[Last-Mile Labor Union] Makoto Watanabe's Angel Tax System argument that "It's legal because other companies are doing it"

Vector Inc. delisting announcement and suspected death threat made against a prosecutor

The Last One Mile Labor Union has received information that Makoto Watanabe, Representative Director, Chairman, and CEO of Last One Mile Inc., is repeatedly providing new explanations to those around him regarding the angel tax system scheme that he claims to have personally conceived.

To sum up that logic in a word: "If the scheme I came up with is illegal, then all investments made by large corporations are illegal too. Therefore, I'm not in the wrong."

Mr. Watanabe is alleged to have specifically named Vector Inc., its founder and current Representative Director, President, and CEO Hoji Nishie, Premium Water Holdings Inc., and Hikari Tsushin Inc., spreading claims that they are engaging in a "return of investment funds" on a larger scale than the investments he himself has made.

Furthermore, regarding the case involving Shigenori Kanemoto and defendant Takaoki Nakano, Watanabe reportedly criticized Prosecutor Kobayashi for creating a double standard by stating, "It's tolerated for large corporations on the scale of tens or hundreds of billions of yen, but if a small or medium-sized enterprise does the same thing, it becomes an illegal kickback," and has even repeatedly made statements to those around him to the effect of "crushing" or "killing" Prosecutors Yamaguchi and Kobayashi.

However, far from making Mr. Watanabe irrelevant, this claim produces the opposite result.

If Mr. Watanabe himself states that the angel tax system scheme he conceived and the investments he has repeatedly made in the past share the same structure, it is because the transactions to be investigated will increase from a single case to multiple cases.

The claim that other companies are doing the same thing is not absolution. It is an additional list of targets for investigation.

Moreover, Mr. Watanabe is alleged to routinely label people other than himself as "idiots." Meanwhile, information has already been submitted indicating that the application procedures for the angel tax incentive could not have moved forward without defendant Toshiyuki Nakano and certified public accountant Satoshi Saito, and that in cases where those two could not be utilized, it was impossible even to pass administrative screening.

A genius who calls everyone else idiots cannot even get a single application approved without two "idiots." We examine this current issue from this grand gap between self-assessment and practical ability.

the theory that "all other companies are also kicking back," which Makoto Watanabe is rumored to be spreading

According to information received by our association, in the wake of the recent angel tax system incident, Makoto Watanabe has reportedly been repeatedly telling close associates roughly the following:

• The intent is that the angel tax system scheme using N Corporation was entirely conceptualized by Makoto Watanabe himself, who then had Defendant Toshiaki Nakano and Satoshi Saito execute it.
• In Watanabe's own investments, it is routine to make transactions, business orders, or the exchange of money with the investee a condition in return for the investment.
• The gist is that it is common for investments to be made on the condition that the principal amount of the investment will be returned, and there is no law prohibiting this.
• Vector Inc. has invested in a company preparing for an IPO, and in return, requires that company to award IR and other business contracts to Vector.
• The point is that Premium Water Holdings and Hikari Communications are combining investments and transactions on a scale that is incomparable to Mr. Watanabe’s investment.
• Prosecutor Kobayashi is essentially saying that a double standard is being applied: while large corporations are allowed to do the same thing, small and medium-sized enterprises are punished for it as a form of capital recycling.
• The gist of it is that, having forced the tax authorities to return the seized property, I am invincible, and I can use the tax authorities to destroy Vector Co., Ltd. and force it off the stock exchange.
• The implication was to “destroy” or “kill” Prosecutors Yamaguchi and Kobayashi.
• The idea is that, should the issue escalate, he would have himself and his close associates step down from their executive positions at the next shareholders' meeting under the guise of a smooth expiration of their terms, while retaining only their shares to protect their financial interests.

At this point, it cannot be dismissed as mere bravado or drunken boasting.

Being the designer of the scheme, having the same structure for your other investments, the intention to drive a listed company to delisting, the death threat against the prosecutor, and even the exit plan to secure shareholder profits by having only the executives resign—all of this is contained within a single explanation.

If you were speaking with the intention of offering an explanation, this is a remarkably thorough list of investigation items.

