[Last One Mile Labor Union] Following Makoto Watanabe and Broad Support's "33 months, 46.2 million yen" capital outflow

33 months, totaling approximately 46.2 million yen. Simply averaged, that is 1.4 million yen per month.

This is not about a one-time transfer error at Last One Mile Inc., nor is it about an accounting clerk making a one-digit typo. Our union is aware that from March 2019 to November 2011, approximately 46.2 million yen in funds continuously leaked out through Broad Support Inc.

This fund transfer involved Makoto Watanabe, Kenji Kudo, Kohei Ichikawa, Miwa Ito, and Juzo Suenaga, who were directors at the time. Furthermore, Defendant Toshiyuki Nakano, who was neither an officer nor an employee of Last One Mile Inc., was involved as a key decision-maker in coordination with Mr. Watanabe.

The question is not simply whether about 46.2 million yen is a lot or a little.

The purpose of this article is to clarify, through company books, bank records, contracts, and deliverables, the basis of the contracts under which funds from Last One Mile Inc. moved, what consideration they were for, whose approval authorized the movement, where the funds were sent after entering Broad Support Inc., and who ultimately benefited from them.

Inserting a single corporation does not necessarily make the destination of the funds transparent.

Rather, precisely because a corporation was involved, it is necessary to connect the entire process from entrance to exit in a single continuous line.

The approximately 46.2 million yen via Broad Support Co., Ltd. continued until the month of listing.

According to records available to our association, the period of the questionable capital outflow is the 33 months from March 2019 to November 2021.

Last Mile Co., Ltd. was listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange Mothers market on November 24, 2021. In other words, this fund transfer is not a story from the distant past when it was an unlisted company, but rather continued through the IPO preparation, listing review, and submission of the initial listing application, right up until the month it was actually listed.

To summarize the core of the issue:

• Capital outflows began in March 2019.
• The capital outflow continued for 33 months until November 2021.
• The total amount is approximately 46.2 million yen, which averages to about 1.4 million yen per month.
• Broad Support Co., Ltd. was used as a transit point.
• Makoto Watanabe, Kenji Kudo, Kohei Ichikawa, Miwa Ito, and Juzo Suenaga were involved.
• Defendant Tamaki Nakano was involved as a key decision-maker cooperating with Mr. Watanabe.
• During the problem period, there were three full-year financial closings: the fiscal years ended November 2019, November 2020, and November 2021.
• The final month of the problem period coincides with the month Last One Mile Co., Ltd. was listed.

Thirty-three months is too long for accidental mistakes to have continued to be overlooked.

There were monthly closing procedures, quarterly aggregations, three final account settlements, audits, and an IPO review. If it still didn't stop, it is more natural to view it not as something nobody noticed, but as something that was operated as a sustainable system.

If it happens once, an explanation of a misdirected payment is conceivable. If it continues for 33 months, that is an investment operation.

Broad Support was a key customer, accounting for approximately 15% of sales.

Broad Support Co., Ltd. was not just an obscure, small-volume client to Last One Mile Co., Ltd.

Securities Report of Last Mile Inc. for the Fiscal Year Ended November 30, 2021According to the report, net sales to Broad Support Co., Ltd. were approximately 1,080.77 million yen for the fiscal year ended November 2020.

At that time, the consolidated net sales of Last One Mile Group Co., Ltd. were approximately 7.22041 billion yen. Broad Support Co., Ltd. alone accounted for about 15% of total sales.

It is stated that in the following fiscal year ended November 2021, net sales to the company were approximately 544.59 million yen, accounting for 6.5% of consolidated net sales.

Even looking at just two terms that overlap significantly with the problem period, sales from Last One Mile Co., Ltd. to Broad Support Co., Ltd. total approximately 1.625 billion yen.

I am not criticizing the existence of large-scale transactions themselves. Originally, large-scale transactions are a commercial flow that a company should be proud of.

The issue is that behind that massive commercial flow, another fund transfer of approximately 46.2 million yen was continuously taking place.

The revenues coming into Last One Mile Co., Ltd. from Broad Support Co., Ltd. and the funds going out through Broad Support Co., Ltd. or its affiliated companies must be checked separately.

The company can publish at least the following figures on a monthly basis.

