Who is "Makoto Watanabe member," who led the unregistered structured bond investment?
Regarding the practice by news organizations of calling a person whose papers have been sent to the prosecutor's office a "member" rather than a "suspect," the Prosecutors' Union of "Okami's Union"—a different media outlet—If papers are sent to the prosecutor, it's 'Member Tsuzuki'; if arrested, it's 'Suspect Kanemoto'published an article titled
If not arrested, a "member." If arrested, a "suspect." This is a unique and peculiar Japanese reporting practice where, regardless of legal status or even among those sent to prosecutors together, the term used in news coverage changes depending on whether or not investigative authorities have taken the person into custody.
Then, how is it fair to refer to Makoto Watanabe, the Chairman and CEO of Last One Mile Inc., who was referred to prosecutors on suspicion of violating the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act?
Following the practice of news media, this article will refer to him as "Member Watanabe."
However, what is important is not what he is called, but the facts of what kind of investments Watanabe member led, from whom and how he raised funds, and why he ended up being referred to the Fukuoka District Public Prosecutors Office for document submission as a violation of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act.
The information contained in this article has already been leaked to various sources, and above all, member Watanabe himself has been talking about it to those around him, so it is already a fact known to many related parties. However, this article organizes the chronology of the seemingly complex incident.
Member Makoto Watanabe was sent to the Fukuoka District Public Prosecutors Office on suspicion of violating the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act.
The financial instruments and exchange act violation case involving member Makoto Watanabe was officially accepted at the Fukuoka Chuo Police Station, and following the creation of a written accusation by police officers and an investigation, the case was sent to the Fukuoka District Public Prosecutors Office.
Generally, when a suspect is not arrested or detained, and the police forward investigative materials and evidence to the prosecution, this is referred to in media reports as “submission of case files.”
Regarding Watanabe's case, a prosecutorial case number has been assigned by the Fukuoka District Public Prosecutors Office.
The charge is a violation of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act.
In other words, this isn’t simply a matter of an in-house labor union pointing out a problem, rumors circulating online, or a financial dispute among investors.
This is a full-fledged criminal case that was handled by the Fukuoka Central Police Station as a suspected violation of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act and, following a police investigation, was referred to the Fukuoka District Public Prosecutors Office.
Even if we use the gentle term “member,” that doesn’t mean the case number that has already been assigned becomes any less formal.
What did Member Watanabe do that led to his case being referred to prosecutors?
At the center of the case was an investment described as a “structured bond” that combined foreign stocks.
Structured bonds are financial products that combine stock prices, interest rates, exchange rates, and other indices with terms regarding interest payments and redemption. Due to their complex structure, they may result in significant losses depending on the movements of the underlying stock prices and other factors.
For this structured bond offering, a Telegram group consisting of about a dozen high-net-worth individuals was created by the private secretaries of Members Makoto Watanabe and Hiroshi Mako, as well as Makoto Watanabe. Member Watanabe took the lead in explaining the investment details and management policies and issued specific instructions.
The investment terms known to our association are generally as follows.
- It was described as a structured bond linked to foreign stocks.
- A dozen or so wealthy individuals participated in the Telegram group.
- The standard investment amount was 10 million yen per share.
- Under this arrangement, participants were required to pay 1.5 million yen as a “security deposit” in addition to their investment amount.
- It was explained that the principal was guaranteed.
- A high rate of return of 30% per annum was indicated.
- Member Watanabe led the investment and management, and gave specific instructions to member Hiroshi Mako.
- At least some of the capital contributions and security deposits had been transferred to a bank account held in the name of Member Watanabe personally.
To add a deposit of 1.5 million yen to the 10 million yen per share, the basic payment amount per participant is 11.5 million yen.
If more than a dozen people participated under the same conditions, the funds handled would easily reach the 100 million yen scale.
Moreover, those funds were transferred not to the securities company's customer account, but to member Watanabe's personal account.
The personal accounts of listed company executives do not automatically transform into customer asset management accounts at securities companies.
The roles of Makoto Watanabe, Hirofumi Mako, and LG Asset Co., Ltd.
In the management of these structured bonds, not only Member Watanabe but also Member Hiroshi Mako and LG Asset Co., Ltd. played key roles.
