[Jamanashi Hospital Union] Claims that no agreed payment has been made even after grant funds were received

We ask about the instructions system and the flow of funds given by Lord Nakano and others

Seeking cooperation from the business, the union is ordering its members to work as employees. However, even after the project has yielded results and subsidies have been received, the agreed payments to outsourced partners and seconded personnel have not been made. A serious complaint has been filed with the Unison of Intershikai Hospital regarding the grant project between Shinseikai Medical Corporation and Intershikai Medical Service Co., Ltd.

The person who filed the complaint is a union member who is alleging unpaid wages and harassment. According to their explanation, Mr. Nakano Yoshiaki, who was in Cambodia, was ordered to provide general labor support by the union, and as part of that, he was also tasked with performing miscellaneous tasks related to the grant programs of both companies as an employee. However, they claim that even after receiving the payment, the promised payments were not fulfilled, and that Mr. Nakano had colluded with Ms. Sakata Mikiko and Mr. Tanaka Shigeru to ignore the calls for payment.

What the union is asking for is not just the result that payments are being delayed. Who is directing the business, who is arranging for cooperation, who is keeping track of deposits, and on whose judgment payments are not being made? Furthermore, we will seek confirmation from the investigation authorities regarding where the received funds are located and what they were used for. In addition to pursuing contractual payment obligations, we will also consider seeking confirmation from the investigation authorities regarding the actual situation of organizational fundraising and disposal using medical corporations and related parties.

Work order from Lord Nakano. The union member was responsible for auxiliary work as part of labor support.

What is important for understanding the circumstances of this case is the question of which position the union members held and on whose instructions they were working. According to the union members’ explanation, it was Lord Nakano Kei who ordered them to support the labor-related activities in general at that time; they were also responsible for performing the tasks related to the grant program as part of this order.

The medical corporation Shinsei Kai, which was the target of the business, is the operating corporation of Kanazashi Hospital, and the limited liability company Kanazashi Medical Services is a corporation in the same group. The histories and business development of both corporations are as follows:Official website of the Marasagi GroupIt is also featured in.

In the actual command structure reported by the union members, Nakano was essentially in charge of the grant programs of both organizations. Furthermore, Tanaka Shigeruichiro, a director of the Shinseikai, and Kosaka Mikiko, the director of the General Affairs Department who leads the management of the group, including personnel and finance, are cited as being involved in the payment issue.

Here, it is necessary to distinguish between having performed auxiliary work as an employee and deciding on business policies, contractual terms and conditions, and the use of funds in accordance with specific facts. Instead of simply picking out the names of the people involved in documents or communications, it is a starting point to clarify the responsibility by confirming the person who ordered the work, the person who approved the content, and the person who managed the funds.

When ordering work, management’s authority is used, and when payment issues arise, only the employees on the ground are left to deal with. To prevent such a situation from arising, those like Nakano are required to provide explanations based on their position in managing the business.

In a business that has advanced to the point of deposit, why are payments to outsourced partners and employees not being made?

According to union members’ reports, grant programs for both companies have been implemented and funds have been received. However, payments promised to outsourced partners and employees who transferred to the companies have not been made, and the companies are still not responding to any requests for contact.

Outsourcing companies also have the burden of investing personnel and time to carry out their work. Payments to seconded personnel must also be clearly specified as to who is paying for what, and to whom. The parties involved in receiving the results of the business must have contractual rights and livelihoods, not only the parties who receive the results of the business.

The union requests that Mr. Nakano, Mr. Hoshizaki, Mr. Tanaka, and the two corporations clarify at least the following points:

• Who, on behalf of which legal entity, and under what conditions, committed to pay the external contractors and employees who transferred to another company?
• Who was responsible for tracking the grant funds’ deposit and managing the funds after the deposit was made, and who was responsible for deciding on payments?
• What were the reasons why the agreed payment was not fulfilled, and how were Mr. Nakano, Mr. Hoshizaki, and Mr. Tanaka each involved in that decision?
• What is the reason for not responding to requests for payment, and who is the person responsible for deciding on a resolution?