• Net sales recorded for Broad Support Co., Ltd.
• The actual amount paid by the company and the payment date.
• The amount paid by Last One Mile Inc. or its group companies to the company.
• The account title used for payment, contract name, invoice number, and approval number.
• Offsets, discounts, refunds, sales incentives, referral fees, outsourcing expenses, and other adjustment amounts.
• Deliverables supplied or services provided in consideration for payment.
• The amount remitted from Broad Support Co., Ltd. to another corporate entity or individual.
• The ultimate beneficial individual or corporate entity.

Because it is a client with sales on the scale of about 1.6 billion yen, even if an unnatural flow averaging 1.4 million yen per month gets mixed in there, it easily gets buried in the overall figures.

A massive commercial distribution flow is not a smokescreen that makes approximately 46.2 million yen disappear. The larger the transaction volume, the more strictly contracts, cash receipts, payments, offsets, and the attribution of profits must be managed.

What positions did Makoto Watanabe, Kenji Kudo, Kohei Ichikawa, and Miwa Ito hold at that time?

This matter cannot be dismissed as a mere processing error by a single accounting staff member.

Looking at the published executive biographies, there is an overlap of individuals who were at the core of sales, finance and accounting, business management, and the board of directors during the problematic period.

• Makoto Watanabe assumed the position of Director at Last One Mile Inc. in August 2018 and held the position of Director throughout the problematic period.
• Kenji Kudo assumed the position of Director in December 2018 and, as the General Manager of Sales, was in a position to manage sales transactions with major clients.
• Kohei Ichikawa assumed the role of director in March 2019, when the outflow of funds began, and oversaw accounting, cash deposits and withdrawals, and financial closing as the general manager of the finance and accounting department.
• Currently, Miwa Ito, who was disclosed at the time as Miwa Kukunomiya, assumed the position of Director in February 2020, and was in a position to be involved in business management for the latter half of the period as the General Manager of the Business Management Department.
• Mr. Suenaga Juzo also served as a director of the subsidiary and was in charge of accounting operations.
• In the 2021 listing application documents, all four individuals were listed as members of the board of directors.
• In the same document, all four individuals were listed as members of the management meeting and the risk and compliance committee.

Current Executives of Lastmile Works Co., Ltd.So Mr. Watanabe as Representative Director, Chairman and CEO, and Mr. Ichikawa and Mr. Itoh as Directors and Executive Officers, remain at the core of the company's management.

If the sales, finance, business management representatives, and directors were all present, and no one can explain approximately 46.2 million yen over 33 months while passing three financial statements and an IPO screening, it means that internal controls were not functioning.

Conversely, if each individual recognized, acknowledged, and divided their roles, it is not merely a deficiency in internal controls.

This is an issue where funds transfers were continued by utilizing internal controls.

Why was the outsider, defendant Kakki Nakano, able to become a key decision-maker?

The most unusual aspect of this case is that Defendant Toshiyuki Nakano, who was neither an officer nor an employee of Last One Mile Inc., was involved as a key decision-maker in the transfer of approximately 46.2 million yen.

Company funds do not move just because an outside friend says, "I think this is a good idea."

Bank account transfer authority, accounting systems, approval workflows, contract execution, receipt of invoices, payment approval, and a resolution by the Board of Directors or a designated executive officer are required.

Nevertheless, if Defendant Nakano was a key decision-maker, one or more of the following would have existed:

• Defendant Tamaki Nakano had de facto authority to decide on the execution or suspension of payments.
• Makoto Watanabe was converting Defendant Nakano's decisions into internal company instructions.
• Kenji Kudo, Kohei Ichikawa, Miwa Ito, and other officers accepted the instructions or judgments of Defendant Nakano.
• Defendant Nakano had access to information regarding contracts, invoices, deposits and withdrawals, affiliated companies, and other matters.
• Defendant Nakano acted as the coordination point of contact with Broad Support Co., Ltd. or its related parties.
• Defendant Nakano or persons related to him/her had obtained direct or indirect profits through the money transfer.

Last Mile Inc. has not previously disclosed Defendant Nakano as an official officer of the company.

However, the lack of an employment contract and the absence of practical authority over company funds are not the same thing. If an outsider was functioning as a key decision-maker, it is a more serious internal control issue than a merely formal title.

Because it would have meant giving someone outside the company decision-making influence equivalent to or greater than a company director inside the company.

