Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau's statement regarding "lost seized items" and suspicions of return to Makoto Watanabe
Defendant Takashi Tachibana and defendant Tsuguyoshi Nakano.
Although the two individuals differ in the nature of their cases, their victims, and the charges against them, a point of common attention is their physical detention following arrest and indictment.
This article is not intended to treat the detention period of the two individuals as a competitive form of entertainment.
Through the ironic comparison of "which one is detained longer," this examines Japan's hostage justice, the prolonged physical detention through rearrests, the management of seized items, and whose evidence the investigative agencies secured and to whom they returned it.
Defendant Takashi Tachibana, about 8 months after indictment, trial schedule still undecided
Defendant Takashi Tachibana was indicted in November 2025 on charges of defamation against the deceased former Hyogo Prefectural Assembly member Hideaki Takeuchi.
According to a report by Kyodo News on July 7, 2026, the bail request by defendant Tachibana's side was rejected once again, marking at least the second time that bail has been denied.
It is also said that the trial schedule has not been decided as of the same date.
Whether you can agree with Defendant Tachibana's political activities and statements is a separate issue from whether his pre-trial physical detention is appropriate.
Detaining a person indicted for defamation for about eight months without even scheduling the first trial has sparked debate over whether this constitutes "hostage justice."
Reference:Kyodo News: "Bail request for N Party defendant Tachibana denied"
Defendant Kazuki Nakano faces a continuing sequence of indictments, re-arrests, and additional prosecutions.
Regarding Defendant Tamaki Nakano, it has been reported that on June 18, 2026, he was indicted for violations of the Consumption Tax Act and, at the same time, rearrested on suspicion of subsidy fraud and other charges.
Furthermore, on July 3, it was reported that he was re-indicted for violations of the Corporate Tax Act and other charges related to a separate corporate entity.
Regarding Defendant Nakano's bail request and current custody status, not everything can be confirmed through public information alone.
However, if re-arrests simultaneous with indictment or additional indictments for separate cases are repeated, physical detention may be prolonged.
Will Defendant Nakano catch up to Defendant Tachibana, who has an approximately eight-month lead?
Or will Defendant Nakano be released early through statements and cooperation with the investigation?
The Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office has not disclosed whether defendant Nakano admits or denies the charges, making it impossible to determine the actual situation from the outside.
"Hostage justice" must not be judged by personal feelings toward the defendant.
"Hostage justice" is not an official legal term.
Generally, it is used as an expression to criticize Japanese criminal justice practices, in which the risk of flight or destruction of evidence is broadly recognized for suspects and defendants who continue to deny the charges or remain silent, resulting in prolonged detention without being granted bail.
Even those who are critical of Defendant Tachibana's methods of communication should not unconditionally endorse his prolonged detention prior to trial.
Even if there are serious allegations of harm regarding Defendant Nakano, it does not justify investigative authorities using custody to coerce statements that conform to a narrative they themselves have created.
Guilt or innocence should be determined by evidence in a public court.
A question more serious than detention: Where did the seized items vanish to?
According to explanations from parties concerned known to the Last One Mile Labor Union, Tsuyoshi Shimazaki, a supervising national tax investigator at the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau, reportedly made statements to the effect that the seized items in this case are "lost."
Our union will continue to confirm the date and time of this statement, the other party involved, the preceding and following exchanges, recordings, and other supporting evidence.
However, if a situation is actually occurring where the whereabouts of personal computers, smartphones, account books, and recording media seized by the National Tax Agency cannot be explained, it is extremely serious.
The confiscated items are not mere luggage.
It is evidence that proves the facts of the suspected crime, and at the same time, it is property containing information favorable to the suspect or witnesses, customer information, personal information, and trade secrets.
If lost, issues will arise regarding the fairness of the investigation, admissibility of evidence, protection of personal information, and liability for damages to the owner.
Did you really lose it, or did you return it to someone?
If Defendant Nakano has been indicted and the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office is handling the case, naturally, seizure transfer inventories, storage records, and analysis records must exist.
Nevertheless, if the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau explains that they were "lost" and still refuses to clarify their whereabouts, the following question arises.
Did you really lose it?
Could it have been confused with evidence from a different case?
Is it just that the National Tax Agency is unaware of the items handed over to the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office?
Or did Atsushi Kitamura, the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau Director at the time, Mr. Oka, and other officials mistakenly return items to Makoto Watanabe or his side during the return procedure, even returning things that should have originally been returned to another owner?
This is not a confirmed fact at this time.
This is a hypothesis arising from the lack of explanation regarding the management of seized items.
