressions convenient to the prosecution, the interrogation record becomes not the memory of the affiant, but the work of the prosecutor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, the explanation that \u201cI believed the funds would eventually be returned\u201d is not the same as the explanation that \u201cI understood there was a legal guarantee of principal from the time of the investment.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The assessment \"Looking back now, I think it was a questionable transaction\" is also different from the intent of \"at the time of the transaction, I was aware that it was illegal tax evasion.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n The explanation that \"the details of the system were left to experts\" and the determination that \"there was no intention to invest\" are not the same thing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If this discrepancy is erased and rewritten to fit the legal assessment desired by the prosecutor, a judge who reads only the statement record will think the suspect admitted to the crime from the beginning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the memoir, a large amount of call data with business partners and company-related individuals was stored on the suspect's smartphone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The male former prosecutor thought that since objective audio evidence existed, it was necessary to examine its contents closely, and consulted with his supervising prosecutor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the mentor is said to have stated that the review could take time, as follows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n "Don't tell your boss about the recording\u2014just ignore it."<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Neguru is an expression used to mean to ignore or exclude from consideration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If this statement is as written in the memo, it is not merely an instruction to improve operational efficiency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This means you requested that the existence of objective evidence that could affect the outcome of the case not be reported to the decision-maker.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recording may contain content that supports the suspect's explanation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, it is also possible that upon reviewing the recordings, we will find not a single thing that supports the suspect's explanation, but rather content that reinforces the case against them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, that is something to decide after listening to the recording.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If, before even checking the content, you fail to report the existence of evidence to your superior simply because it takes time, that means you have eliminated evidence at the outset that could shake the investigative team's hypothesis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Evidence supporting the suspect's crime is not the only evidence in a criminal case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Everything must be reviewed fairly, including evidence supporting the suspect's explanation, evidence denying intent, evidence contradicting the theory suggesting conspiracy, and evidence indicating the involvement of another person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Such evidence that works in a direction opposing the establishment of a crime is generally called exculpatory evidence or rebutting evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Exculpatory evidence is not troublesome material for the prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is necessary evidence to avoid prosecuting an innocent person, to correctly determine the scope of the crime, and not to overlook the truly responsible party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If prosecutors gather only evidence pointing to guilt and \"neglect\" evidence pointing in the opposite direction, they become not representatives of the public interest, but agents of the hypothesis of guilt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The former male prosecutor, driven by guilt for failing to report the recorded data, consulted another senior prosecutor he trusted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Following that advice, he is said to have explained to the deputy head of the Special Investigation Department that there was a recording he could not report because his supervisor told him to hide it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The deputy director instructed him to check all the recordings, and when the man reported the contents, it was decided that \"in that case, there is no problem with prosecuting.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, at that point, the policy to indict had already been decided, and it is said that approval up to the Chief Prosecutor had been completed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If this course of events is accurate, there is a significant reversal of order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We did not review the recorded evidence and decide whether or not to prosecute based on its contents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After deciding to prosecute, you listened to the recording and confirmed that it was not enough to change the conclusion you had already reached.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even if the final conclusion is the same, that is no reason to omit due process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Shoko Egawa's article, attorney Junichiro Hironaka points out that this issue is a matter of due process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reviewing the evidence supporting the crime and the evidence favorable to the suspect, a disposition is decided based on that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is the procedure required of the prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even without reviewing the evidence, if we had asked later, the conclusion wouldn't have changed. Therefore, there is no issue with not reporting the evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If this logic is allowed, prosecutors could indict suspects without looking at any evidence that contradicts their theory, and then justify it after a guilty verdict in court by saying, \"The conclusion would have been the same.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Following the procedure is not only about changing the outcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is to ensure that the citizens, defense counsel, court, and posterity can verify whether the conclusion is correct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is said that after finishing his training and returning to his former office, the male former prosecutor could not get the verbal abuse he received from his mentor out of his head, and he lost confidence in his own judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I was unable to sleep at night and found myself unable to continue my duties, so I decided to resign.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At that time, he reported the power harassment by the supervisor and the circumstances under which he was asked not to report the evidence to the Chief Prosecutor of his affiliated office and others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The memoir states that although the Osaka High Public Prosecutors Office conducted an investigation and confirmed that power harassment had indeed occurred, no disciplinary action was taken because it was a first offense and would be pardoned this time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What kind of power harassment is forgivable if it happens only once?