Given the fact that Defendant Nakano frequently went in and out of Last One Mile and worked closely with Mr. Watanabe and the management team, investigating only Company N or the angel tax system will not reveal the full picture.

If the prosecutors and the National Tax Agency are truly going to track Defendant Nakano's funds and role, the approximately 4.6 million yen in settlements in which he was involved at Last One Mile Co., Ltd. must naturally be included as a target of investigation.

Officially an external customer, internally an affiliate: BroadSupport’s two faces

In Last One Mile Co., Ltd.'s securities report, Broad Support Co., Inc. is listed as an "external customer" for net sales.

Meanwhile, according to records held by our association, the company is a transit point for money transfers involving Makoto Watanabe and others, and is treated as an affiliate of Last One Mile Co., Ltd.

Furthermore, the related party information in the same annual securities report does not mention any relationship or transactions with Broad Support Co., Ltd.

If both explanations—that they are external customers on paper and related parties in actual fund transfers—can coexist, the company must clarify not only its capital relationship but also its de facto control relationship.

Gビズinfo corporate information for Broad Support Co., Ltd.Therefore, the company's location is given as 3-33 Odorinishi 9-chome, Chuo-ku, Sapporo-shi, Hokkaido.

This location is currently a consolidated subsidiary of Last Mile Works, Inc.Official Corporate Profile of Broadband Connection Co., Ltd.It is the same as the headquarters address listed in.

Corporate control is not determined solely by a matching address. However, given that there were transactions exceeding approximately 1.6 billion yen over two terms, a problematic outflow of funds totaling around 46.2 million yen, and the existence of a Last One Mile consolidated subsidiary at the same location, this cannot simply be dismissed as mere coincidence.

The company needs to disclose the following facts:

• The person or corporation that funded the establishment of Broad Support Co., Ltd.
• shareholders, ultimate investors, persons exercising voting rights, and ultimate decision-makers.
• Relationship between representatives, officers, employees, and persons related to Last One Mile Inc.
• Sharing of office, personnel, equipment, telephone, systems, and customer information with Broadband Connection Co., Ltd.
• Involvement in decision-making by Makoto Watanabe, Defendant Toshiyuki Nakano, Kenji Kudo, Kohei Ichikawa, and Miwa Ito.
• Remuneration, loans, outsourcing fees, and other monies paid by Broad Support Co., Ltd. to related individuals or other related corporations.
• The decision-making process for not disclosing a party as a related party in the securities report.

Furthermore, apart from the approximately 46.2 million yen capital outflow, Broad Support Co., Ltd. has also been named as a related party in another issue: bypassing Last One Mile Co., Ltd.'s expense approval procedures to have affiliated companies bear costs, which were then charged to Mr. Watanabe's personal credit card to accumulate reward points and mileage.

The two issues need to be verified separately based on their respective transaction records. However, since Broad Support Co., Ltd. appears in both, there is no reason not to cross-reference their deposits and withdrawals, expense processing, card payments, and ultimate beneficiaries.

The three roles of major client, detour for expenses, and transit point for capital outflow overlap in the same company.

Please explain not only what kind of products Broad Support Co., Ltd. sold, but also whose interests the company supported.

Is approximately 46.2 million yen occupational embezzlement or aggravated breach of trust? Account books and the ultimate beneficiary provide the answer

The legal evaluation of approximately 46.2 million yen is not determined by what title was printed on the invoice.

It is determined by whether the services were actually provided, whether the payment amount was appropriate, who approved it, who managed the funds, and whose interests ultimately benefited.

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.

The directors do not faithfully perform their duties for the individual Makoto Watanabe, the defendant Toshiaki Nakano, or the interpersonal relationships among the directors.

This is Last One Mile Inc.

Article 253 of the Penal Code: A person who embezzles another person's property that he or she possesses in the pursuit of business shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten years.

If a person who manages company funds in the course of their duties fraudulently acquires those funds for themselves or a third party, the crime of embezzlement in the course of business becomes an issue.

On the other hand, if a director uses their official decision-making authority to cause the company to make unnecessary or significantly disadvantageous payments in order to promote their own interests or the interests of a third party, the crime of aggravated breach of trust becomes an issue.

Article 960, Paragraph 1 of the Companies Act: When any of the following persons, for the purpose of promoting their own or a third party's interest or inflicting damage on a stock company, acts in breach of their duties and inflicts financial damage on the stock company, they shall be punished by imprisonment with work for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than 10 million yen, or both.

