The Angel problem is a last-mile problem.
New information regarding the angel tax system has been provided to the Last One Mile Labor Union.
According to the information, Satoshi Saito, a certified public accountant and former head of the Corporate Planning Office at Last One Mile Co., Ltd., received retainer fees for angel tax system projects from multiple clients. However, as the number of projects grew too large, some of them stalled for long periods, leading clients to demand refunds.
It is believed that some related parties have actually received refunds.
And it was reportedly Makoto Watanabe, Representative Director, Chairman, and CEO of Last One Mile Co., Ltd., who intervened in the refund dispute and tried to calm the angry client.
If it was work undertaken by Mr. Saito in his personal capacity and had nothing to do with Mr. Watanabe or Last One Mile Inc., why did Mr. Watanabe need to get involved in the refund negotiations?
According to interactions known to our association prior to the arrest of defendant Kazuyoshi Nakano, records show that Makoto Watanabe, Satoshi Saito, and defendant Nakano were rapidly advancing the system design, referral of clients, applications, company selection, funding, and external explanations.
Mr. Watanabe will paint the big picture, Mr. Saito will serve as the certified public accountant handling applications and expert explanations, and the defendant Nakano will handle the company, administrative relations, investor relations, and other execution.
If the retainer received by Mr. Saito in this division of roles was involved, it is not merely a customer dispute involving an individual certified public accountant.
This is an issue concerning the financial balance of a business involving the Golden Trio centered around Mr. Makoto Watanabe, as well as the trust, network, executives, and referrers of Last One Mile Co., Ltd.
The issue of the angel tax system is finally shifting from an "issue for external investors" back to its true form.
The Angel problem is a last-mile problem.
How many Angel Tax System cases did Satoshi Saito receive retainers for?
The format of the retainer fee itself is not the problem.
The issues are: from whom the work was accepted, what tasks were accepted, how much was received, what was executed, which cases did not progress, and for what reasons refunds were issued.
According to information submitted to our association, Satoshi Saito undertook various services for numerous companies brought in by Makoto Watanabe, Defendant Toshiyuki Nakano, or referrers in their circle, including applications to make them eligible for the angel tax system, document preparation, system explanations, and other tasks.
However, it is reported that due to a sudden surge in the number of cases, some clients ended up in a situation where applications or work did not progress even after paying the initial retainer, and they failed to receive sufficient reports.
From the client's perspective, this means that despite having paid money upfront to a certified public accountant introduced as an institutional expert and handing over the necessary documents, no progress was made toward the administrative application, no confirmation letter was obtained, and only time has passed.
The Angel Tax Incentive is not a system where confirmation documents can be issued retroactively to a past date at any time upon request. Given its relationship with investments, share issuances, payments, base dates, and filing deadlines, leaving matters unattended may result in the applicant being unable to utilize the system.
Consequently, demands for refunds poured in from clients, and information was received that some individuals had actually received refunds for their retainer fees.
In that case, at least the following records should exist for Mr. Saito.
- Contracts or mandate details for each client.
- Date of engagement, retainer amount, deposit date, and deposit account.
- Materials created for each project, communication with government agencies, and application dates.
- Number of cases and reasons where work did not progress.
- The date the refund was requested, the refund amount, the refund date, and the refund account.
- The person or corporation that funded the refund.
- Referral fees or distributions paid to Mr. Makoto Watanabe, Defendant TSUYOSHI NAKANO, the introducer, and others.
The problem is not that the client got angry.
The issue is whether the expert who received the retainer can explain whether they performed the services as contracted.
If it is Satoshi Saito's personal matter, why did Makoto Watanabe intervene in the refund dispute?
The most important part of this information is that Makoto Watanabe intervened in the trouble with the client over the refund.
If Mr. Saito accepted the engagement himself as an independent certified public accountant, performed the work himself, and managed the retainer himself, he should be the one to provide explanations to the client, report on the work, handle contract cancellations, and issue refunds.
The fact that Mr. Watanabe entered means at least one of the following is conceivable:
- Makoto Watanabe himself had introduced the client to Satoshi Saito.
- Mr. Watanabe substantially directed the acceptance of the matter, pricing, application policy, or progress.
- A retainer fee, or a part of it, had been distributed to Mr. Watanabe's side.
- Mr. Watanabe or a corporation affiliated with Mr. Watanabe bore the funds for the refund.
- If a refund dispute surfaced, there were circumstances that would affect the credibility of Mr. Watanabe himself or Last One Mile Inc.
- The client held Mr. Watanabe liable because he was introduced by Mr. Watanabe, Last One Mile Co., Ltd., or individuals related to the company.