<\/p>\n\n\n\n So you're saying we should make the first victim endure it, and only take action after the second one appears?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, this is a case where a supervising prosecutor of the Special Investigation Department, which exercises state power, is suspected of mentally driving a subordinate and influencing suspect statements and evidence evaluation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a typical company, being a first-time offense is not a valid reason for going unpunished.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even more serious is the issue of being asked not to report the recorded data to the supervisor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the personal notes, the High Public Prosecutors Office's investigation concluded that \"there were remarks that could lead to that misunderstanding.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In other words, it is processed as if the person told to \"neglect\" misunderstood the true meaning of the statement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, what and how would one have to say it for a subordinate to misunderstand and think, \"Ignore the existence of the recording and do not report it to the boss\"?<\/p>\n\n\n\n If it was a misunderstanding, the actual statements, the preceding and following conversation, the records from that time, and the explanation from the supervisor should be made public so that a third party can make a judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Simply labeling an internal investigation a \"misunderstanding\" does not dispel suspicions of a cover-up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a former male prosecutor, during the High Public Prosecutors Office's investigation, he was repeatedly asked whether the failure to report the audio recording data had affected the final disposition of the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The direction of this question narrows the essence of the problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even if it did not affect the handling of the incident, is it acceptable to give instructions to conceal evidence?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even if the suspect is ultimately indicted, is it acceptable to verbally abuse subordinates to extract a confession?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even if the end result is a guilty verdict, is it unnecessary to verify the procedures along the way?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The problem is not just the conclusion of the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is whether the prosecutor has impartially reviewed all the evidence and determined the disposition through due process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Public Prosecutors Office has an Inspection and Guidance Department that investigates illegal or inappropriate conduct by prosecutorial personnel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Check the role of the Department of Inspection and Guidance explained by the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Inspection and Guidance Division is defined as a department that gathers and analyzes information received from both inside and outside the prosecutorial organization, and investigates the facts as necessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, it is said that the former male prosecutor who wrote this memoir has not been questioned by the Inspection and Guidance Division.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I was pressured within the Special Investigation Department to secure a confession. I was asked not to report the existence of objective evidence. Even after the whistleblower report, my supervisor was not disciplined, and the whistleblower themselves resigned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office's Department of Inspection and Guidance has not confirmed such critical information directly from the person in question, what are they inspecting, and whom are they guiding?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Public Prosecutors Office has established a reporting hotline for information regarding illegal or inappropriate conduct by public prosecutors and public prosecutor's assistant officers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Check the information provision window of the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office's Inspection and Guidance Department.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the same office explains that it will not disclose the details or results of the investigation even to the person who provided the information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The whistleblower bravely exposes the organization's problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The prosecution receives the information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, they will not answer whether they investigated, who they checked with, whether they acknowledged the problem, or whether they made any improvements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is not a reporting hotline; it is a black hole that sucks information inside the prosecutor's office and makes it invisible from the outside.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Can an oversight organization that has no obligation to respond to external information disclosures deter wrongdoing within an organization?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Prosecutor-General explains that the mission of the public prosecution is to adhere to strict fairness, impartiality, and political neutrality, to clarify the truth of cases, and to make appropriate and reasonable dispositions based on laws and evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Confirming the mission of the public prosecutor's office set forth by the Prosecutor-General<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n However, if this account is true, then the law and evidence were not the top priorities at the scene.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Do not allow them to deny it. Create the scheduled confession protocol. Do not bury the case. Complete the boss's hypothesis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the official website they uphold law and evidence, while in the interrogation room they treat confession as the supreme objective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is impossible to restore public trust in the prosecution while leaving this dual structure unaddressed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The interrogations of Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto, as understood by the prosecutors' union, overlap with points in this memoir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the memoir case, it is said that making the suspect admit to intentional tax evasion was of the utmost importance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even in the case of Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto, there is suspicion that the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office established a hypothesis that intent to evade taxes and conspiracy existed before thoroughly verifying objective facts such as investments, consulting, administrative inquiries, and other matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is said that Shigenori Kanemoto responded to prosecutors' summonses and visited the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office almost every week even before his arrest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Neither the person who had been running around nor the person who kept refusing to answer questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nevertheless, it is said that the core question\u2014specifically which concrete acts correspond to which constitutive requirements of which laws\u2014was not sufficiently demonstrated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is alleged that, without asking any specific questions at any stage, and after arresting the suspect and making it impossible for them to return home, questioning was repeatedly directed along the lines of \"Did you not think it was wrong?