(iii) a director, accounting advisor, company auditor, or executive officer

If there is work of equal value to a valid contract for the money paid to Broad Support Co., Ltd., it is sufficient to show the contract, order details, deliverables, and the basis for price calculation.

Even if the accounting title on the books is set to outsourcing expenses, the reality does not change if no work exists, no deliverables can be confirmed, the price is significantly higher than market rates, funds are returned to related parties after payment, or the funds are converted for the personal benefit of Mr. Watanabe and others.

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.

Aside from the determination of criminal liability, if damage has been incurred by the company, the issue of restitution and damages remains for the involved directors.

If approximately 46.2 million yen flowed out of the company and no corresponding value returned to the company, the first thing Last One Mile Inc. should do is not remain silent, but recover the funds.

If they passed three financial statement audits and the IPO screening, what on earth was internal control looking at?

During the problem period, there were three settlement of accounts.

According to the listing application documents of Last One Mile Co., Ltd., it is explained that corporate auditors examine important documents, question officers and employees, and collaborate with the internal audit office and accounting auditors to audit the execution of duties by each director.

Furthermore, it was explained that management meetings are held once a month and the Risk and Compliance Committee is held in principle every quarter to share on-site information, implement countermeasures for challenges, and identify issues and areas for improvement.

On paper, there were layers of monitoring systems in place every month, every quarter, and at the end of each fiscal period.

Even so, if 33 months and about 46.2 million yen kept flowing, there are two possible conclusions.

• The Board of Directors, the executive management committee, the finance and accounting department, internal audit, corporate auditors, and the financial auditor were all unable to detect the major fund transfer.
• While stakeholders were aware of the fund transfer, they approved, condoned, or concealed it, and allowed it to pass the listing review and audit.

If it's the former, the internal controls described in the listing application were just for show.

In the latter case, internal controls were not used as a mechanism to stop fraud, but rather as a mechanism to convert fraud into official company procedures.

Either way, we cannot simply push the responsibility onto general employees and call it a day.

The accounting staff may have simply entered the invoice given to them by their supervisor. The sales representative may have simply processed it believing it to be an approved contract.

The order of investigation should start not with the employee who last performed the transfer operation, but with the person who designed, instructed, and approved the fund transfer and benefited from it.

You cannot say that the current Board of Directors and Audit and Supervisory Committee are unrelated because these were events from 2019 to 2021.

Makoto Watanabe, Kohei Ichikawa, and Miwa Ito are still directors. Keeping the same individuals on both the side investigating past capital outflows and the side being investigated does not constitute an independent investigation.

The corporate split magic common to Hotel Studio and Broad Support

The issue surrounding Broad Support Co., Ltd. is not an isolated, legacy financial problem.

A recent article covered the issue where HOTEL STUDIO Inc. split invoices for a single construction project exceeding 5 million yen without holding a construction license, and then attempted to fabricate records and explanations from related parties after being pointed out for illegality.

HOTEL STUDIO Co., Ltd. split a single construction project into multiple invoices.

At Broad Support Co., Ltd., company funds are routed through another corporation, making the ultimate destination difficult to trace.

Split the invoice. Interpose a corporation. Change the name. If the issue surfaces, align the explanations later.

Even if their outward forms differ, they share the same underlying concept of breaking reality down into small pieces to make the big picture harder to see.

However, no matter how many invoices are split, a single construction project remains a single project. No matter how many corporate entities the funds pass through, if the same money ultimately ends up benefiting the same person, it is a single movement of funds.

Regarding the questions our association has previously made public, Last One Mile Inc. has not provided substantive answers regarding specific transactions, decision-making, or the attribution of funds.

Furthermore, it was published by the prosecution union of another medium, "Okami's Union."Mamizuka Memo articleNow, the title of the document states "Overall Diagram of Fraud by Last One Mile Group Co., Ltd."

If the National Tax Agency and the prosecution are pursuing the funds, stocks, and accounting treatment of defendant Toshiyuki Nakano and certified public accountant Satoshi Saito as a major case, there is no room to overlook the approximately 46.2 million yen routed from Last One Mile Inc. through Broad Support Inc.

