Defendant Takashi Tachibana's "scheduled arrest" hoax and the Mamitsuka memo mentioning the last mile
According to reports, Takashi Tachibana, a defendant from the political party "The Party to Protect the People from NHK," has been indicted for defamation for allegedly spreading false information on social media and in street speeches—such as claiming that the late former Hyogo Prefectural Assembly member Hideaki Takeuchi "was scheduled to be arrested tomorrow"—thereby damaging his reputation both before and after his death.
In other words, the act of spreading false information about someone such as "they were supposed to be arrested" has become a serious enough issue to incur criminal liability.
Now, I ask the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office and the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau.
Even before the arrest of Defendant Tamaki Nakano, a document allegedly detailing the scenario of his arrest and investigation was circulated among a considerable number of related parties. When Defendant Nakano was actually arrested, was that document merely a rumor, or had internal information from the National Tax Agency and the public prosecutor's office been leaked to the outside?
If false, this is a serious defamation issue of treating another person as a criminal, similar to the case of the accused Tachibana. If true, this is a serious information leak by investigative authorities.
Either way, it is not an issue that can be brushed aside with silence.
The danger of the information regarding a "scheduled arrest" revealed by the case of Defendant Takashi Tachibana
What was at issue in the case of Defendant Takashi Tachibana was not simply that his expression was rough.
Despite the police clearly denying any plans for arrest, it has become an issue that someone posted that a specific individual "was scheduled to be arrested," which significantly damaged that person's social reputation.
Once information about a scheduled arrest is circulated as if it were true, it destroys the target's career, family, business partners, and social life. That is precisely why disseminating false information carries severe responsibility.
On the other hand, if the arrest plans were indeed leaked from within the investigative agency, that is even more serious, because it would give the subject of the investigation an opportunity to destroy evidence, flee, or coordinate their stories, and would put victims and related parties in danger.
If we are going to strictly pursue the case against Defendant Tachibana, it is inconsistent not to face the suspicions of information leaks by the National Tax Agency and the public prosecutors themselves with the exact same strictness.
the "Mamitsuka Memo," which is said to have anticipated the arrest of the defendant Toshiyuki Nakano
It is reported that on May 29, 2026, the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office indicted Defendant Tamaki Nakano for violations of the Consumption Tax Act and other offenses, and re-arrested him on the same day on suspicion of subsidy fraud and other charges. Subsequent reports also indicate that he has been indicted for violations of the Corporation Tax Act and other offenses related to a separate corporate entity.
However, it is said that even before Defendant Nakano's arrest, the "Mamizuka Memo," which reportedly contained contents suggesting arrests and investigations of related parties, had already spread to a considerable number of related parties due to information leaks.
Our union is not in a position to unconditionally determine the source, creation process, or authenticity of this document.
However, if there are parts that correspond between the contents described in the document and the subsequent actual progress of the arrests and investigations, the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office and the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau should at least formally investigate the possibility that internal information was leaked.
Defamation if false, leakage of investigation information if true
If the Mamitsuka Memo is a false document created and distributed for the purpose of trapping Defendant Nakano and people around him, it should be investigated as the dissemination of false information treating someone as a criminal, similar to the case of Defendant Tachibana.
Conversely, if the memo reflected actual investigative information from the National Tax Agency or prosecutors, an investigation should be conducted to determine who leaked it to the outside, when, and for what purpose.
It is a problem whether it is false or true.
There is no third option where the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office and the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau conduct no investigation and offer no explanation.
Why did Defendant Tamaki Nakano go to get arrested?
Of course, Defendant Nakano was not arrested for defaming the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office or the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau. Officially, the arrest and indictment are based on charges and crimes such as tax law violations and fraud.
However, our union has received recordings, LINE messages, and testimonies from concerned parties that raise suspicions that, even before his arrest, Defendant Nakano may have been trying to use Japan's national tax authorities and prosecutors to have his person secured by the Japanese side in order to evade pursuit by overseas authorities.