If there are different understandings regarding the terms of the contract and the performance of the duties, you should explain specifically what the differences are. If it is a matter of payment, you can provide documentation. If it is a matter of unpaid fees, you must provide the amount and the payment schedule. Ignoring the communication is not a justification for either of these explanations.

Although we can issue instructions for the implementation of the project, there is no explanation regarding the payment to the people who supported the project. This imbalance is what this declaration is pointing out. The union will not overlook the situation where only those who cooperated bear the burden after receiving the results.

We need to cross-reference the reports of fraud and embezzlement in Cambodia with this directive and the management of funds.

Regarding Mr. Nakano, the report on fraud and embezzlement in Cambodia is preserved by the Last Mile Labour Union within the same “Minna Union” in an article dated May 18, 2026.

The article introduces local news reports on a scam and theft involving approximately 4.6 million US dollars, and records that as a result of inquiries made by the Last Mile Labor Union to local investigative agencies, it was later informed that the case was “under investigation within Cambodia.” The information received by the union this time includes information that a criminal complaint has been filed in Cambodia for fraud charges.

The mere fact that there is reporting or a complaint about another matter abroad does not prove the criminal offense of this payment issue. However, since Nakano is listed as the actual instigator in this declaration, it is no less information that should be discarded as irrelevant when reviewing the explanations provided at the time of the contract and the manner in which the funds were managed.

What the union wants is not a judgment based on the impression of the person, but a comparison of specific actions and records. It is necessary to verify based on the records whether the person was instructed to participate in the business by what, whether they had the intention or the plan to pay, and who controlled the funds after the deposit. It is also necessary to verify whether there are any instructions or financial transfers common to domestic and international cases.

If Nakano was instructing from abroad, it is also important to know who was receiving and executing those instructions domestically, and who was responsible for reflecting them in accounting and payments. Even just a description from a person abroad or a description from a domestic official will not reveal the true state of the business as a whole.

Will it end with the "payment issue"? We will examine the explanations given at the time of signing the contract and the handling of funds after payment.

While the union is seeking payment as a contractual default, it will also examine whether there are any criminal issues behind it. To do this, instead of jumping to conclusions based on the outcome of the non-payment, it is necessary to review the details from the time the cooperation was arranged until the payment was made.

Did they pretend to have the intention to pay and not take out any service or cost burden?

The fraud offense under Article 246 of the Criminal Code covers not only receiving property through fraudulent acts, but also obtaining unlawful economic benefits. Article 2(2) of the same article provides as follows:

Any person who gains an unjust profit from property by the methods described in the previous paragraph, or causes another person to do so, shall be deemed to be the same as the person described in that paragraph.

What needs to be confirmed this time is whether, when seeking cooperation from outsourced parties or seconded personnel, they did not pretend to be willing to pay despite not having the intention to do so, thereby extracting services and incurring costs. It is necessary to clarify how each party explained the situation, what the other party believed, and who benefited as a result.

In addition to post-deposit handling, it is important to verify not only the explanations given at the time of signing the contract, but also the initial payment plan, communication between the parties, and the actual execution of the work. To determine whether there was a false explanation regarding the payment intention or whether the failure occurred due to another reason, it is not a problem that the parties do not need to explain it themselves.

Who, with what authority, and to where did the funds that entered the entity go?

Another area of concern is the handling of funds after deposits. If a person who is responsible for the management of funds belonging to a legal entity has illegally obtained such funds, the offense of embezzlement in Article 253 of the Criminal Code becomes a problem. Additionally, if a person who handles administrative matters for the benefit of the legal entity acts in a manner that goes against the mission to seek personal or third-party benefits or causes harm to the legal entity, the offense of breach of duty in Article 247 of the Criminal Code becomes a consideration.

In addition to the fact that the transaction partner failed to pay the bill, we are also looking into whether there were any fraudulent actions by those in charge of managing corporate funds. We need to determine which companies received the funds, who managed the accounts, who decided on transfers, and under what names and with what basis the expenditures were made. We need to reconcile the accounting records with the actual transfer of funds.