We need to examine the role of Mr. Watanabe, who influenced Defendant Nakano as a key decision-maker, the role of Mr. Ichikawa, who oversaw finance and accounting, the role of Mr. Kudoh, who oversaw sales, and the role of Mr. Ito, who was responsible for business management, using the same evidentiary standards.

If you question Company N's investors about the detailed use of funds, but do not question the listed company about its approximately 46.2 million yen, then what the prosecutors and the National Tax Agency are pursuing is not the flow of money.

Only people who easily fit into the narrative they have created.

Records to be maintained by last-mile and broad support personnel

Employees, former employees, and business partners who have knowledge of this matter must separately record the facts they actually witnessed and heard, and who instructed them to do what and what they were told.

Instead of deleting, altering, or removing originals held by the company without authorization, organize the record name, storage location, date and time, person who gave instructions, and approver to the extent that you can legitimately verify them yourself, and request preservation through a labor union, lawyer, independent reporting hotline, or investigative agency.

• Basic agreement, agency agreement, outsourcing agreement, and memorandum of understanding with Broad Support Co., Ltd.
• Invoices, payment notices, statements of account, and deposit statements from March 2019 to November 2021.
• Subsidiary ledgers for accounts receivable, accounts payable, accrued expenses, prepaid expenses, loans, sales commissions, and outsourcing fees regarding Broad Support Co., Ltd.
• Bank account deposit and withdrawal records, transfer request data, transfer destination accounts, and remittance approval history.
• Ringi documents, approval documents, board of directors meeting minutes, management meeting materials, and Risk and Compliance Committee materials.
• Emails, chats, call logs, and meeting records among Makoto Watanabe, Kenji Kudo, Kohei Ichikawa, Miwa Ito, defendant Tatsuyoshi Nakano, Juzo Suenaga, and other related parties.
• Records showing that Defendant Nakano instructed or approved the execution, amount, timing, and recipient of the payment.
• Business results, customer lists, recordings, systems, reports, and other deliverables created or delivered in consideration for payment.
• Remittances, loans, remuneration, and expense reimbursements made by Broad Support Co., Ltd. to other corporate entities or individuals.
• Record of sharing personnel, equipment, telephones, systems, customer information, and offices between Broad Support Co., Ltd. and Broadband Connection Co., Ltd.
• Records of related party questionnaire, anti-social forces check, beneficial owner check, and business partner screening.
• Materials submitted to the accounting auditor, audit inquiries, responses, adjusting journal entries, and findings in the audit working papers.
• Treatment of each expenditure in the filing of corporate tax, consumption tax, withholding income tax, and other returns.
• Instructions to change the explanation given after pointing out this matter, collusion, transfer, evaluation change, or demand for resignation.

Of particular importance is not the subsequently created explanation, but the electronic data at the time of the transaction.

Accounting system operation logs, bank approval histories, email transmission dates and times, and file update histories record who moved funds and when, and what was subsequently changed.

Preserve the facts before the company standardizes its explanation.

Open questions to Makoto Watanabe, Kenji Kudo, Kohei Ichikawa, Miwa Ito, Juzo Suenaga, and Defendant Toshiyuki Nakano

1. Do you acknowledge the fact that approximately 46.2 million yen in funds were transferred via Broad Support Co., Ltd. from March 2019 to November 2021?
2. For each transaction over the 33-month period, please clarify the date, amount, payer, payee, account title, contract name, and approver.
3. Who first designed or proposed the fund transfer of approximately 46.2 million yen?
4. What services or deliverables did you receive from Broad Support Co., Ltd. as consideration for each payment?
5. Are there any pricing calculation documents showing that the payment amount is appropriate in light of market rates and the value of the provided services?
6. After the funds were deposited into Broad Support Co., Ltd., to which corporation or individual were they remitted?
7. To whom does the final economic benefit of approximately 46.2 million yen belong?
8. Did any money, points, mileage, loans, remuneration, or other benefits accrue to Mr. Makoto Watanabe personally or to a corporation effectively controlled by Mr. Watanabe?
9. How did Kenji Kudo, as the General Manager of Sales or Director, involve himself in contracts, sales, and payments with Broad Support Co., Ltd.?
10. Did Mr. Kohei Ichikawa, as the General Manager of Finance and Accounting or as a Director, recognize, confirm, or approve each payment?
11. Did Ms. Miwa Ito, after assuming the office of director, recognize transactions with Broad Support Co., Ltd., fund transfers, or coordination among related parties?
12. Based on what official or de facto authority did Defendant Tamaki Nakano become a key decision-maker in the fund transfers of Last One Mile Co., Ltd.?
13. Did Defendant Nakano determine the payment amount, timing of remittance, contracting party, destination bank account, or use of funds?
14. Did all or part of the funds transfer to Defendant Nakano himself, Company N, the Nakano family, or other related parties?
15. Did Suenaga Toshizo and other personnel related to corporate planning, finance and accounting, or the administrative department recognize, approve, condone, or retroactively process this matter?
16. Is there any individual or corporation that has returned the money related to this matter to Last One Mile Inc.?
17. If there is a refund, please clarify the refund date, refund amount, person making the refund, accounting treatment, and reason for the refund.
18. Regarding this matter, will you submit devices, accounts, contracts, accounting, and communication records to an investigation by a third party independent of the company?