Hiroshi Mako was introduced as one of Mr. Watanabe’s personal secretaries and served as the head of the secretarial department at Last One Mile, Inc. He is a different secretary from the one whose spouse is affiliated with antisocial forces. To investors, he was presented as a financial professional with experience working at Mizuho Securities, andPB Certificate HolderIt was explained as follows.
Member Watanabe appointed Member Hiroshi Mako as the representative director of LG Asset Co., Ltd.—a company he had effectively controlled and established—and explained to investors that the company was registered to handle financial products.
Current Company Profile of LG Asset Co., Ltd.However, it lists Hiroshi Mako as the Representative Director, financial instruments intermediary business as the business description, and Registration Number: Director-General of the Fukuoka Local Finance Bureau (Kinchu) No. 123.
From the participants’ perspective, the structure is as follows: Member Watanabe—an executive at a publicly traded company—takes the lead; Member Hiroshi Mako, who was described as a former securities firm employee, handles the day-to-day operations; and LG Asset Co., Ltd., which is registered as a financial products intermediary, serves as the entity involved.
With a lineup of titles like this, it is not unnatural for general participants to believe it is a legitimate financial product with the necessary registration.
However, the issue is when the investment began.
The solicitation for structured bonds was in the spring of 2021, and LG Asset's registration was on December 24, 2021.
List of registered financial instrument intermediaries published by the Financial Services AgencyThe following information regarding LG Asset Co., Ltd. is included in [...].
- Registration number: Director-General of the Fukuoka Local Finance Bureau (Kin-Chu) No. 123.
- The registration date is December 24, 2021.
- The name of the financial products intermediary is LG Asset Co., Ltd.
- The affiliated financial instruments business operators are Akatsuki Securities, Co., Ltd. and Tokai Tokyo Securities Co., Ltd.
Meanwhile, in the structured bonds spearheaded by member Watanabe, the solicitation, receipt, and management of investments and security deposits began at least by March 2021 and continued to be managed in a similar manner periodically through 2023.
*In fact, we have confirmed that it was in operation even before 2021, and our association has preserved the evidence.
When put in chronological order, it is very simple.
- On February 18, 2021, LG Asset Co., Ltd. was established.
- In March 2021, member Watanabe solicited investments in structured bonds, receiving 10 million yen and a 1.5 million yen deposit.
- Since the spring of 2021, member Watanabe has led the operations in a Telegram group.
- On December 24, 2021, LG Asset Co., Ltd. registered as a financial instruments intermediary service provider.
Establishing a company and registering as a financial instruments intermediary service provider are two different things.
Even if the corporate entity LG Asset Co., Ltd. existed in February 2021, it was registered to engage in financial instruments intermediary business on December 24 of the same year.
Therefore, the explanation that solicitation and fundraising conducted from March 2021 onwards were "not a problem because LG Asset was a company registered under No. 123" does not hold chronologically.
In other words, they were brazenly feeding false explanations to the investors they had gathered themselves.
And, of course, the registration you completed in December is not a time machine that can go back to March and erase the period during which you were unregistered.
Financial Instruments and Exchange Act and Investment Act issues concerning Watanabe's structured bonds
Solicitation, fund collection, and investment management prior to registration
The Financial Instruments and Exchange Act does not allow financial instruments businesses to operate freely.
Article 29 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act: No person may engage in a financial instruments business unless registered by the Prime Minister.
If structured bonds related to foreign stocks were repeatedly solicited, funds were gathered from participants, investment policies were determined, and everything from dividends to the return of principal was managed, then depending on the actual circumstances, registration for Type I Financial Instruments Business, Investment Management Business, Financial Instruments Intermediary Business, or other registrations would become an issue.
What is important is not that LG Asset Co., Ltd. subsequently obtained a single type of registration.
The issue is whether the individuals and entities that were actually engaged in solicitation, fund collection, product selection, investment management, and dividend administration as of March 2021 held the necessary registrations for those activities.
Nor is the registration number of LG Asset Co., Ltd. automatically assigned to Watanabe-san as an individual.
Financial instrument intermediaries cannot hold customer investment funds.
What LG Asset Co., Ltd. later acquired was its registration as a financial instruments intermediary service provider.
Financial product brokers act on behalf of the securities firms or other institutions to which they belong, soliciting financial products and facilitating their purchase and sale. Customer trading accounts are managed by the securities firms or other institutions; the system does not allow brokers to freely hold or manage customer funds on their own.