Makoto Watanabe's legal theory that it is safe because there is no heading for "reflux crime" in the Six Codes

"Reflux" is an economic term that describes the movement of funds returning to the investor or related parties after passing through the investment destination or related corporations. There is no independent crime named "crime of reflux."

However, the fact that the law does not include a section titled “re-export offense” is entirely separate from the fact that transactions involving re-export are not always lawful.

This is not a system where an act does not constitute embezzlement simply because the receipt does not say “embezzlement,” or fraud simply because the contract does not say “fraud.” The law looks not at the labels attached to a transaction, but at who actually provided the money, who bore the risk, to whom the money was returned and under what pretext, and what explanations were given.

And regarding the principal guarantee, which Mr. Watanabe allegedly stated is "not written in any laws," there is a law that directly regulates it.

Acceptance of Capital Contributions,Article 1 of the Act on the Regulation of Deposits and Interest Rates, etc.: No person shall accept capital contributions from an unspecified and large number of persons by explicitly or implicitly stating that the full amount of the capital contribution, or an amount exceeding it, will be paid back at a later date as a refund of the capital contribution.

It is not the case that every individual one-on-one transaction involving an agreement to guarantee the principal immediately falls under this provision. What this provision explicitly states is the act of accepting capital contributions from an “unspecified and large number” of persons by explicitly or implicitly promising a return equal to or greater than the principal.

However, if Mr. Watanabe repeatedly used the same investment method with multiple investors, promising principal guarantees and high returns to raise funds, this is precisely the situation where the requirements of that article should be examined.

Also, a capital and business alliance in which actual work is commissioned to an investment destination at an appropriate price and compensation is paid for it, and a transaction in which fictitious or excessive outsourcing fees are paid solely for the purpose of returning the investment from the beginning, differ in substance even if they look similar on the surface.

• Was there any substance to the work that was ordered?
• Were the outsourcing fees commensurate with market prices and results?
• Was there an agreement, prior to the investment, to recoup the amount of the investment through transactions?
• Did investors bear business risks, or was the return of their principal effectively guaranteed?
• Were the actual details of the transactions accurately disclosed to the board of directors, the audit body, shareholders, and regulatory authorities?
• Who was the individual or entity that ultimately received the funds?

Investigations, tax audits, and financial audits are all conducted to examine these facts.

If a single statement—"Nowhere does it say that wash trading is a crime"—were enough to make all transactions legal, then there would be no need for the Financial Services Agency, auditing firms, or the Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission. Japan’s capital markets could shut down based solely on Mr. Watanabe’s verbal explanation.

The capital alliance with Vector Co., Ltd. must not be converted into a personal “principal guarantee” by Mr. Hajime Nishie.

Mr. Hoji Nishie, who is reportedly named by Mr. Makoto Watanabe as a comparison, is the founder of Vector Inc.

The capital alliance between Last One Mile Co., Ltd. and Vector, announced in 2018It is explained that Best Effort Co., Ltd. at that time transferred a portion of its shares to Vector Co., Ltd., and that Vector would provide comprehensive support for PR and IR.

The company itself has announced that the investment and business partnership were carried out simultaneously.

On the other hand, this published document does not state a guarantee that Vector Inc. will be able to recover the full amount of its investment, a guarantee that Last One Mile Inc. will repurchase the shares, or a guarantee that it will definitely place orders for work equivalent to the investment amount.

It is not possible to reinterpret the publicly announced capital and business alliance as a “repayment guaranteed by principal” based solely on Mr. Watanabe’s statements.

If Mr. Watanabe claims that there were undisclosed buyback agreements, order guarantees, minimum transaction amounts, capital recovery plans, and prior agreements regarding the sale of shares, then this is not a defense using Vector Co., Ltd. as a shield, but rather the disclosure of new information regarding undisclosed agreements between listed companies.

In that case, Mr. Watanabe should present the following materials.