Open Questions to Last One Mile Co., Ltd., Broad Support, and the Audit and Supervisory Committee

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

1. When did the Board of Directors and the Audit and Supervisory Committee become aware of the cash outflow of approximately 46.2 million yen?
2. Did you reconcile the cash inflows and outflows with Broad Support Co., Ltd. during the financial settlements for the periods ending November 2019, November 2020, and November 2021?
3. Did you report this matter to the lead managing securities company, the Tokyo Stock Exchange, and the accounting auditor during the listing application and listing review process?
4. Clarify the basis for determining that Broad Support Co., Ltd. is an external customer and the documents used to verify its beneficial owner.
5. Clarify the decision-maker who chose not to list the company in the related party information section of the securities report, the investigation procedures, and the basis for the decision.
6. Are the fund outflows of approximately 46.2 million yen correctly reflected in the accounting treatment, securities report, disclosure of related party transactions, and tax returns?
7. Have the sales, expenses, offsets, and ultimate beneficial owners regarding this matter been re-investigated by external experts?
8. Are Makoto Watanabe, Kohei Ichikawa, and Miwa Ito excluded from the selection of the contractor for this investigation, evidence management, interviewing related parties, and approval of the investigation results?
9. Did you impose a gag order, coordinate testimonies, or subject employees, former employees, and related parties who know about this matter to transfers, demotions, performance evaluation changes, or other unfavorable treatment?
10. If damage has been caused to the company, will you demand restitution and compensation for damages from the involved officers and beneficiaries?
11. Will you report this matter to the Tokyo Stock Exchange, the Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission, the tax authorities, and investigative agencies?
12. Will you announce the investigation results, refund amount, accounting corrections, tax adjustments, involved parties, and disciplinary actions to employees, shareholders, business partners, and the market?

Questions for Broad Support Co., Ltd.

1. Please clarify all money received from Last One Mile Inc. or its group companies from March 2019 to November 2021.
2. For each payment, please clarify the contract, invoice, services provided, deliverables, and sales recognition.
3. Did you remit the money received from Last One Mile Co., Ltd. to Mr. Makoto Watanabe, defendant Tsuyoshi Nakano, or related corporations of either party?
4. Did you receive instructions regarding contracts, billing, remittances, or the use of funds from Mr. Watanabe, Defendant Nakano, Mr. Kenji Kudo, Mr. Kohei Ichikawa, or Ms. Miwa Ito?
5. Please clarify the beneficial owners, ultimate decision-makers, and shareholders of Broad Support Co., Ltd.
6. Did you share offices, personnel, equipment, telephones, systems, or customer information with Broadband Connection Co., Ltd.?
7. Were you involved in the process of temporarily covering the expenses of Last One Mile Inc. and paying for them with Mr. Watanabe's personal credit card?
8. Have you preserved all company accounts, accounting data, contracts, communications, and remittance records?