Article 66-13 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act: A financial instruments intermediary shall not, under any pretext whatsoever, in connection with the financial instruments intermediary business it conducts,accept deposits of money or securities from a client, or cause a client to deposit money or securities with a person specified by Cabinet Order as having a close relationship with said financial instruments intermediary.
In other words, if you receive customer funds before registration, the issue of unregistered business operations arises.
Even after registration, we are not permitted to hold customer funds in connection with our financial product brokerage business.
In this instance, at least 10 million yen—involving multiple individuals and multiple accounts—along with a 1.5 million yen security deposit were transferred not to a client account at the affiliated securities firm or to a management account held by LG Asset Co., Ltd., but to Member Watanabe’s personal bank account.
Setting aside the question of whether this occurred before or after registration, why was it necessary for investment funds intended for financial products to be deposited into the personal account of Mr. Watanabe, who isn’t even a financial product intermediary?
Past Administrative Sanctions Announced by the Tokai Regional Finance BureauTherefore, regarding the act of the financial instruments intermediary service provider receiving a total of 30 million yen or more as stock purchase funds, etc., from at least three customers, it has been recognized as a violation of Article 66-13 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, and its registration has been revoked.
The regulation prohibiting the holding of customer funds is not just for show. It is a fundamental measure to protect investors by ensuring that investors’ money is not commingled with the funds of intermediaries or management.
Principal guarantee and a deposit of 1.5 million yen
Member Watanabe explained to the participants that the principal was guaranteed.
The Investment Act prohibits the act of accepting capital by promising the return of principal or more to an unspecified and large number of persons.
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.
If funds were repeatedly collected in a Telegram group of a dozen or so members under the same investment conditions while promising principal guarantees and high returns, the application of Article 1 of the Act Regulating the Receipt of Contributions, Deposit Interest Rates, and Unlawful Deposits (the Act on Regulation of Contributions) comes directly into question, alongside the method for selecting invitees, participation conditions, and the repetitiveness of the solicitation.
Furthermore, it has not been clarified what the 1.5 million yen “security deposit”—which was collected separately from the 10 million yen per share—was intended to guarantee.
- Whose losses, and what kind of losses, was this money meant to guarantee?
- Was the 1.5 million yen used to purchase the structured bonds?
- Was it used to compensate for the losses of other participants?
- How were the funds in Member Watanabe’s personal account kept separate?
- Was there a contract that stipulated the conditions for the return of the security deposit?
Simply naming something a security deposit does not automatically make it a security deposit in its legal nature.
Instructions such as “Don’t call it a return of capital” and “Call it repayment of a loan”
Even more serious is the instruction given by Member Watanabe regarding the return of the funds.
"Don't call it a 'return of capital.'"
"Treat this as a repayment of a loan."
They raised funds from investors by explaining that the product was a structured bond linked to foreign stocks that offered both principal protection and dividends.
Nevertheless, if the classification is changed from “capital contribution” to “loan” only at the time of repayment, the initial explanation and the final accounting treatment will not match.
- If it was an investment, why was it reclassified as a loan when it was repaid?
- If it was a loan, why did they describe it as a structured bond tied to foreign stocks, with principal protection and an annual interest rate of 30 percent?
- Where are the loan agreement, repayment due dates, interest rates, and intended use of funds recorded?
- Under both accounting and tax laws, under what account title were the dividends paid to investors processed?