• The date of the stock acquisition by Vector Co., Ltd., the number of shares acquired, and the acquisition price.
• Capital alliance agreements and business consignment agreements concluded before and after the share acquisition.
• PR, IR, and other business content, order amounts, deliverables, and the basis for price calculation.
• The date of the stock sale, the number of shares sold, the sale price, and the counterparty to the sale.
• Whether there are agreements regarding share buybacks, minimum returns, minimum order amounts, or other guarantees.
• Records of the Board of Directors and audit bodies that approved each transaction.

If he does not present these and only says, "We are also doing vectors," Mr. Watanabe is not making a legal rebuttal.

They are just taking past capital alliances of the company they manage, twisting them into baseless suspicions, and throwing them back at former investors.

The fictitious law called the "large corporation exception" backed by Premium Water Holdings and Hikari Tsushin

A company's size is not an eraser that wipes away illegality.

The standard that Mr. Watanabe is said to advocate—that “it is permissible if done by a large corporation but illegal if done by a small or medium-sized enterprise”—is, of course, not stated in the law.

Even large corporations are not permitted to engage in fictitious transactions, window-dressing, aggravated breach of trust, unregistered solicitation, market manipulation, or false disclosure. Even small and medium-sized enterprises do not commit a crime simply because of their company size when engaging in lawful capital and business alliances or legitimate business orders.

The law looks not at the company's market capitalization, but at the substance of the transaction, the content of the explanation, the perception, the purpose, and the ownership of the funds.

If Mr. Watanabe is aware of specific illegal transactions by Premium Water Holdings or Hikari Tsushin, he should provide contracts, remittance records, purchase orders, stock trading records, and approval records, and submit them to the Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission.

If you make a claim that “they’re operating on a larger scale than I am” simply by listing the sizes of company names without presenting any evidence, that does not constitute a legal comparison.

It’s simply a matter of scaling up a scenario—where elementary school students, when scolded, respond, “The class next door is doing it too”—to a scale of several hundred billion yen.

Makoto Watanabe Speaks Out Alone Against Prosecutor Kobayashi’s Unpublished Remark That “It’s OK If It’s a Large Company”

The key point here is that it has been confirmed that the statement, “It’s acceptable if it’s a large corporation,” was made by Prosecutor Kobayashi himself.

Report on the Indictment on August 12, 2026Reports indicate that, according to sources, defendant Shigenori Kanemoto—also known as Shigenori Kanemoto—is alleged to have abused preferential tax treatment, and that defendant Shukki Nakano has been indicted for aiding and abetting tax evasion. The Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office has not disclosed whether the two have admitted or denied the charges.

This means that Mr. Watanabe has refuted the statement regarding the “special provisions for large corporations”—which has been confirmed to have been made by Prosecutor Kobayashi—and has declared victory for himself.

If you claim that the prosecution applies double standards in handling cases, you should simply make a specific comparison to show which of Corporation N’s transactions were deemed illegal and which similar transactions by large corporations were excluded from the investigation.

You do not need to play the roles of prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge all by yourself.

"My investments are all the same" doesn't save Makoto Watanabe and widens the scope of the investigation

It is reported that Makoto Watanabe has stated that, regarding the investments he has made, he has made transactions and financial dealings with the investee companies a condition of his investments and has also demanded a guarantee of principal.

If this explanation is accurate, it means we can’t simply limit our investigation to this particular Angel Tax System scheme.

With regard to all investments Mr. Watanabe has been involved in in the past, it is necessary to investigate at least the following matters.

• Investment target, investment date, investment amount, number of shares, and account holder.
• Contracts for outsourcing, advisory services, referrals, advertising, investor relations, consulting, or other services entered into at the same time as, or before or after, the investment.
• Amounts paid by the investee to Mr. Watanabe himself, affiliated companies, his private secretary, and other related parties.
• Agreements regarding principal protection, buyback, minimum returns, minimum order amounts, and guaranteed dividends.
• The date of the sale of shares following the investment, the sale price, the buyer, and whether any undisclosed information was used.
• The flow of funds through Mr. Watanabe’s personal account or through a company under his effective control.
• The person who introduced the investment opportunity, prepared the documents, and instructed the money transfer.

According to records in our association’s possession, another issue has already come to light in which Mr. Watanabe allegedly solicited investments in “structured bonds” from multiple individuals, promising guaranteed principal and high returns, and received funds into his personal account.