\", \"Did you not think the principal would be returned?\", and \"Did you not know it was not an investment?\".<\/p>\n\n\n\n If there was an opportunity to hear an explanation before the arrest, but a confession is demanded only after physical restraint, a suspicion arises that the arrest was used not for questioning, but as pressure to obtain a statement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Inquiries made to administrative agencies, responses from administrative officials, contracts, share acquisitions, remittance records, service provision materials, generated data, and communications among related parties are evidence that exists independently of statements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, if prioritizing getting words from Shigenori Kanamoto that fit the investigative side's theory over thoroughly verifying these points, it has the same structure as this memo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to information submitted to the prosecutors' union, Prosecutor Yamaguchi allegedly stated that unless Shigenori Kanemoto confessed that the target individual\u2014whom the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office was attempting to pin the responsibility on\u2014was the bad actor, Kanemoto himself would be treated as the worst offender.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If this is true, this is not an interrogation to ascertain the facts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is an interrogation where they make you choose who to cast as the culprit within a scenario prepared by the prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to information submitted to the prosecutors' union, after Shigenori Kanemoto shifted to silence, the prosecution's intense questioning significantly decreased, and his own mental burden was also alleviated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The fact alone that questions decreased after remaining silent does not allow the conclusion that the prior interrogations were illegal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, if the purpose is to examine objective evidence, the investigation can continue even if the suspect remains silent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Question administrative personnel. Review the contract. Examine remittance records. Scrutinize service provision documents. Verify Mr. Toshiyuki Nakano's electronic data and changes in explanations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the substantive interrogation stopped the moment the suspect remained silent, wasn't what the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office needed not evidence, but specific words spoken from the mouth of Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The phrase used in the Osaka District Public Prosecutors Office memo was, \"Don't report the recorded data to your supervisor and bury it.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the case handled by the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office, materials have been pointed out that may contradict the prosecution's theory, such as administrative inquiry records, service provision materials, the involvement of experts who used the system in advance, attendance at remittances, multiple sales records, and overseas activities and electronic data of Mr. Toshiyuki Nakano.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Has the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office collected all of these and evaluated them fairly?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Or is it that, even without formally ordering them to \"ignore it,\" they are effectively ignoring it by not asking questions, not demanding submissions, and leaving it out of the case story?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Destroying evidence is not the only way to conceal it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Knowing of their existence yet not collecting them, failing to include them as subjects for review, and not accurately reporting them to decision-makers also hinder the clarification of the truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At this point, we have not confirmed the fact that we received any power harassment consultations or whistleblowing reports directly from Prosecutor Kobayashi or Prosecutor Yamaguchi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nor is it a definitive fact that both prosecutors were ordered by their superiors to obtain a specific confession.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, reading the memoirs that have now been made public offers a different perspective on the puzzling words and actions of the two prosecutors at the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors\u2019 Office.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Could it be that Prosecutors Kobayashi and Yamaguchi are also facing pressure from their superiors, such as the following?<\/p>\n\n\n\n "Make him admit to intentional tax evasion."<\/p>\n\n\n\n "Obtain a statement indicating that the person in question took the lead."<\/p>\n\n\n\n "Are you trying to cover up this case?"<\/p>\n\n\n\n "How long are you going to keep him from speaking?"<\/p>\n\n\n\n "If you can't get a confession, you're incompetent."<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The account of the incident provided by my supervisor does not match the objective evidence that was gathered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, if they report that their assessment was incorrect, they\u2019ll be labeled as \u201cthe prosecutor who botched the case,\u201d \u201cthe prosecutor who can\u2019t conduct interrogations,\u201d or \u201ca good-for-nothing.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, rather than asking the person in question directly, did they try to extract the statement their superiors wanted from Shigenori Kanemoto, whom they had taken into custody?<\/p>\n\n\n\n After Shigenori Kanemoto invoked his right to remain silent, Prosecutor Yamaguchi reportedly visited him on Saturday and said he had come \u201cjust to chat.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n At that time, he reportedly asked about her impression of the prosecution, her thoughts on the interrogation, her future plans, and whether she viewed the police as the enemy; he also reportedly asked, \u201cDo you dislike me?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Prosecutor Yamaguchi reportedly stated that, for his part, he had no intention of putting Shigenori Kanemoto at a disadvantage, that he had handled the matter impartially and tried to be as supportive as possible, and that he believed this outcome was due to his own shortcomings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As a standard interrogation, it\u2019s difficult to understand what the conversation is intended to clarify.