Regardless of which possibility it is, Mr. Watanabe is not unrelated.
If you claim you only introduced them, you can explain who and how many people you introduced, and whether you received a referral fee from Mr. Saito.
If you were managing the progress, I can show you the project list and meeting records.
If you only mediated the refund, you can show at whose request you intervened, what you explained, and under what conditions the refund was settled.
If you cannot explain anything, you cannot simply provide an escape hatch later by calling it "Mr. Saito's personal issue."
Makoto Watanabe draws the picture, Satoshi Saito acts as the expert, and Defendant Toshiyuki Nakano executes it
In past articles, our union has investigated the roles played by Makoto Watanabe, Defendant Kazuyoshi Nakano, and Satoshi Saito in the angel tax system.
Based on the information received by our association, the roles of the three parties are generally as follows:
- Makoto Watanabe draws up the overall concept, including system-based investment, capital repatriation, company selection, and client introductions.
- Satoshi Saito, acting as a certified public accountant, explains the system and handles professional practices such as application documents, contracts, shares, payments, and others.
- Defendant Nakano Tatsuyoshi is responsible for dealings with the target company, communication with government agencies, investor relations, fund transfers, and external execution.
- Companies or investors are brought in through the human networks of Last One Mile Inc.'s affiliated parties, business partners, referrers, and others.
- When a problem arises, Mr. Watanabe intervenes to coordinate between the parties involved or to put out the fire.
In the three-way communications that took place before Defendant Nakano's arrest, the introduction of the project, company preparation, applications, investments, and explanations to related parties are said to have progressed one after another in a short period of time.
If Mr. Saito had more cases than he could handle, were those customers coincidentally gathered by Mr. Saito alone?
Isn't it the result of Mr. Watanabe and Defendant Nakano using the introduction network around Last One Mile to channel a massive amount of Angel Tax System projects as a business?
While there is another case where the administrative review could not be passed based solely on Mr. Watanabe's concept, cases where Defendant Nakano and Mr. Saito became involved in the practical operations have progressed to obtaining written confirmations.
This difference does not suggest that Mr. Watanabe was a genius institutional designer.
Without Mr. Saito's professional qualifications and defendant Nakano's operational capability, the story goes, Mr. Watanabe's "blueprint" would have stalled at the administrative counter.
The Mamizuka memo stated from the beginning "Overall diagram of fraud by the Last One Mile Group"
The prosecutors' union from the other media outlet, "Okami's Union,"Mamizuka memo provided by current Last One Mile employeesWe have published it.
The title of the document is “Overview of Fraud at Last Mile Group, Inc.”
The materials feature Last One Mile Co., Ltd., Mr. Makoto Watanabe, multiple related corporate entities, and financial flow arrows, along with descriptions such as "outsourcing costs," "loans (fraudulent funds)," "advertising expenses (kickbacks)," and "fraudulent funds."
The diagram of the Angel Scheme includes entries such as “Example of Fraud #2,” “False Investment Claims,” and “Tax Effects,” and it also mentions Satoshi Saito by name.
Whether the contents of the Mamizuka memo are correct must be verified through contracts, application materials, bank records, accounting books, and the understanding of the parties involved.
However, at the very least, the party that created or possessed the documents did not view the issues surrounding the Angel Tax System as an individual matter unrelated to Last One Mile, Inc.
From the very beginning, we've been calling it "The Big Picture of Fraud by the Last Mile Group."
Nevertheless, if the Board of Directors and the Audit and Supervisory Committee of Last One Mile Co., Ltd. are treating the Angel Tax System as a “dispute between external individuals,” it means they have not even read the titles of the documents the company itself is said to have possessed.
Can the members of the "Angel Prosecutors"—as Makoto Watanabe mockingly calls them—produce their own financial records?
According to information received by our association from individuals associated with Last One Mile Co., Ltd. or through their referrals, Makoto Watanabe, Satoshi Saito, and other related parties are said to have referred to the prosecutors investigating the Angel Tax System as “Angel Prosecutors” and to have ridiculed them as people who do not understand the system.
The Prosecutors’ Union, a separate media outlet, is thoroughly investigating the serious problems surrounding prosecutors’ interrogations, understanding of the system, information leaks, and the selection of targets.
However, the fact that the prosecution is incompetent does not mean that the plea deals involving Makoto Watanabe and his associates are appropriate.
Before you laugh at the prosecutor, Mr. Watanabe, Mr. Saito, and the defendant Nakano must be shown the following documents.
- List of clients for all Angel Tax System cases.
