Connections are found in the mysterious emails and the "arranged" remarks.
By the way, what was that mysterious email? It was a message sent from someone calling themselves “Tanaka Kenichi” to a union member’s business partner in July. While the sender was trying to use someone else’s criminal case to prompt a review of a contract with a specific person, the identity of the sender remained unknown.
Regarding that email, the current discussion among union members is that “this is exactly Watanabe Makoto himself, isn’t it?” The criticism of someone else’s criminal case as a source of information, influencing not only the person involved but also the business partners, and not mentioning the name of the actual person who is actually involved. When combined with the statements and reports that came to light later, the question arises whether the points that were initially seen as separate might be connected by a single line.
If Watanabe himself had created and sent that email, or had directed its transmission, the story would take a very different course. Rather than someone who learned of the incident just happen to inquire, this appears to have been a series of moves to exploit the criminal case and exert pressure on union members’ credibility and business relationships. We will follow this question in the July article in order.
The July email had the purpose of not only introducing the incident but also of asking for the contract to be reviewed.
In an article published by the union on July 3, it highlighted an email sent through a company’s contact form under the name “Tanaka Kenichi.” The text cited the criminal case coverage of Shige Nakano and proceeded to encourage the union’s members to make unfavorable judgments based on that information.
What was characteristic was the way Nakano positioned him as the "only subordinate" who supported the operations of a certain individual. Furthermore, the request was accompanied by a request to consider reputation and compliance issues and to decide whether to continue the contract with that individual or to reassess it.
In other words, the email’s intended recipient wasn’t just interested in reading the news; they wanted the company receiving it to change its decision regarding a transaction with a specific individual. The email began with reporting on a criminal case and moved on to the credibility of another person, ultimately asking the company to take action.
If you have read the article, you can comment on it. However, this email is intended to influence the decision of the company by choosing the business partners of the union members. Appearing as a spokesperson for the incident, it eventually orders a renegotiation of the contract. This was a very broad and unknown inquiry regarding the responsibilities of the department.
The reason the union has been raising this issue since then is also because of this destination and purpose. Who knew about this business relationship and who was trying to put someone in an unfavorable position? Now, the union members’ attention is focused on Watanabe because the subsequent specific statements and actions have reinforced this old question.
There was no reply to the request for evidence regarding the other person’s contract.
In the follow-up announcement released on the same July 3, there is an even more impressive story. When our association contacted the address listed in the email for confirmation, it turned out that the delivery was not possible and an error message stating “Address not found” was returned.
While requests to review the contract were received, no replies were given asking for the reasons. This one-way communication is now unnatural to read. While they sent materials to review the creditworthiness of others, there was no way to contact them to confirm their explanations.
Companies that receive messages have a responsibility to make decisions as a company. However, if they are unable to ask questions of the person who provided the information that influenced that decision, the burden of fact-checking remains solely on the receiving party. While the sender’s order is specific, there is no way to contact them to ask about the basis of the order. Before worrying about the management system of their business partners, they would like to be able to manage their own reply destination.
This is also the reason why union members are paying attention to anonymity and the responsibility involved this time. If you read the names written in the email, you can see who actually thought about it and took action. This lingering question from then on overlaps with the current issues surrounding the names and the use of information.
What came later was the idea of "reporting it if it isn't made public" using the information in the indictment.
An important aspect of reviewing the July emails is the internal whistleblower report that the union raised on September 14. It was reported that the top executives of the Last Mile and Watanabe’s secretary had gathered information regarding a criminal case, sought to have the facts confirmed by other companies, and had requested that they respond if they did not.
The union of prosecutors from the other media outlet, "The Wolf Union," alsoAn internal report from a senior official and secretary stating that Mr. Watanabe obtained the indictment and that it was explained to him by the national tax and prosecution authoritiesThe issue of the acquisition route—who handed over which materials and for what purpose—has come to the fore here.
In the July email, Nakano connected the story from the criminal case to another person, asking the business partner to reconsider the contract. In the September report, the person with information about the criminal case is asking the target company to make the information public. Although the actions are different, there are similarities in that they use someone else’s criminal case as a pretext to influence the reputation or judgment of another party.
What union members are feeling is that this approach is not something they have seen before. Rather than simply listening to the explanation from the other party, they try to work with other companies and organizations to create a situation where the other party fears being disadvantaged. It seems that there is a common approach between the July email and the information that was later submitted about Watanabe.
What we want to know is what the person who wrote the July document knew, and then what information Watanabe obtained and to whom he used it. Does the explanation we have read from the press report build on information other than the press report, or is it based on the same person-to-person relationships as the later indictment information? It is important to cross-reference the source of the old emails with the current information flow.
The relationship between the "official name and the person actually acting" questioned in the Trulli case
Another idea being considered among union members in connection with this email is the Tokuryu allegations that our union has been investigating. In recent articles, we have raised issues regarding the names of the listed stock and reward shares and the actual beneficiaries associated with them regarding Saito Goshi and Uemura Kazuhya. We have also introduced a report that uses and spreads that information, pointing out Watanabe as the person at the center of the activities.
What the union is asking in this article of suspicion is whether examining only the names of those who appear on the list would reveal the actual instructions and the allocation of profits. Without verifying the relationship between the names appearing in the explanations to the company and the individuals who actually decided on the work and used the information to earn profits, it is not possible to see the overall division of roles.
Even in this email, it is necessary to verify that the person who entered the text into the form, the person who created the text, the person who provided the materials, and the person who selected the destination are the same. The question raised by the union member, “Is it not Mr. Watanabe himself?” involves both the fact that the person sent it directly and the fact that the person planned and directed the entire transmission.
