[Last-mile labor union] Prudential reveals details of actions taken after leaving the company. Watanabe Makoto talks about "incidents during his tenure" and when will they be explained?

The company that reports that a former employee has been arrested and the company where the former executive is expected to be arrested and charged. When comparing the two, the important thing is not whether the title has the word “former.” It’s how much the company itself has investigated the relationship between that person and the company and what explanation it has provided.

It has been reported that Mr. Watanabe Makoto, a senior official at Last One Mile, has taken issue with the actions of former executives during their tenure and has specifically discussed future criminal proceedings. If this is such a serious matter, then it should be expedited with the necessary fact-finding and disclosure determinations. Is it enough to simply explain to those around you and not keep up with the company’s explanation?

Reports of the arrest of former employees and the company's response

Report by Nippon Television News NNN on September 24, 2026It is reported that a former employee of Prudential Life has been arrested on suspicion of defrauding crypto assets under the guise of providing work-from-home support. The report also mentions that the former employee is believed to have recruited previous colleagues into the group.

Apart from reporting on this individual case, Prudential Life has alreadyPublicly released material dated January 16, 2026In this case, they are explaining financial misconduct by sales employees and former sales employees. They are also showing a stance of disclosing financial activities that are not directly related to their company’s insurance business, including actions after retirement, in accordance with their social responsibility.

What should be compared here is not the competition over the number or amount of incidents. What should be examined is the actions of the person who left the company; whether they are damaging the company’s reputation or damaging its relationships with customers. Simply erasing a person’s past affiliation does not erase the facts that the company should be aware of.

Isn't it Watanabe Seito who is concerned about "during his term in office"?

According to information received from the union, Watanabe is raising concerns about the former officer’s actions during his time in the final mile. He is reportedly explaining this specifically to those around him, including information regarding the indictment and the future course of criminal proceedings.

The first thing a company should check is what basis the explanation is based on, and how the company’s duties, titles, information, personnel, and funds are related to the transactions or actions that are being called into question. Determining that an individual’s actions are related to the company is the opposite of treating them as an individual issue before investigating them.

If we are adopting Watanabe’s explanation as the company’s position, we need to broaden the scope of our investigation to include the company’s past dealings, supervisory structure, and explanation of the listing review process. If we have not adopted it, we should examine why the CEO explained a critical fact to senior executives, and the basis and manner in which they were conveyed.

Before anticipating an arrest, please organize the important facts that the company has learned.

Article 402, No. 2 of the TSE Listing Regulations requires disclosure of important facts regarding the company’s operations, business, assets, etc., that have a significant impact on investment decisions.Official explanation from the Tokyo Stock ExchangeHowever, it is required to actually determine the significance and, if applicable, disclose it immediately.

Therefore, the point at which necessary disclosure should be made is not necessarily the day Mr. Watanabe predicts the arrest will take place. If you already have a grasp of the important facts related to the company, you should base your judgment on that information. Conversely, if the basis for the forecast cannot be confirmed, you should reconsider treating the forecast as a definitive matter.

What the union is asking for is not simply the dissemination of unconfirmed information to the market; it is an explanation that summarizes the confirmed facts, matters under investigation, the impact on the company, and future verification methods. The board of directors and the audit committee should bridge the gap between saying “we know” to senior management and explaining it in the company name as “we have verified.”

Mr. Watanabe Teru and public questions to the Board of Directors and Audit & Supervisory Committee

1. Did you identify the period of time, position, and transaction of the former employee that the Director explained to the executives? What was the basis for determining the relationship with the company?
2. Mr. Watanabe, can you explain the timing and content of the information that the Board of Directors, Audit Committee, and Accounting Auditor have received, respectively?
3. Who decided whether to consult the Tokyo Stock Exchange and disclose information in a timely manner, and based on what materials? If any material has already been published, please indicate the relationship between that material and this explanation.
4. If there are parts of Watanabe’s explanation that the company has not adopted, are there any plans to correct the explanation to senior executives and rectify the way information is shared?

The union requests that the scope of disclosure and the presentation of the record be made public.

1. Please investigate the relationship between the former officer's actions during his tenure and the company based on the original documents, and also confirm the involvement of the current management team within the same scope.
2. Immediately consider the need for disclosure and promptly publish the necessary information. If the investigation continues, please organize the information that has already been confirmed and the upcoming explanations.
3. Please check the discrepancy between the facts described by the company and the content explained to executives and other senior management, and if there are any errors or findings lacking substantiation, please correct them.

You shouldn't just ignore companies that provide explanations until you retire.

When people are asked about Prudential Life’s announcement, they are not asking whether the Last Mile is in the same industry; they are asking how far the company will go to investigate issues that affect it. If Watanabe himself speaks of incidents during his tenure, those words can also be applied to the company’s past oversight and current judgment.

Anyone who knows about the operational instructions, transactions, and reports to the company at the time should preserve the records they possess legally in a way that makes it clear the date and details. Instead of just providing a barrage of warnings to everyone, I would like them to provide a description of the company’s name. What Watanabe needs is not a forecast of the next arrest, but the current disclosure decision.