Furthermore, it is a fact that a criminal complaint regarding this matter has already been accepted and has even been assigned a case number.

There are reports that, when returning the principal, investors were asked not to refer to it as a “return of capital” but to process it under a different designation.

Given Mr. Watanabe’s history, if he says, “My investment approach is always the same,” that does not constitute a rebuttal.

This is a comprehensive request for an investigation, initiated by the individual, asking that multiple cases be investigated together.

Regarding the investment in N Co., Ltd. and the case involving Shigenori Kanemoto, this involves a separate organization,"The Committee to Save Shigenori Kanemoto (Shigenori Kanemoto)"However, they are demanding public verification of administrative confirmations, explanations by certified public accountants, the final destination of funds, and concrete evidence of conspiracy.

If Mr. Watanabe has told those around him that he himself conceived the scheme, then it becomes even more necessary to investigate the chain of command involving Mr. Watanabe, Defendant Nakano, and Satoshi Saito before establishing Mr. Kanemoto as an accomplice of Defendant Nakano.

Everyone except myself is an idiot, but nothing moves without accused Nakano Toshihide and Mr. Saito Satoshi.

It is said that Makoto Watanabe routinely makes remarks to the effect that “pretty much everyone except me is an idiot.”

Based solely on that self-assessment, it seems possible for one person to handle everything from applying for the Angel Tax System, verifying corporate requirements, drafting investment agreements, issuing shares, registering capital increases, handling administrative procedures, to tax compliance.

However, the information actually received by our association suggests the opposite.

In a case involving the representative of a startup in Tokyo who was instructed by Mr. Watanabe to apply for the Angel Tax System, it is alleged that because the defendant Nakano Shukki and Mr. Satoshi Saito could not be utilized, the representative himself made efforts to file the application but was unable to pass the screening process.

Meanwhile, regarding the case involving N Co., Ltd., there is information indicating that Defendant Nakano explained that he had obtained administrative confirmation, and that Mr. Saito, a certified public accountant, lent his credibility to the scheme as an expert and even assisted with the transfer of the investment funds.

• Makoto Watanabe outlines a comprehensive vision that combines systems, funding, stakeholders, and exit strategies.
• Defendant Kazuki Nakano will handle the company, administrative responses, explanations to investors, and fund transfers.
• Satoshi Saito, as a certified public accountant, provides expert credibility for system explanations, documents, contracts, and bank transfers.

If this division of labor is true, Mr. Watanabe is not merely an external commentator. It would mean that he calls himself the designer and positions the accused Nakano and Mr. Saito as the operational unit.

And if the review fails without the two of them, Mr. Watanabe's "vision" is just a presentation deck without an execute button.

Before calling everyone else an idiot, please explain why your genius concept couldn't even make it past the administrative entrance without two operational staff members.

Did Defendant Tamaki Nakano control the accounting and approvals for Last One Mile?

Our union has also received information that Defendant Shoki Nakano frequently visited Last One Mile Co., Ltd., not only dining and socializing with company executives, but also holding strong influence over accounting authority and decision-making.

If Defendant Nakano was an outsider who was neither a formal officer nor an employee, yet was involved in accounting processes and the approval of expenditures, it is not sufficient to explain that he simply entered the company on his own accord.

For listed companies, authorities, IDs, seals, approvers, and records exist for accounting, internal approvals, bank transactions, and contract execution.

• Records of entry and exit to the head office and related facilities.
• Records of meetings, dinners, and online consultations attended by Defendant Nakano.
• Access logs for the accounting system, expense reimbursement system, and approval workflow system.
• bank account, money transfer, transfer approval, one-time password, and digital certificate usage history.
• Contracts, invoices, journal entries, and payment requests created under the instruction or approval of Defendant Nakano.
• Emails, chats, and call records with Makoto Watanabe, Satoshi Saito, and executive management.
• Records of providing money, remuneration, expenses, shares, credit, or business opportunities to Defendant Nakano.

Once these points are verified, it will become clear whether the defendant Nakano was merely a visitor or a person with substantial involvement in the management of the business.