取引の実体は、返還時に付け替えた名称ではなく、当初の勧誘内容、契約、資金移動、運用、配当、最終的な利益帰属によって判断されます。
名前を書き換えれば取引の過去まで書き換わるのであれば、金融商品取引法より先に、帳簿へ消しゴムを登録する制度が必要になります。
渡辺誠メンバー書類送検事件が示すのは、単なる投資家との口論ではない
渡辺メンバーの仕組債事件には、出資額、保証金、Telegramでの勧誘、渡辺メンバーの個人口座、株式会社LGアセットの登録日、真子裕史メンバーへの指示、配当及び返還時の名目変更という、具体的な事実が存在します。
福岡中央警察署は、これらを単なる民事上の投資トラブルとして追い返しませんでした。
金融商品取引法違反事件として取り扱い、捜査を行い、福岡地方検察庁へ書類送検しました。
ここで理解すべき事実は、非常に明快です。
- 渡辺誠メンバーは金融商品取引法違反の被疑事件で捜査対象となった。
- 福岡中央警察署が事件を正式に取り扱った。
- 警察から福岡地方検察庁へ事件が送致された。
- 福岡地検で事件番号が付された。
- 問題となったのは、登録前から行われていた仕組債の勧誘、資金収受及び運用だった。
書類送検は、事件がなかったという意味ではありません。
警察が刑事事件として正式に捜査し、嫌疑十分として、証拠と事件記録を検察へ送ったという意味です。
書類送検された代表取締役を知りながら沈黙する株式会社ラストワンマイル
株式会社ラストワンマイルの現在の役員紹介では、渡辺誠メンバーは今も代表取締役会長兼CEOとして掲載されています。
株式会社ラストワンマイルは、渡辺メンバーが金融商品取引法違反事件で書類送検された事実を把握しています。
それにもかかわらず、同社は、この事件について従業員、株主、取引先及び市場へ説明せず、沈黙を続けています。
本件は、代表取締役の私生活上の軽微な問題ではありません。
- 現在の代表取締役会長兼CEO本人が主導した金融商品投資である。
- 代表取締役の秘書室室長である真子裕史メンバーが渡辺メンバーの指示により実務を遂行している。
- 一口1,000万円と保証金150万円という多額の資金が扱われている。
- 十数名規模の投資家が関係している。
- 金融商品仲介業者の登録前から勧誘と資金収受が行われている。
- 参加者へ登録済みの正規事業であるかのような説明が行われている。
- 福岡中央警察署から福岡地検へ正式に書類送検されている。
これを代表者個人の問題として会社の外へ置くことはできません。
しかも、渡辺メンバーが書類送検された事実を知りながら、取締役会と監査等委員会が独立した調査も説明も行わず、代表取締役会長兼CEOとして掲載し続けているのであれば、問題は渡辺メンバー1人の金融商品取引だけではありません。
上場会社としての内部統制、取締役の適格性、監査等委員会の監督機能、株主への説明責任が問われます。
従業員にはコンプライアンス研修を受けさせ、取引先には反社会的勢力の確認を求め、経費には稟議を要求する一方で、代表取締役の書類送検はいつも通り社内の秘密箱へ入れる。
それでは、株式会社ラストワンマイルで最も自由な職種は、代表取締役会長兼CEOということになります。
渡辺誠メンバー・真子裕史メンバー・LGアセット・ラストワンマイルへの公開質問
- 渡辺誠メンバーは、海外株式に関連する仕組債の内容、投資条件及び運用方法を設計しましたか。
- 仕組債のTelegramグループを作成又は管理し、十数名の参加者へ投資を勧誘しましたか。
- 参加者へ、元本保証及び年利30％という趣旨の説明を行いましたか。
- 一口1,000万円とは別に徴収した保証金150万円は、誰の何を保証するための金銭でしたか。
- 出資金と保証金を、渡辺メンバー個人の銀行口座へ振り込ませた理由は何ですか。
- 渡辺メンバー個人の口座へ入った全資金について、入金者、入金額、送金先、運用先、配当及び返還を明らかにしてください。
- 実際に購入又は運用した仕組債の商品名、発行体、銘柄、識別番号、購入日、購入額、保管先及び契約名義人を明らかにしてください。
- 2021年3月から同年12月23日までの間、渡辺メンバー、真子裕史メンバー又は株式会社LGアセットは、どの登録又は届出に基づいて勧誘、資金収受及び運用を行っていましたか。
- 株式会社LGアセットが金融商品仲介業者として登録されたのは2021年12月24日であることを、参加者へいつ説明しましたか。
- 登録前の段階で、株式会社LGアセットが必要な資格又は登録を有していると参加者へ説明しましたか。