If those allegations are true, Nakano's arrest in Japan may not have been merely disadvantageous to him, but rather planned as a "safe haven" to protect himself from Cambodian authorities and other overseas investigative agencies.
Did a concept to change "arrest" to "protection" actually exist?
According to information received by our union, defendant Nakano had boasted about his coordination with Makoto Watanabe and his connections to the national tax authorities and prosecutors, and allegedly made statements to the effect that after he himself is taken into custody in Japan, he would have another person treated as an accomplice and steal that person's assets.
Whether this statement was merely a bluff or a lie, or if it was possible precisely because he had actually obtained investigative information, is a matter that the investigative authorities should verify.
Did Defendant Nakano know about the investigation schedule in advance? Did Mr. Watanabe have a grasp of that information? Was there direct or indirect contact with officials from the National Tax Agency and the public prosecutor's office?
It is completely unacceptable to treat others as accomplices based solely on Defendant Nakano's statements without investigating this matter.
The contradiction between 10.2 billion yen and wanting to die
Information preserved by our association indicates that while Defendant Nakano boasted to those around him that he personally held cash or assets on the scale of 10.2 billion yen, there also exist LINE messages in which he stated he "wanted to die."
The truth or falsehood of the 10.2 billion yen statement requires separate verification. However, if a person who boasted of immense assets showed rapidly unstable speech and behavior around the time a leak of arrest information was suspected, it is necessary to check whether there was a connection between that timing and the leakage of investigative information.
Was Defendant Nakano afraid of arrest? Or was he trying to use the arrest to his advantage? Or perhaps he was cornered as the multiple scenarios he had created began to fall apart?
Did the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office verify not only Defendant Nakano's statements, but also this contradiction?
Defendant Nakano centrally managed Mr. B's name, track record, bank account, registered seal, and login information.
We have received documents and testimonies stating that Defendant Nakano impersonated the wealthy individual Mr. B, falsified his name and track record to those around him, and single-handedly and intensively managed the bank accounts, corporate accounts, login information, registered seals, and corporate information of the related parties.
If this is true, Defendant Nakano cannot be treated merely as an accountant or assistant.
The structure of using another person's name and centrally controlling bank accounts, seals, communication environments, login credentials, and customer information bears a striking resemblance to the centralized management of names, funds, and communications seen in special fraud organizations, including "it's-me-fraud" scams.
Did Defendant Nakano not contact business partners, financial institutions, customers, and administrative agencies by posing as Mr. B himself? To what extent did the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office analyze the devices, login history, IP addresses, digital signatures, and account access history?
The actual job is not to shift responsibility by looking only at the representative's title, but to investigate who actually operated the account, who made the application, and who directed the fund transfer.
Did Makoto Watanabe "manage" the fraud group led by Defendant Nakano?
Our union strongly suspects the involvement of Makoto Watanabe of Last One Mile Inc. as the substantive director and coordinator in the series of issues.
It is said that Mr. Watanabe has often spoken to those around him about his management skills and his strength in legal disputes.
Then, what did Mr. Watanabe know, what did he instruct, and what did he manage during the period when Defendant Nakano was operating in Cambodia, utilizing Mr. B's name, assets, and information of multiple corporations, and escalating issues such as taxation, subsidies, M&A, investments, and overseas remittances?
Why did the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau return only Mr. Watanabe's seized items?
According to testimonies from persons involved known to our union, while multiple devices and documents were seized during a large-scale inspection by the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau, only Mr. Watanabe's mobile phone was returned on the day of the inspection.
If this is true, it is extremely unusual.
To confirm communication with the defendant Nakano, fund transfers, related corporations, and communications with Cambodia, Mr. Watanabe's device should be one of the most critical pieces of evidence.
Did you return them because the analysis and preservation were completed? Or did you not conduct sufficient analysis in the first place? Who decided to return them? Was there any request or lobbying regarding the preservation of evidence from Mr. Watanabe?