If he had actual control over accounting and decision-making authority, it would be difficult for this to happen without the guidance or tacit approval of Watanabe, Representative Director, Chairman and CEO, and Satoshi Saito, the former Head of the Corporate Planning Office who allegedly took pride in leading the IPO from the center of the administrative division.

Conversely, if no such authority had been granted at all, Last One Mile Inc. can refute it using entry and exit records, approval records, and operation logs from the accounting system.

The title “external friend” does not appear in the listed company’s regulations on job authority.

Makoto Watanabe's practical compliance: calling "prosecutors organized crime" while threatening to kill a prosecutor

Among the information received by our association, the most urgent concerns the remarks made about Prosecutors Yamaguchi and Kobayashi.

Makoto Watanabe reportedly stated regarding the handling of cases by the national tax authorities and the prosecutors, "Even among the antisocial forces I associate with, there is no one who acts with such tyranny" and "The prosecution itself is an antisocial force," while repeatedly making remarks to those around him to the effect that he will "definitely crush" and "kill" Prosecutor Yamaguchi and Prosecutor Kobayashi.

It is free to criticize the prosecution's investigation. If you believe the investigation is unfair, you should present evidence and pursue the matter in a court of law, through higher authorities, inspections, the National Diet, the press, or a court.

However, making statements to the effect of killing the opponent is not a legal counterargument.

Article 222, Paragraph 1 of the Penal Code: A person who threatens another by giving notification of an intent to inflict harm on their life, person, liberty, reputation, or property shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine of not more than 300,000 yen.

Whether the remarks were conveyed to the individuals themselves, whether they were repeated to others with the expectation that they would reach the individuals, and whether the remarks were accompanied by concrete preparations for execution can be investigated through recordings, messages, the person spoken to, dates and times, and surrounding actions.

Furthermore, the very fact that the statement, “There isn’t a single anti-social element among the people I associate with,” comes so naturally to him lends considerable weight to his explanation of compliance as the CEO of a publicly traded company.

Rather than denying ties to antisocial forces, he compares his own circle of friends and asserts that the prosecutors are the ones in the wrong. Furthermore, to reinforce that claim, he repeatedly makes death threats against the prosecutor.

Mr. Watanabe is not arguing that the prosecution is antisocial.

It looks like you are using yourself as teaching material to demonstrate what antisocial speech and behavior is.

Are you going to use the national tax authorities as a private demolition contractor to force Vector Inc. to delist?

Makoto Watanabe is reported to have stated, regarding Vector Co., Ltd., that “since they are selling shares after inducing investors to contribute capital and also having them place orders for work, this goes far beyond mere capital return or principal guarantees.”

Furthermore, regarding optical communications, there is information indicating that he harbors a deep grudge against Last One Mile Co., Ltd. for having sold its shares at a favorable time and price when the company went public, and that he has been telling those around him that he “will definitely get even.”

Furthermore, Mr. Watanabe is reportedly boasting to the effect that "having even made the National Tax Agency return seized items, I am invincible" and "I will use the National Tax Agency to crush Vector and drive them to delisting."

The national tax authorities are not a private demolition contractor for settling a manager's personal grudges.

Furthermore, if a representative of a listed company states that they intend to force a specific listed company off the market and, to that end, uses rumors, government agencies, company funds, or human resources, the matter cannot be dismissed as a mere falling-out.

Article 158 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act: No person shall, for the purpose of making a public offering, secondary distribution, purchase and sale, or other transaction of securities, or a derivative transaction, etc., or for the purpose of fluctuating the quotations of securities, etc., disseminate rumors, use deceit, or use assault or intimidation.

The focus is on the purpose of the statement and the actions actually taken afterward.

• Did Mr. Watanabe or any related party provide information regarding Vector Inc. to the National Tax Agency, the public prosecutor's office, the Financial Services Agency, the Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission, or the Tokyo Stock Exchange?
• Did the information provided contain any statements that were factually incorrect, explanations that omitted important details, or materials that could lead to misunderstandings?
• Did you use human resources such as employees, officers, lawyers, accountants, public relations companies, and others of Last One Mile Inc.?
• Did Last One Mile or an affiliated company bear the costs for research firms, law firms, media, social media management companies, etc.?
• Did Mr. Watanabe or any related parties hold or trade Vector Inc. shares, related securities, derivatives, or other financial instruments?
• Was there an intent to influence Vector Inc.'s share price, trading, credit, or maintenance of listing?
• Regarding the seized items allegedly returned by the national tax authorities, what were the return date, the reason for the return, the decision-maker, and how their handling differed from that of other related parties?