- List of retainer agreements, upfront fees, success fees, referral fees, and refunds.
- A list of companies that filed applications and those that did not.
- A list of companies that have received confirmation from the government and those that did not pass the screening or did not apply.
- Makoto Watanabe, defendant Shukuki Nakano, Satoshi Saito, and the distribution of commissions among the referrers.
- Records based on information regarding Last One Mile Co., Ltd.’s personnel, emails, devices, offices, and business partners.
- Communications and the terms of the agreement when Mr. Watanabe intervened in the refund dispute.
If the prosecutor lacks a sufficient understanding of the system, you can simply present objective evidence to point out the error.
This is not a system where transactions become legal simply by failing to produce ledgers, contracts, or refund records—and just laughing and saying, “Prosecutors are idiots.”
Independence, Impartiality, and Integrity Expected of Certified Public Accountant Satoshi Saito
Article 1-2 of the Certified Public Accountants Act: Certified public accountants shall at all times maintain their professional dignity, strive to acquire knowledge and skills, and perform their duties fairly and in good faith while maintaining their independence.
If Mr. Satoshi Saito accepted the engagement as an independent certified public accountant with the client’s best interests in mind, he must prioritize the contract with the client and his professional ethics over the wishes of Mr. Makoto Watanabe, defendant Shukki Nakano, the person who referred the client, and others.
On the other hand, if Mr. Watanabe was, in fact, the one who brought in the project, set the price, intervened in its progress, and even handled the refund dispute, then it raises the question of whether Mr. Saito was truly acting independently.
The title of “Certified Public Accountant” is not just a marketing logo intended to reassure clients.
Once we have received the retainer fee, explained the program, and become involved in the application or investment process, we have a responsibility to manage conflicts of interest, the scope of work, progress, fees, and refunds for each client fairly and in good faith.
If you’re saying you let it slide because there were too many cases, then that’s a problem with case management.
If the priorities were changed on Mr. Watanabe’s instructions, that raises a question of independence.
If you continued to accept an advance fee even though you knew the project couldn't move forward, that's a matter of misrepresentation and breach of contract.
If you can't provide a refund record, then it's an accounting and tax issue.
Information indicates that individuals involved in the "last mile" are included in the plan to request arrest warrants for 40 people
The prosecutors' union from the other media outlet, "Okami's Union,"The issue regarding the leak of plans to seek arrest warrants for a total of 40 investors and shareholders of N Co., Ltd.has been published.
Furthermore, according to information received by our association, it is reported that several individuals associated with Last One Mile, Inc. are among these candidates.
If this is true, the Board of Directors and the Audit and Supervisory Committee of Last One Mile Co., Ltd. have reached the stage where they should already be specifically aware of the possibility that the investigation could expand to include the company’s employees, former employees, business partners, referral sources, and others.
善良な従業員が、上司の指示で資料を作った、紹介された相手へ連絡した、会議室を予約した、送金に同席したというだけで、後から責任を押し付けられることがあってはなりません。
経営陣が今行うべきなのは、捜査対象者を探して排除することでも、関係者同士で説明を合わせることでもありません。
- 全社的な証拠保全。
- 虚偽説明及び供述誘導の禁止。
- 情報提供者及び調査協力者への報復禁止。
- 渡辺誠氏その他の関与疑義者を調査から外すこと。
- 従業員が独立した弁護士へ相談できる窓口の設置。
- 会社の指示に従っただけの従業員へ責任を転嫁しないこと。
捜査情報が漏れ続けている以上、会社が知らなかったという説明は、日に日に通用しなくなっています。
渡辺誠氏の秘書室とラストワンマイル幹部は何を管理していたのか
エンジェル税制案件が、渡辺誠氏、中野爵喜被告、齊藤悟志氏、紹介者、依頼者の間で大量に動いていたのであれば、連絡、日程、資料、会食、送金、行政対応を管理した人員が存在するはずです。
そこで確認すべきなのが、株式会社ラストワンマイルに置かれていた、ラストワンマイル代表取締役である渡辺誠氏の秘書室です。
渡辺氏の秘書室については、これまで、金融商品取引、私生活、会食、移動、対外交渉、関係者対応その他を横断して動いていたとの情報が寄せられています。
エンジェル税制案件についても、次の事項を確認する必要があります。
- 依頼者、紹介者、齊藤悟志氏、中野爵喜被告との面談調整。
- 契約書、申請資料、投資資料、振込資料の送受信。
- 着手金及び返金に関する連絡。
- 渡辺誠氏が返金トラブルへ介入するための関係者調整。
- 会社のメール、端末、会議室、交通費、会食費、人件費の利用。
- 捜査開始後の関係者への連絡、説明内容の調整、資料移動。
会社の正式業務として行っていたのであれば、契約、売上、原価、決裁、会計処理が存在します。
会社の業務ではないのであれば、なぜ上場会社の人員、設備、肩書、取引関係を使っていたのかが問題になります。
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.