- あかつき証券株式会社又は東海東京証券株式会社は、本件仕組債の勧誘、資金収受又は運用へ関与していましたか。
- 関与していない場合、株式会社LGアセットの金融商品仲介業として、誰の委託を受けて行った取引だったのですか。
- 資金返還時に「出資金の返還とは言うな」「借入金の返済として扱え」という趣旨を指示した理由は何ですか。
- 出資、保証金、配当及び元本返還を、渡辺メンバー、株式会社LGアセットその他の関係法人で、それぞれどのように会計・税務処理しましたか。
- 株式会社ラストワンマイルは、渡辺メンバーの書類送検をいつ把握しましたか。
- 取締役会、監査等委員会、リスク・コンプライアンス委員会及び会計監査人へ、いつ報告しましたか。
- 渡辺誠メンバー、真子裕史メンバー及び株式会社LGアセットと、株式会社ラストワンマイルの人員、設備、経費、通信端末、役職又は社会的信用との関係を調査しましたか。
- 書類送検の事実を従業員、株主及び市場へ公表しなかった理由は何ですか。
Measures Sought by the Last Mile Labor Union
- 株式会社ラストワンマイルは、渡辺誠メンバーの金融商品取引法違反事件と書類送検について、取締役会及び監査等委員会の正式な議題とすること。
- 渡辺メンバーから独立した外部専門家による調査を開始し、渡辺メンバーを調査委託先の選定、証拠収集、関係者聴取及び調査結果の承認から外すこと。
- Telegram、メール、メッセージ、振込記録、契約書、仕組債資料、会計資料、税務資料及び関係者間通信を保全すること。
- 渡辺メンバーの個人口座へ入金された全資金について、入出金、運用先、配当、返還及び最終受益者を調査すること。
- 株式会社LGアセットは、2021年12月24日の登録前に行われた全ての投資勧誘、資金収受及び運用を調査し、参加者へ説明すること。
- あかつき証券株式会社及び東海東京証券株式会社は、本件を把握しているか確認し、委託先管理と投資者保護の観点から必要な調査を行うこと。
- 株式会社ラストワンマイルは、本件が内部統制、役員適格性及び会社情報開示へ与える影響を検討し、その結果を従業員、株主及び市場へ説明すること。
- 本件について情報を持つ従業員、元従業員、投資参加者その他の関係者に対し、探索、威迫、解雇、配置転換、取引停止その他の報復を行わないこと。
- 参加者が、自分の入出金記録、契約内容、商品内容及び運用結果を確認できる窓口を設置すること。
- 代表取締役個人を守ることと、株式会社ラストワンマイルという法人、従業員、株主及び取引先を守ることを明確に区別すること。
「渡辺メンバー」と呼んでも、三件の書類送検は消えない
逮捕されずに書類送検された人物を「メンバー」と呼ぶ報道慣行にならえば、渡辺誠メンバーとなるのでしょう。
しかし、呼称を柔らかくしても、事件の中身は変わりません。
十数名規模の富裕層をTelegramへ集め、一口1,000万円と保証金150万円を基本として、元本保証と年利30％を掲げた海外株式型の仕組債を勧誘する。渡辺メンバーが真子裕史メンバーへ指示を出し、参加者には株式会社LGアセットが必要な登録を持つ会社であると説明する。その一方で、実際の登録日は資金募集開始から少なくとも約9か月後の2021年12月24日でした。
さらに、投資資金は所属証券会社の顧客口座ではなく、渡辺メンバーの個人口座へ入り、返還時には「出資金ではなく借入金として扱え」という趣旨の指示まで行われていました。
その結果、福岡中央警察署が金融商品取引法違反事件として捜査し、福岡地方検察庁へ書類送検し、事件番号が付されました。
これが、渡辺メンバーの書類送検事件の基本的な全体像です。
そして、株式会社ラストワンマイルは、この事実を把握しながら、従業員、株主、取引先及び市場へ説明しない状態を続けています。
書類送検された代表取締役が「メンバー」なら、その事実を知らされない従業員や株主も、株式会社ラストワンマイルを支える大切なメンバーです。
会社が守るべきなのは、代表取締役一人の肩書ではありません。
何も知らされずに働き、投資し、取引を続けている全てのメンバーです。
渡辺メンバーと呼ぶか、渡辺誠と呼ぶかは、報道機関に任せればよいでしょう。
ラストワンマイル労働組合が求めるのは、呼称の説明ではありません。
無登録期間の勧誘、個人口座へ入った資金、謎の保証金150万円、元本保証、名目変更、三件の書類送検、そして会社が沈黙を続ける理由についての、具体的な説明です。