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, after reading the memoir of a former male prosecutor at the Osaka District Public Prosecutors Office\u2014in which he describes being caught between his superior\u2019s assessment and his own conscience\u2014Prosecutor Yamaguchi\u2019s remarks take on a different meaning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n "It's not a story I made up."<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are things I can do and things I cannot do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I didn't actually mean to put you at a disadvantage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n "I was unable to get the statement my boss wanted."<\/p>\n\n\n\n Was Prosecutor Yamaguchi seeking Shigenori Kanemoto\u2019s understanding not as an interrogator exercising state authority, but as a subordinate who had been cornered by his superiors?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Was \u201cDo You Hate Me?\u201d not just a simple popularity survey, but rather a silent SOS from within the prosecution service?<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is also information indicating that Prosecutor Kobayashi\u2019s assessments and alleged remarks regarding individuals involved in this case have been leaked to the public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The source of the leak has not been confirmed, and it cannot be concluded that Prosecutor Kobayashi himself leaked the information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is also possible that the information spread through individuals involved in the case, reporters, other prosecutors, or multiple sources of hearsay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the fact that the investigation team\u2019s assessment, interrogation strategy, and statements attributed to the prosecutor are being leaked to the outside one after another suggests that someone within the prosecution may have doubts about the current investigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In organizations where formal internal reports are suppressed, the flow of mysterious information can, as a result, serve the same function as whistleblowing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the words and actions of Prosecutors Kobayashi and Yamaguchi are truly an SOS from prosecutors who have been cornered by the organization, they should formally report the matter to authorities outside the organization, rather than conveying it indirectly through a suspect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If Prosecutors Kobayashi and Yamaguchi are being verbally abused by their superiors, pressured to achieve unrealistic results, and forced to extract specific statements from witnesses, then both prosecutors must be protected as victims of power harassment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, it is not permissible to shift the pressure received from a superior onto a suspect who is in custody.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even if they are a subordinate in a vulnerable position at work, in the interrogation room, they are a prosecutor exercising state authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even if your boss ordered you to pressure someone by saying, \u201cIf you don\u2019t say the target person is bad, you\u2019ll be the worst one,\u201d that doesn\u2019t absolve you of responsibility for your words.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A prosecutor who has been a victim of pressure to make a statement becomes the perpetrator of such pressure in another context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That is precisely why power harassment within the prosecution is not merely a labor issue between employees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is a problem within the criminal justice system in which the burden is shifted onto ordinary citizens through arrest, detention, interrogation, written statements, indictment, and trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Ministry of Justice has announced its plan to conduct a harassment survey covering all employees of the Public Prosecutors' Office.<\/p>\n\n\n\nforced to corner in a tax evasion case<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
When I asked \"Open,\" it gave me an answer that differed from the prosecution's scenario.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Creating a confession protocol using a \"prosecutor's essay\"<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Recorded data that may contradict the prosecution's theory<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Exculpatory evidence does not mean evidence that is inconvenient for the prosecution.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The decision to indict had already been made before reviewing the recording.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
It's not enough to say \"it doesn't matter as long as the conclusion doesn't change\"<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
As a result of whistleblowing, \"I'll forgive you because it's your first time.\"<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The hiding of evidence was blamed on a \"misunderstanding\" by the person who received the order, rather than the person who gave it.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What was repeatedly asked in the survey was whether it affected case processing<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Supreme Public Prosecutors Office's Department of Inspection and Guidance didn't even interview the person.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Even if a report is accepted, the investigation results will not be disclosed to the reporter.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The official philosophy of the prosecution and the reality depicted in the memoir<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Five structures overlapping with the interrogation of Mr. Shigenori Kanemoto<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
1. The conclusion of the case is presented first.<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
2. Failing to ask necessary questions at any stage<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
3. Seeking a confession after arrest<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
4. Testimonial evidence takes precedence over objective evidence.<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
5. Demanding statements that shift responsibility to another person<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
When Shigenori Kanemoto remained silent, the questioning decreased.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Will the Osaka District Public Prosecutors' Office "turn a blind eye," while the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors' Office looks the other way?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Are prosecutors Kobayashi and Yamaguchi also being told by their bosses, \"Are you trying to kill the case?\"<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Was Prosecutor Yamaguchi\u2019s \u201cDo you hate me?\u201d a silent SOS?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Reasons Why Prosecutor Kobayashi\u2019s Statements and Investigation Information Leak to the Public<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Being a victim and bearing responsibility in the interrogation room are not mutually exclusive.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Won't the prosecution's internal investigation just end up being another "misunderstanding"?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n