Unless there is a rational explanation, suspicions that the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau gave special consideration only to Mr. Watanabe will not disappear.
What was being managed in Cambodia, where special fraud bases are becoming a social issue?
In Southeast Asia, including Cambodia, online scam operations and call centers run by international criminal organizations have become a serious social issue. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and INTERPOL have also warned that criminal hubs linked to large-scale online fraud, human trafficking, and money laundering are expanding in the region, including Cambodia.
Information has also been sent to our union indicating that while Defendant Nakano is the target of an investigation regarding fraud and embezzlement cases in Cambodia, he was involved in operating a fraud call center targeting Japanese people, and that Mr. Watanabe directed and managed it from behind the scenes.
If this information is true, Mr. Watanabe is not merely an acquaintance of the defendant Nakano. He may have been the de facto manager who oversaw the defendant Nakano's activities, personnel, funds, communications, and escape.
And if they obtained the investigative information from the Japanese side in advance, moved Defendant Nakano from the pursuit of the Cambodian authorities to Japan, and attempted to protect him by utilizing Japanese criminal procedures, that action must be thoroughly verified.
Do the “Mamizuka Memo” Support the Allegations?
The Mamizuka memo, which is said to have already been leaked and spread to a considerable number of people, does not automatically mean that everything written in it is true.
However, if the details in the note—regarding arrests, persons under investigation, individuals involved, and the actions of investigative agencies—match actual events that occurred later in multiple respects, we cannot simply dismiss it as a hoax letter.
If the information is genuine, it constitutes a leak of confidential information. If the document is false, there is suspicion of defamation or of using deception to influence investigations or media coverage.
Furthermore, if Defendant Nakano and Mr. Watanabe used these memos and the leaked information to plan their own arrests, shift blame onto others, and flee to foreign countries, then the crux of the case lies not only in the publicly disclosed tax amounts and subsidy amounts.
Were law enforcement agencies exploited? Did some members of law enforcement cooperate? Or did the defendant, Nakano, simply tell one lie after another?
The Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office and the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau have an obligation to respond.
Open questions to the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office and Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau
- Are you aware that, even before the arrest of defendant Nakano Shukki, the “Mamizuka Memo”—which is said to have detailed his arrest and the planned investigation—had already been circulating outside the organization?
- Did you investigate whether any parts of the Mamizuka Memo correspond to the actual course of the arrest and investigation?
- If that memo is false, have you investigated who created and disseminated it and for what purpose, from the perspective of defamation or fraud?
- If that memo contained internal information, have you investigated which of the following—the Kumamoto Regional Tax Office, the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office, or the Fukuoka Public Prosecutors Office—was the source of the leak?
- Do you have recordings or similar materials showing that the defendant Nakano allegedly stated his intention to "use the national tax authorities and prosecutors" and "evade pursuit by overseas authorities by being detained in Japan"?
- Did you verify whether there were any direct or indirect contacts prior to the investigation between the defendant Nakano or Mr. Makoto Watanabe and officials from the National Tax Agency or the Public Prosecutors’ Office?
- Did you investigate the fact that Defendant Nakano intensively managed Mr. B's name, achievements, bank account, registered seal, and login information?
- Have you analyzed the devices, IP addresses, and login history associated with the actual transactions—including applications, money transfers, electronic contracts, and account operations?
- Is it true, as stated by a source, that the Kumamoto Regional Tax Office returned only Mr. Watanabe’s cell phone on the day of the audit? If so, please clarify the reason for the return and identify the person who authorized it.
- Did you perform data preservation, communication analysis, and recovery of deleted data on Mr. Watanabe’s device?
- Have you investigated the existence of the funds and the timing of the statements regarding Defendant Nakano's "10.2 billion yen" remark and the LINE message saying "I want to die"?
- Did you investigate the information that defendant Nakano was involved in operating a scam call center in Cambodia and that Watanabe directed and managed it?
- Did you investigate the possibility that Defendant Nakano used arrest and detention in Japan to evade pursuit by overseas investigative agencies?