取締役が会社のためではなく、自分又は第三者の案件、報酬、返金、信用維持のために会社資源を使用していたのであれば、取締役会と監査等委員会は調査しなければなりません。
エンジェル問題がラストワンマイルの従業員へ直結する理由
エンジェル税制は税務の話だから、一般の従業員には関係がない。そのように考えることはできません。
本件では、株式会社ラストワンマイルの代表取締役、元経営企画室長、公認会計士、会社へ頻繁に出入りしていた中野爵喜被告、渡辺氏の秘書室、会社関係者、取引先、紹介者が一つの人的ネットワークとして登場しています。
会社への影響は次のとおりです。
- 捜査、照会、事情聴取、捜索、差押えが会社又は従業員へ広がる可能性。
- 取引先及び顧客から、会社の信用と役職が投資勧誘へ利用されたのではないかと疑われる危険。
- 会社の端末、メール、会議室、経費、人件費が私的案件へ使われた可能性。
- 返金又は損害賠償へ会社資金が流用される危険。
- 取締役会、監査等委員会、会計監査人の調査懈怠。
- 適時開示、内部統制報告、有価証券報告書、上場維持への影響。
- 問題を知らずに業務を行った従業員へ責任が転嫁される危険。
- 会社の信用低下による取引縮小、業績悪化、雇用不安。
渡辺誠メンバー達が検察を笑う声は会社の外まで届いています。
しかし、会社の将来を心配する従業員へは、着手金、返金、申請、紹介、捜査、馬見塚メモについて、何の説明も届いていません。
笑い声より先に、説明を届けてください。
渡辺誠氏・齊藤悟志氏・中野爵喜被告への公開質問
- 齊藤悟志氏は、エンジェル税制に関する業務を何件受任しましたか。
- 依頼者ごとの受任日、契約内容、着手金額、成功報酬、入金口座を明らかにしてください。
- 受任した案件のうち、申請済み、確認書交付済み、不通過、未申請、契約解除となった件数を明らかにしてください。
- 着手金を受け取りながら、長期間作業が進まなかった案件は何件ありますか。
- 依頼者から返金請求を受けた件数、請求額、実際の返金件数及び返金総額を明らかにしてください。
- 返金原資は、齊藤氏本人、渡辺誠氏、中野爵喜被告、株式会社ラストワンマイル又は関係法人のうち、誰が負担しましたか。
- 受領した着手金又は報酬の一部を、渡辺氏、中野被告、紹介者、株式会社ラストワンマイル関係者へ分配しましたか。
- 渡辺誠氏は、何件の依頼者を齊藤悟志氏へ紹介しましたか。
- 渡辺氏は、案件の価格、契約条件、申請方針、進行順位、返金の可否を指示しましたか。
- 渡辺氏が依頼者との返金トラブルへ介入した案件数、介入理由及び合意内容を明らかにしてください。
- 中野爵喜被告は、依頼会社の準備、行政対応、申請資料、投資家紹介、資金移動のうち、何を担当しましたか。
- 中野被告の逮捕前に行われた三者間の通信、会議、案件一覧、報酬一覧を保存していますか。
- 株式会社ラストワンマイルの従業員、取引先、顧客又は関係者を、エンジェル税制案件の依頼者又は投資家として紹介しましたか。
- 株式会社ラストワンマイルのメール、端末、事務所、会議室、秘書室、人件費又は経費を利用しましたか。
- エンジェル税制に関わる検事を「エンゼル検事」等と呼び、制度を理解できない人物として揶揄した事実を認めますか。
- 検察の制度理解を批判するのであれば、自らの全案件、着手金、返金、報酬分配を公開できますか。
Open Questions to the Board of Directors and Audit & Supervisory Committee of Last1Mile Co., Ltd.