It is easy to refute such extreme doubts.
Show the seized items inventory, transfer record, return receipt, and approval record.
Why did Makoto Watanabe start saying that he "has all the evidence"?
According to recordings, social media messages, and testimonies of related parties preserved by our union, Makoto Watanabe has repeatedly made threatening remarks toward specific individuals and a U.S.-listed company, to the effect of "I have all the evidence of your wrongdoing," "I will socially destroy you," and "I will force you to delist."
If Mr. Watanabe is speaking based solely on lawfully acquired materials, it is sufficient for him to explain their acquisition route and contents.
However, if the timing of the disappearance of the items seized by the National Tax Agency coincides with the time when Mr. Watanabe began claiming to hold a large amount of evidence regarding others, then the relationship between the two must be investigated.
Wasn't there a mixture of third-party data on the device alleged to have been returned early to Mr. Watanabe?
Could recording media other than Mr. Watanabe's own device have been mistakenly returned to his side?
Could the duplicate data created by the National Tax Agency for analysis have leaked to the outside?
Has Mr. Watanabe used that information after the return to pressure labor union officials, former executives, U.S. listed companies, or others?
These are the matters that the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau, the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office, and the Audit and Supervisory Committee of Last One Mile Co. should verify.
Open Letter of Inquiry to the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau
- Has Supervising National Tax Investigator Tsuyoshi Shimazaki ever explained that the seized items were "lost"?
- If the statement is true, what are the name, quantity, owner, and the date, time, and location where the lost item was last seen?
- Can you track the seizure inventory, storage location, transfer destination, analysis personnel, and return destination for all seized items?
- Do the list of seized items and the receipt records handed over to the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office exist?
- Can you clarify the list of devices, documents, and recording media returned to Mr. Makoto Watanabe or his side?
- Have you confirmed that no third-party property or third-party data is mixed in with the returned items?
- Who is the person who approved the return to Mr. Watanabe?
- How were Atsushi Kitamura, the then-Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau Director-General, and Mr. Oka involved in the return and handover?
- Have you conducted an inspection and investigation regarding the external leakage of seized items or duplicate data?
- If loss or erroneous return is discovered, will you notify the owner and recover the damages?
Open Letter to the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office
- Are you creating a receipt inventory for all seized items handed over from the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau?
- Were there any discrepancies between the list of seized items by the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau and the items actually received by the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office?
- Do you have information regarding the loss or mistaken return of confiscated items?
- When prosecuting in a case where loss or the like is suspected, how did you confirm the identity of the evidence and the continuity of its custody?
- Have you checked to ensure that not only evidence disadvantageous to the accused, but also advantageous evidence, has not been lost?
- Did you investigate the possibility that Makoto Watanabe is exerting pressure on others using seized information or third-party data?
- While continuing to detain Defendant Nakano, are you confirming the whereabouts of evidence regarding the actual mastermind and beneficiary?
Open letter to Mr. Makoto Watanabe and Last One Mile Co.
- Can Makoto Watanabe identify all the items returned by the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau?
- Were there any devices, documents, or data belonging to a third party included in the returned items?
- Did you use the information obtained after the return to demand or warn former executives, labor union officials, or a US-listed company?
- From whom, when, and how was the source material for the statement "I have all the evidence" obtained?
- Did your Audit and Supervisory Committee independently investigate Mr. Watanabe's document acquisition route and usage status?
- If third-party information is included, will you delete it, return it, or notify the individual?
It is not about Tachibana versus Nakano, but rather the issues of hostage justice and evidence management.
Which of the defendants, Takashi Tachibana or Toshiyuki Nakano, will be detained longer?
On the surface, Defendant Tachibana is holding a significant lead.
However, the important thing is not whether you win or lose.
Are individuals' physical detentions being prolonged on the grounds of denial or remaining silent?
Is rearrest not being used as a necessary investigation, but rather to extend detention?
Are the seized items properly managed and preserved, including evidence favorable to the defendant?
Have the evidence returned by investigative agencies been repurposed for intimidation or social attacks by private citizens?
Verifying these is necessary to protect trust in the criminal justice system.
If Defendant Nakano is responsible, it should be judged in an open court based on evidence.
If Makoto Watanabe is not involved, you just need to show the return records of the seized items and how the materials were obtained.
If the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau has not lost the seized items, please state their current storage location.
As long as the silence continues, the suspicion will not disappear that it was not lost, but rather returned to a convenient person.
State institutions that detain individuals for extended periods are responsible for managing every single piece of their property and evidence, and for accounting for their whereabouts.