Newseiho Medical Corporation and Shinashi Medical Service Co., Ltd. may each be liable for payment obligations according to their respective contracts. On the other hand, if the financial resources of a corporation are misappropriated by an individual, the corporation itself may be the victim. Instead of grouping the corporation and the individual together, it is necessary to identify who the property belongs to and how the property was damaged by someone’s actions.

Furthermore, the appropriateness of receiving the grant itself is a separate issue that must be examined in light of the requirements of the targeted scheme and the application itself. The focus here is on the explanation provided when seeking cooperation with the project and the failure to fulfill the agreed payment, as well as the actual management and disposal of funds after the payment was made.

Is there a "Tocryu"-like structure? We ask about the actual roles of the director, executor, and financial manager.

The union would like to request confirmation regarding the existence of so-called "Tocruy" directives, roles, and financial transfers, from medical institutions and related parties, in the light of the possibility that they are not being used for systematic fundraising and spending.

"Tokryu" is a term that refers to "anonymous and fluid criminal groups."Explanation from the Police Headquarters Anti-Anonymous and Transnational Crime Group OfficeTherefore, it is characterized by the fact that the core elements that siphon off criminal proceeds are anonymous. Just because a business is run by multiple people or because instructions came from abroad does not mean that a business falls into this category.

That’s why it’s necessary to verify the actual situation rather than immediately assigning a name. Was the nominal signatory the same as the actual person directing the work? What was shared between the auxiliary worker and the person managing the funds? Ultimately, who gained the final profit? By dividing roles, we can see how difficult it was to determine who was directing the work and who was receiving the funds.

Article 60 of the Penal Code stipulates the following regarding common accomplices:

Any person who commits a crime in collaboration with more than two others is considered a principal offender.

If there was a consensus on the commission of the crime and a division of roles, then even if everyone did not perform the same tasks, the responsibility as a co-perpetrator would become an issue. On the other hand, just being in the same workplace or performing the instructed auxiliary tasks does not determine recognition of the crime or the involvement in it.

The union seeks to organize how members were actually instructed, what they knew, and what work they performed. It also asks what Nakano, Hoshizaki, and Tanaka understood about the business and its payments, and what decisions they made. It does not end with just naming the people who took action; it demands that the names of those who did the work be confirmed all the way to the center of the instructions, approval, and financial management.

Public questions to the two corporations by Lord Nakano Keishi, Ms. Hoshizaka Mikiko, and Mr. Tanaka Shigeru

The Inazaki Hospital Union requests the New Shosei Medical Foundation, Inazaki Medical Service Co., Ltd., and related parties to provide specific answers regarding the following matters: If there are facts that differ from the members' reports, please clarify the details and the basis for them.

1. Sir Kenichi Nakano ordered union members from Cambodia to provide general support for labor matters and perform auxiliary work related to the grant projects of both organizations. Please explain in what capacity and based on what authority the instructions were given, along with the business policies and decision-making authority regarding payments.
2. For outsourced and seconded personnel, please disclose who, in the name of which legal entity, and what payments were promised. For each contract, please clearly state the debtor, the amount, the payment terms, the payment due date, and the status of the work being performed.
3. What is the name of the grant program in question, the receiving entity, the amount awarded, the date of payment, and who is responsible for confirming the payment? Please indicate the person responsible for managing the funds after payment and the person approving the expenditure.
4. Ms. Mikio Yasaka, when did you find out about the scheduled payment and the grant payment? Who gave you instructions regarding the payment procedure, and to whom did you report, and what actions were taken?
5. What did Mr. Tanaka Shigeru approve of and how did he become involved regarding the contracts for the business, the expenses after the payment was received, and the situation where the payment was not fulfilled? Please explain the process of information sharing and decision-making with Mr. Nakano and Mr. Hoshizaki.
6. How are funds received after deposit currently being held or spent? If there is a transfer to another entity or individual, please explain the purpose, contractual basis, approvers, and accounting procedures.
7. How do you respond to a report that payment requests have been ignored? Please provide the decision-maker and the reasons for the decision, and the payment schedule if there is any outstanding balance.
8. Do you maintain records of relevant contracts, business instructions, deposits and withdrawals, accounting procedures, and communications regarding payments, and cooperate with independent fact-finding to verify the facts? Please identify the person responsible for determining the investigation and resolution.