If Mr. Watanabe said, "I will crush them using the national tax," then the national tax authorities cannot remain uninvolved either.

The National Tax Agency should provide documentation to demonstrate that Mr. Watanabe’s private plan for retaliation was not exploited and that the return of seized items was carried out in accordance with appropriate standards.

The plan that Defendant Tamayoshi Nakano had reportedly talked about for some time—"driving out the National Tax Agency and the prosecution"—also looks different when viewed alongside this latest information, rather than just being mere bravado.

If his own scheme is investigated, he accuses other companies' investments to spread the scope of the investigation, forces the national tax agency and the prosecutors to attack each other, and finally transforms himself into a righteous whistleblower.

The strategy may indeed be profound. However, it is possible that they have dug so deep that they've also finished the grave they're about to fall into.

The "amicable term expiration plan" of just resigning as an executive to protect shares does not make liability disappear

According to information received by our union, Makoto Watanabe has been telling those around him that even if the issue escalates, he and his inner circle of close executives will orchestrate a smooth completion of their terms at the next general shareholders' meeting, stepping down from executive positions where they could easily be held accountable, while protecting their stock holdings, securing their financial interests, and escaping unscathed, so he personally has no problem at all.

According to Last One Mile Co., Ltd.'s published materials, the term of office for directors stipulated in the articles of incorporation is one year. Changing the executive structure using the annual shareholders' meeting as a dividing line is itself a normal part of corporate operations.

However, the expiration of a term in office is not a function that erases past responsibility.

Article 355 of the Companies Act: Directors shall comply with laws and regulations, the articles of incorporation, and resolutions of shareholders meetings, and shall faithfully perform their duties for the stock company.

Article 423, Paragraph 1 of the Companies Act: Directors, accounting advisors, company auditors, executive officers, or accounting auditors shall, when they fail to perform their duties, be liable to the stock company for damages resulting therefrom.

If company funds were used during one's tenure for personal retaliation, investigations, intimidation, or supporting related parties, the actions, approvals, damages, and liabilities will remain even after leaving office.

Continuing to hold shares itself is not illegal. However, if someone uses executive authority to cause damage to the company, resigns from their position just before the issue comes to light, and attempts to retain only the profits as a shareholder, it is only natural for the board of directors, the audit and supervisory committee, shareholders, and investigative authorities to scrutinize their actions before and after those events.

Even if job titles can be erased at the shareholders' meeting, recordings, emails, ringi approval documents, remittance records, and board of directors' minutes cannot be erased.

The expiration of a term is not a shredder of responsibility.

Open Questions to Makoto Watanabe, Last One Mile Inc., Affiliated Companies, and Related Administrative Agencies

Questions for Makoto Watanabe

1. Did Mr. Makoto Watanabe himself devise the overall concept for the Angel Tax System scheme involving N Co., Ltd.?
2. Did you provide instructions or advice to defendant Nakano Shukki and Mr. Satoshi Saito regarding the selection of companies, administrative applications, solicitation of investors, contracts, money transfers, and the movement of funds after investment?
3. In the investments Mr. Watanabe has made, were transactions with the investee, the placement of business orders, or monetary payments a condition of the investment?
4. How many investment projects have entered into agreements guaranteeing the principal of the invested capital, minimum returns, buybacks, or minimum order amounts?
5. Do you allege that the investment by Vector Co., Ltd. in Last One Mile Co., Ltd. included an agreement regarding a principal guarantee, a share buyback guarantee, or a minimum order amount?
6. If you make such a claim, please provide the relevant contracts, agreements, board meeting minutes, remittance records, and work order records.
7. If Vector Co., Ltd. claims that it sold its shares immediately after the investment, please specify the date of acquisition, the date of sale, the number of shares, the price, and the buyer.
8. If you are claiming that Premium Water Holdings or Hikari Communications engaged in illegal investment kickbacks, please specify the transactions in question and provide evidence.
9. Did you make any remarks to the effect of “taking down” or “killing” Prosecutor Yamaguchi or Prosecutor Kobayashi?
10. Did you make any remarks intended to force Vector Co., Ltd. to be delisted?
11. Did you make statements to the effect of using the national tax authorities to crush Vector Inc.?
12. Did you make a statement to the effect that you are invincible because you had the seized items returned by the national tax authorities?
13. If the issue were to escalate, did you tell those around you about your plan to have yourself and your closest confidant step down at the next shareholders’ meeting upon the expiration of your terms, while retaining only your shares?
14. Was the defendant, Shukki Nakano, involved in the accounting, expenditures, contracts, banking transactions, or decision-making processes at Last One Mile, Inc.?
15. Who was the person who granted Defendant Nakano substantive decision-making authority or managerial influence?