Questions for the accounting auditor, national tax authorities, and prosecutors

1. Did the financial auditor reconcile the sales to BroadSupport Inc. and the expenses incurred through the same company on a gross basis?
2. Have you checked the company's beneficial owners, relationships with officers, status as a related party, and affiliated companies at the same location?
3. Have you verified the contract, deliverables, bank records, and ultimate beneficial owner for the transaction equivalent to approximately 46.2 million yen?
4. Do the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau, Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau, Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office, and other investigative agencies know about this fund outflow?
5. Did you ask Makoto Watanabe, Kohei Ichikawa, Kenji Kudo, and Miwa Ito about the circumstances surrounding defendant Kazuki Nakano's involvement as a key decision-maker?
6. Will the fund-tracking criteria applied to the investors and stakeholders of Company N be applied in the same way to the directors and the listed company in this case?
7. Will you investigate by distinguishing between ordinary employees who followed company instructions and the person who designed and approved the fund transfer and profited from it?
8. Will you take preservation measures to prevent the deletion or alteration of electronic data, bank records, accounting systems, and audit materials related to this matter?

Measures Sought by the Last Mile Labor Union

1. Last One Mile Co., Ltd. shall immediately place this matter on the official agenda of the Board of Directors and the Audit and Supervisory Committee.
2. Exclude Makoto Watanabe, Kohei Ichikawa, Miwa Ito, and other involved parties from the selection of the investigation contractor, evidence management, interviews, and approval of the investigation results.
3. Conduct a third-party investigation by lawyers, certified public accountants, and digital investigation experts who are independent of the company.
4. List all deposits and withdrawals with Broad Support Co., Ltd. from March 2019 to November 2021 on a monthly basis.
5. Implement preservation suspension measures for contracts, invoices, deliverables, ringi approval documents, bank accounts, accounting journal entries, electronic data, and stakeholder communications.
6. Clarify the relationship between Broad Support Co., Ltd.'s ultimate beneficial owner, Last One Mile Co., Ltd., and group companies located at the same address.
7. Identify the ultimate beneficiary of approximately 46.2 million yen, and recover the principal, interest, and damages suffered by the company regarding the funds lacking legitimate consideration.
8. If there are any errors in accounting treatment, related-party transactions, internal control reports, securities reports, or tax returns, they must be corrected immediately.
9. If criminal or administrative issues are identified, the company itself shall report them to the Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission, the Tokyo Stock Exchange, tax authorities, and investigative agencies.
10. To clarify the authority, access, and command hierarchy that allowed Defendant Nakano Toshiaki to be involved in settlements despite being an outsider.
11. Do not shift responsibility to employees who merely followed instructions; instead, prioritize holding the designers, instructors, approvers, and ultimate beneficiaries accountable.
12. Prohibit searching for, silencing, transferring, demoting, firing, or otherwise retaliating against informants, research collaborators, employees, and former employees.
13. Disclose the investigation results, involved parties, refund amounts, corrections, disciplinary actions, and preventive measures to employees, shareholders, business partners, major shareholders, accounting auditors, and the market.

Even if you interpose a corporation, the person who ultimately profited does not disappear.

Although the issues surrounding Broad Support Co., Ltd. may seem complex, what needs to be verified is extremely simple.

When and how much was paid from Last One Mile Co., Ltd.? After entering Broad Support Co., Ltd., where did it move to? What consideration was returned to the company, and ultimately who profited?

If you connect these three points with the bank records and account books, the true nature of the approximately 46.2 million yen will become clear.

For the 33 months, what is needed is not a one-line response saying "processed correctly." What is needed is a 33-month itemized statement listing the payment date, amount, account title, contract, approver, transfer destination, secondary transfer destination, and ultimate beneficiary for each month.

If Broad Support Co., Ltd. is a legitimate major client and all transactions had substance, the company can prove its innocence with details and deliverables.

Conversely, if the company was used as a conduit for funds and profits were returned to Makoto Watanabe, defendant Jukki Nakano, or related entities, then Last One Mile Inc. is a victim company.

Even though it is the victim company, if the board of directors conducts no investigation, makes no recovery efforts, and still keeps the implicated directors at the core of the company, then the company is self-maintaining the perpetrator structure even after suffering harm.

And before the prosecutors and the National Tax Agency expand their arrest warrants to those around the defendant Nakano, please investigate the approximately 4.62 million yen of the listed company in which he was involved as a key decision-maker.

If investor accounts can be tracked down to the single yen, it should also be possible to track the 33 months of funds involving directors of the listed company.

Even if the invoices are split, a single construction work remains a single construction work.

Even with a corporation in between, a single fund is still a single fund.

It is not about the approximately 46.2 million yen that disappeared. It is the name of the ultimate beneficiary, which no one has revealed to this day.

Please read the name of Last One Mile Inc. from the ledger.