What is needed is not the transfer of responsibility through explanations such as "I left it to the person in charge" or "I don't know the details." Instead, the person who gave the instructions, the person who approved it, and the person who managed the funds should provide records of their respective actions and explain them as a single sequence of events.

We will consider filing a criminal complaint and a damage report, and we will also demand the agreed-upon payment.

The union will coordinate with the affected parties to investigate the actions of the medical corporation Shinsei Kai, the limited liability company Maruichi Medical Service, and others regarding the incident. It will consider filing criminal charges or submitting a damage report. For corporations, it will identify the applicable legal responsibilities, for individuals, it will outline specific instructions, actions, and involvement in financial management, and will seek investigation and identify the facts.

Regarding the filing of a complaint, we proceed by confirming the position and intent of the parties with the right to file a complaint, such as those directly affected by the crime, and other parties. If we decide to file a complaint on our own behalf, we will consider including the method of filing a complaint. We will inform you of the status of the consideration of the submission at the stage of consideration and the actual submission, receipt, and investigation.

What should be confirmed and saved is a record that can reveal how this project began, who gave the orders, and who gained profit. We ask those involved to properly preserve at least the following materials:

• Records that provide an explanation of the outsourcing and secondment-related contract terms, order details, payment conditions, and the process leading to the agreement.
• Records that show the details of the work instructions given by Nakano et al., the communication between the responsible parties, the approval and decision-making processes, and the actual work performed.
• Materials on applying for and receiving subsidies, as well as records showing the payment to the receiving entity, the expenses incurred after the payment, and the transfers made.
• Accounting records that allow you to see the status of posting of unpaid funds, payment processing, and the use and approval of funds.
• Records showing the contact for payment requests, the response, and the history of discussions regarding payment policies among the parties involved.

The union would like to request the investigative authorities to examine not only the unpaid invoices but also the entire chain of events, including the explanations provided at the time of the contract, the provision of services, the payment of subsidies, and subsequent communication regarding the funds and follow-up arrangements. We will then compile the facts and, if necessary, work with lawyers to consider the guilt or innocence of the crime and the responsibility for it.

At the same time, regarding contractual payment obligations, we demand a resolution based on each contract and performance records, without waiting for criminal judgments. The external contractor fees, travel-related expenses, and unpaid wages of members themselves must be properly accounted for by the rights holders. Our union will work on the labor issues of our members while also sharing information with parties that cooperated with the business to achieve actual recovery of damages.

Companies that are liable to make payments are required to fulfill the agreed-upon payments. Mr. Nakano, Mr. Hoshizaki, and Mr. Tanaka are required to explain the reasons why those payments have not been made and their own involvement in the matter. Consideration of criminal liability and the fulfillment of payment obligations are issues that should be pursued based on their respective grounds.

We must not leave the burden on those who worked and those who cooperated with the results of the business alone.

This complaint not only concerns the unpaid wages of the union members themselves, but also issues with payments to subcontractors and seconded employees who collaborated on the same project. Instead of treating it as a problem for a single employee, we need to look at the entire system that moves people, contracts are signed, funds are received, and payments are managed.

We must not confuse the work of the staff on the front lines who support healthcare and care services, the people who collaborated on the projects, and the people who made management and administrative decisions. If the business has progressed thanks to the efforts of the front lines, we should take responsibility not only for the results but also for the promised payments and the treatment of the workers.

We require Mr. Nakano, Ms. Hoshizaki, Mr. Tanaka, and New Shousai Medical Foundation, Inc., as well as Intermedical Services Co., Ltd., to provide the following information: explain the promised payment, and fulfill what should be fulfilled; and disclose who is driving the business, who manages the funds received, and what they were used for.

The person responsible for running the business will disappear when the payment is requested; you cannot solve the problem in that state.