Questions for the Board of Directors and Audit and Supervisory Committee of Last Mile Works Co., Ltd.

1. Are the Board of Directors and the Audit and Supervisory Committee aware of the information regarding the above statements made by Mr. Makoto Watanabe?
2. Have you conducted interviews with the relevant parties and verified the recordings regarding the statements made toward Prosecutor Yamaguchi, Prosecutor Kobayashi, and Vector Inc.?
3. Did you use company funds or employees for Mr. Watanabe’s personal acts of retaliation, investigations, information gathering, media relations, or lobbying government agencies?
4. Did you conduct an independent investigation into the Angel Tax System and other investment projects involving Mr. Watanabe, defendant Nakano Shukki, and Mr. Satoshi Saito?
5. Have you preserved Defendant Nakano’s building entry and exit records, meeting minutes, accounting system transaction logs, and bank transaction approval logs?
6. Have you preserved Mr. Watanabe’s emails, chat logs, call records, devices, expense reports, and payments to outside experts?
7. Have you excluded Mr. Watanabe from the preservation of evidence, the selection of an investigative firm, the interviewing of relevant parties, and the approval of the investigation results in this matter?
8. Have you reported this information to Vector Co., Ltd., Premium Water Holdings, and Hikari Tsushin?
9. Have you verified whether the plan for the retirement of Mr. Watanabe or the relevant executives is intended to avoid taking responsibility?
10. Have you considered the impact of this matter on timely disclosures, securities reports, internal control reports, and corporate governance reports?

Questions for Vector Premium Water Holdings, Inc., Hikari Tsushin, and Relevant Government Agencies

1. Were there any agreements regarding principal protection, share buyback guarantees, or minimum order amounts in connection with the capital alliance between Vector Co., Ltd. and Last One Mile Co., Ltd.?
2. Is Vector Co., Ltd. aware of reports that Makoto Watanabe has been telling people around him that he intends to delist the company?
3. Are Premium Water Holdings and Hikari Communications aware of reports that Mr. Watanabe has described the investments made by both companies as “payback” and has stated that he will retaliate?
4. As the largest and major shareholders of Last One Mile Co., Ltd., will the two companies request an independent investigation and the preservation of evidence?
5. Can the National Tax Agency explain whether or not the seized items were returned to Mr. Watanabe, the date of the return, the reason for the return, who authorized it, and any differences in how the matter was handled compared to other parties involved?
6. Will the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office disclose in court the specific criteria it uses to determine whether N Co., Ltd.’s transactions constitute illegal money laundering or fictitious investments?
7. Regarding the information about the death threats made against Prosecutors Yamaguchi and Kobayashi, will the investigative authorities verify the recording, the person to whom the threats were made, and the actions taken before and after the incident?
8. Will the Tokyo Stock Exchange and the Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission investigate statements intended to delist Vector Co., Ltd., as well as any connection to company funds, rumors, threats, or securities trading?