- 取締役会及び監査等委員会は、齊藤悟志氏が多数のエンジェル税制案件を受任し、着手金及び返金トラブルが発生していたとの情報を把握していますか。
- 渡辺誠氏が返金トラブルへ介入していた事実を把握していますか。
- 渡辺氏、齊藤氏、中野爵喜被告の三者間における案件紹介、申請、報酬、資金、返金の関係を調査しましたか。
- 会社の従業員、取引先、顧客、関係会社が、依頼者、紹介者又は投資家として関与していないか調査しましたか。
- 渡辺誠氏の秘書室が、日程調整、資料送付、振込、返金、関係者対応へ関与した事実を調査しましたか。
- 会社のメール、端末、事務所、会議室、交通費、会食費、人件費その他の会社資源が利用されていないか調査しましたか。
- 馬見塚メモに「株式会社ラストワンマイルグループによる不正全体図」と記載されていることを、取締役会で正式に審議しましたか。
- 40名への逮捕状請求計画に株式会社ラストワンマイル関係者が複数含まれるとの情報を把握していますか。
- 本件に関するメール、チャット、口座記録、契約書、案件管理表、返金記録、入退館記録を保全する全社指示を発出しましたか。
- 渡辺氏を調査委託先の選定、証拠へのアクセス、関係者聴取、調査結果の承認から外しましたか。
- 本件について、会計監査人、主要株主、東京証券取引所、証券取引等監視委員会へ報告しましたか。
- 本件が適時開示、内部統制報告、有価証券報告書及び取締役の適格性へ与える影響を検討しましたか。
- 善良な従業員や調査協力者に責任を転嫁せず、不利益取扱いを行わないことを社内へ明示しますか。
Measures Sought by the Last Mile Labor Union
- Last Mile Inc. shall make this matter a formal agenda item for the Board of Directors and the Audit and Supervisory Committee.
- 渡辺誠氏、齊藤悟志氏、中野爵喜被告、渡辺氏の秘書室その他の関与者から独立した第三者調査を開始すること。
- 全てのエンジェル税制案件について、依頼者、契約、着手金、報酬、紹介料、返金、申請結果を一覧化すること。
- 案件管理表、契約書、請求書、領収書、銀行記録、会計帳簿、税務資料を保全すること。
- 渡辺氏、中野被告、齊藤氏及び紹介者間のメール、LINE、Telegram、通話、面談記録を保全すること。
- 株式会社ラストワンマイルの人員、設備、端末、会議室、メール、経費が使用された範囲を調査すること。
- 依頼者から受け取った着手金について、契約どおりの業務が行われていない案件を確認し、必要な返金を行うこと。
- 返金に株式会社ラストワンマイル又は関係会社の資金が使用されていないか調査すること。
- 40名への逮捕状請求計画に含まれるとされる会社関係者へ、独立した弁護士相談と調査協力支援を提供すること。
- 関係者間の口裏合わせ、供述誘導、資料移動、端末初期化、データ削除を禁止すること。
- 組合員、現従業員、元従業員、情報提供者、調査協力者への探索、威迫、解雇、異動その他の報復を禁止すること。
- 第三者調査の結果を従業員、株主、取引先、依頼者及び市場へ公表すること。
- 不正又は会社資源の私的利用が確認された場合、関与した役員及び受益者へ返還、損害賠償及び責任追及を行うこと。
「エンゼル検事」を笑う前に、着手金台帳と返金台帳を出してください
検察の取調べ、制度理解、情報漏洩に問題があるのであれば、検察ユニオンが徹底的に追及します。
しかし、検察が問題だらけだからといって、渡辺誠氏、中野爵喜被告、齊藤悟志氏の着手金、申請、紹介料、返金、資金分配、会社資源利用が全て適正になるわけではありません。
今回の情報を整理すると、齊藤氏は多数のエンジェル税制案件で着手金を受け、一部案件は進まず、返金を求められ、実際に返金された関係者もいるとされています。
そのトラブルへ渡辺氏が介入しました。
中野被告の逮捕前には、渡辺氏、齊藤氏、中野被告の三者間で、案件が加速度的に進められていました。
馬見塚メモは、これを外部投資家だけの問題とは呼ばず、「株式会社ラストワンマイルグループによる不正全体図」と記載しています。
これだけ会社との接点が重なっても、取締役会と監査等委員会が「会社とは無関係」と考えているのであれば、その判断過程を従業員と株主へ説明してください。
渡辺誠メンバー達は、関係検事を「エンゼル検事」と呼んで笑っているとされています。
検察を笑う自由はあります。
しかし、契約、帳簿、着手金、返金、申請、紹介料を説明しなくてよい自由はありません。
株式会社ラストワンマイルの従業員にとって重要なのは、渡辺氏と検察のどちらが口喧嘩に勝つかではありません。
自分たちの会社、雇用、給与、取引先、家族の生活が、この問題によって傷つけられないことです。
The Angel problem is a last-mile problem.
「エンゼル検事」を笑う前に、着手金台帳と返金台帳を出してください。