- Before regarding a third party as an accomplice based on Defendant Nakano's statement, did you verify Defendant Nakano's history of falsification, identity theft, information management, and shifting of responsibility?
- Do you intend to conduct an investigation—including external experts—into these allegations of information leaks and the fairness of the investigation, and to make the results public?
Open Questions for Mr. Makoto Watanabe of Last One Mile, Inc.
- Last One Mile, Inc. and Mr. Makoto Watanabe must clarify when their relationship with the defendant, Shukiki Nakano, began and what specific business activities, transactions, and fund transfers they were involved in.
- Were you aware that the defendant Nakano was using and managing Mr. B’s name, business records, bank account, registered seal, and login information?
- Did you instruct or advise Defendant Nakano regarding tax returns, subsidy applications, M&A, stocks, investments, or overseas remittances?
- During the period when the defendant Nakano was working in Cambodia, how often and by what means did Mr. Watanabe maintain contact with him?
- Regarding the information that Defendant Nakano was involved in operating a scam call center in Cambodia, do you have any involvement or awareness?
- Isn't it a fact that Mr. Watanabe managed Defendant Nakano's personnel, funds, communications, and overseas travel?
- Did you know that the defendant Nakano had stated, to the effect that “he had the National Tax Agency and the Public Prosecutors’ Office on his side” and “if he were arrested in Japan, he could protect himself from foreign authorities”?
- Did you obtain the Mamizuka memo, or the investigative information contained in the memo, before the arrest?
- Did Mr. Watanabe or anyone associated with Last Mile provide advice, make arrangements, or communicate regarding Defendant Nakano’s return to Japan, his travel, and his detention by the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors’ Office?
- Do you know why, during the audit conducted by the Kumamoto Regional Tax Office, only Mr. Watanabe’s cell phone was reportedly returned on the same day?
- Is there any fact that Mr. Watanabe or persons related to Last One Mile Inc. have contacted officials of the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau, the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office, the Fukuoka High Public Prosecutors Office, or other investigative agency officials?
- Are you aware that the defendant Nakano stated that he held “10.2 billion yen”? Can you explain the location, source, and custodian of those funds?
- After the arrest of Defendant Nakano, did you provide information to investigative agencies and the media in order to have Mr. B and others treated as accomplices?
- Is it not true that certain senior executives at Last One Mile assisted Mr. Watanabe and the defendant Nakano with their relationship, the transfer of funds, and the acquisition of investigative information?
- As a listed company, do you intend to establish an independent third-party investigation committee regarding these allegations and publish the investigation results to shareholders, employees, and business partners?
The person who leaked the arrest information must not run away from explaining themselves.
The case of defendant Takashi Tachibana demonstrated that the words "was scheduled to be arrested" can destroy another person's reputation and life.
That is precisely why the National Tax Agency and the prosecutors cannot ignore the issue of the Mamizuka memo circulating, which indicated the prior arrest of defendant Toshiyuki Nakano.
Was it false?
Was it genuine investigative information after all?
Who leaked it?
How did Defendant Nakano and Mr. Makoto Watanabe use that information?
Why is only the person with the nominal title treated as an accomplice, rather than the person who actually controlled the bank account, registered seal, login credentials, communications, and funds?
Why was only the device of Mr. Watanabe, who is suspected of being the actual mastermind, returned so early?
The Last One Mile Labor Union is not merely discussing the criminal liability of the accused Nakano.
I am asking whether there is a structure in which investigation information is leaked, individuals exist who exploit that information, the ultimate controller is protected, and responsibility is shifted onto another person.
Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office, Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau, Last One Mile Inc., and Mr. Makoto Watanabe, please respond with facts, not silence.
Do not run away from the investigative information.
Do not run away from the materials submitted by the victims.
Do not shy away from investigating the de facto directors and beneficiaries.
Our union accepts rebuttals, explanations, and requests for correction that are accompanied by reasonable grounds. If a response is received, we will review its content and make additions as necessary.