Measures Sought by the Last Mile Labor Union

1. Last Mile, Inc. shall initiate a fact-finding investigation by independent external experts into all statements cited in this article.
2. Mr. Makoto Watanabe is to be excluded from the selection of the investigation contractor, the collection of evidence, interviews with relevant parties, the approval of the investigation results, and internal communications.
3. Immediately preserve all records—including emails, chat logs, phone calls, building entry and exit logs, accounting records, approval requests, bank records, contracts, stock records, and expense records—pertaining to Mr. Watanabe, defendant Shukuki Nakano, and Mr. Satoshi Saito.
4. Investigate all investments in which Mr. Watanabe has been involved in the past—including principal guarantees, buyback guarantees, business orders, capital recycling, and ultimate beneficiaries—on a transaction-by-transaction basis.
5. To clarify the actual authority that Defendant Nakano held over the accounting and decision-making processes at Last One Mile, Inc.
6. Preserve recordings and other evidence regarding the statements made to Prosecutors Yamaguchi and Kobayashi, and submit them to the necessary investigative agencies.
7. Cease the use of company funds, personnel, external experts, media, or administrative agencies to force Vector Inc. into delisting.
8. Formally report this matter to Vector Inc., Premium Water Holdings, Inc., and Hikari Tsushin, and jointly verify the facts.
9. Report the commencement of the investigation and the status of evidence preservation to the Tokyo Stock Exchange, the Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission, accounting auditors, and necessary investigative agencies.
10. To investigate the decisions and damages made during the term of office so that past responsibilities do not become ambiguous due to the retirement or expiration of the term of office of officers.
11. Prohibit searching, intimidation, reassignment, dismissal, suspension of transactions, or any other retaliation against current employees, former employees, business partners, and informants.
12. If the investigation confirms the personal misappropriation of company funds or damages to the company, demand restitution and compensation for damages from Mr. Watanabe and other responsible parties.

Before calling everyone idiots, Mr. Makoto Watanabe should reread his own "invincible plan."

It is said that Makoto Watanabe considers almost everyone other than himself to be an idiot.

However, when we line up the compositions visible this time, that self-evaluation requires a considerable reassessment.

• He claims he conceived the angel tax system, but without Defendant Toshiyuki Nakano and Mr. Satoshi Saito, it could not have passed administrative screening.
• When Defendant Nakano and Mr. Saito execute it, investors gather, and when the problem comes to light, the investor side is prosecuted for tax evasion.
• When their own scheme is questioned, they argue that Vector Inc., Premium Water Holdings, and Hikari Tsushin are the same.
• When objecting to the prosecution's handling of a case, instead of focusing on evidence or the courtroom, it escalates to statements to the effect of destroying or killing the prosecutor.
• He says that if relations with the largest shareholder or former investors deteriorate, they will use taxpayer money to force the company to delist.
• When the liability materializes, they discuss a plan where he and his confidant will smoothly step down from their executive positions, protecting only their shares and economic interests.

This is not a deep, foolproof strategic plan.

It is a brilliant responsibility-shifting system where the conception was his own, the execution was by Defendant Nakano and Mr. Saito, the failure was by the investment destination, the arrest was by Mr. Kanemoto, the investigation was prosecutorial overreach, the retaliation was by the National Tax Agency, the company's losses were borne by the employees and shareholders, and only the final profit went to Mr. Watanabe.

The honest employees of Last One Mile Inc. do not need to become the final recipients of this blame-shifting system.

Protecting the company is completely different from protecting Makoto Watanabe's personal grudge, investments, intimidation, and retaliation plans. What the Board of Directors and the Audit and Supervisory Committee must protect is not Mr. Watanabe's myth of invincibility, but the employees, shareholders, business partners, market trust, and the Last One Mile corporation itself.

If Mr. Watanabe truly believes that everyone except himself is an idiot, first, please explain the reason why he could not execute the angel tax system scheme he claims to have drawn up entirely on his own.

Next, please explain proudly at the shareholders' meeting the unique law that it is legal because other companies are doing it, the compliance that talks about killing prosecutors, the capital policy of delisting using national taxes, and the exit strategy of abandoning only titles while protecting only shares.

Even when your term of office expires, your responsibility for recordings, approval requests, remittance records, and your role as a director does not expire.

There is no emergency exit in the blueprints of the Companies Act that lets you step down from your title alone while running away holding onto your shares.