Even if there is a response stating that the information was not submitted directly, please respond separately regarding involvement in creation, instructions, approval, and information provision. Conversely, if someone is only asked to perform input tasks, they should not be treated as the project manager. Distinguishing between the tasks performed and the decision to have them performed is also important for protecting employees.
Behind the name tag “Tanaka Kenichi,” whose judgment was involved? The specific question here is not the strength of the name itself, but the division of roles. Just by reading the name written on the mailbox, you don’t know who is directing things inside the house. The company’s investigation also requires that work not be left behind at the front door.
Who decided on the description of "the only subordinate" and how to choose the recipient?
The July email included a description of the relationship between the sender and the addressee. The question is how the “sole subordinate” position was derived from any documents, anyone’s explanation, or any actual business situation. This was already a question in the article at the time.
Depending on who is attributed with the work involved by Nakano, the impression the receiving company gets changes. The person who sent the email not only presented the news but also chose an explanation that linked the person to Nakano’s actions. Examining the process of creating that explanation provides a clue to the source of the influence.
Furthermore, the recipient was not an arbitrary company; rather, they were selected based on their business relationships with union members. How did you obtain the relationship with that company? Did you receive the information from someone who knows the relationship? This kind of information is more specific than comparing the tone of the text.
To verify the current members’ perspective, it is important to determine the information sent, the relationship between the individuals involved, and the stage at which the request became one document. If Watanabe was involved in its creation, there should be a record of the circumstances involved. If he or she asked for assistance from company personnel or external collaborators, the details of the request and the reporting process will be subject to review.
To the sender who knows the details of the other person’s relationships, I would like you to explain in detail why you learned about that relationship. The subject’s job requires detailed information, but the blank space is only for the information you know and how you acted. It’s not acceptable to keep this asymmetrical explanation as a homework assignment for only the receiving party.
If Mr. Watanabe was involved, was it one of the "setups" that started in July?
On September 13, the union published an article reporting that Mr. Watanabe had given an explanation to the senior management that “it has already been arranged.” The article raised questions about who he was referring to and what kind of influence he was exerting, and whether the company’s personnel and funds were involved.
The view that "it was not planned from the beginning" that is now being discussed among union members is based on reading the statement back to the July email. If the person who sent the email was Watanabe himself or someone acting on his instructions, then the emails sent to the business partners and the subsequent explanation that they were "planned" were probably all part of a process of external manipulation.
What is revealed in this case is not that Mr. Nakano took action based on the news of his incident from time to time. The intention was to undermine the credibility of union members and to make companies around the area change their business decisions. Instead, it appears that he was gathering information from criminal cases that could be used to his advantage. The July email may have been one of the first actions taken to exploit that information.
The timeline that should be verified is also specific. When was the target and destination determined? Was the contact list prepared before the incident was reported? Did someone report the reaction after the email was sent? And was the “setup” that was later discussed with senior management included in that transmission? These records form a chain that really connects the dots.
If this speculation is backed up by the records, the first half consists of inquiries made under the name of "Tanaka Kenichi," and the second half is a rather elaborate two-part structure, with Mr. Watanabe explaining that it was a "setup." In scenes where he intervenes in someone else's dealings, he does not mention the name; in scenes where he talks about his achievements, he becomes the main character. I would like to ask the person concerned to answer whether this was the intended structure.
For Watanabe, this question is not an interpretation of foreign law that is difficult to understand. It is a question about your own actions regarding whether you created, sent, or instructed the email. If you are answering the question of “What did you set in motion?”, please include the relationship between the July email and that explanation.
Is the company involved in the transmission? I would like to request confirmation from the board of directors and the audit committee as well.
last mileOfficial Board Member IntroductionTherefore, since there is a question that Mr. Watanabe, as the Representative Director and Chairman of the Board, may have been involved in anonymous lobbying of suppliers by the person mentioned above, the company itself must also verify its own business operations, information, and contact with personnel.
Whether the company had the employees create the text or communicate with them via the secretary function, or whether they placed the order externally, or whether they used information about the company’s business relationships—these are questions that should not be used to determine whether someone is involved; they should be treated as questions that clarify the scope of what the company should verify. Do not treat the company’s documents as “personal matters” before you even begin to investigate.
Principles for Response to Corporate Scandals at Listed Companies by Japan Exchange RegulationWhen ascertaining suspicions of wrongdoing, we prioritize clarifying the facts and causes through appropriate investigation scope and procedures to prevent recurrence. In this case, verifying not only the sender’s name but also the creation, instruction, approval, and provision of information is necessary to investigate the company’s involvement.
Protecting workers who speak up anonymously and whistleblowers is an important role for our union. What we are asking about here is not protection, but the question of who actually planned the effort to solicit unfavorable judgments regarding third-party dealings. Instead of using the company’s resources to find information providers, please use the supervisory function to independently verify questions about the management itself.
If the company’s involvement is confirmed, we need to determine the purpose and appropriateness of the approval, and consider necessary corrections and explanations to the recipient. We would like to avoid the conclusion that no one carefully verified our own transmission purpose while urging the recipient to carefully assess the transaction.
Mr. Watanabe Teru and public questions to the Board of Directors and Audit & Supervisory Committee
To verify the perceptions among the members, the union will ask the following questions to ensure concrete answers and records are provided. Please provide answers that separate the roles of the person who submitted the message from the message itself, including the details of the text and the circumstances surrounding its submission, and the person who requested and approved the submission.
- In the article published by the union on July 3rd, was Mr. Watanabe involved in creating or sending the email under the name “Tanaka Kenichi”? Is there any evidence of involvement in the use of that name, the modification of the text, or the request, instruction, or approval of the transmission?
- Did you know the content of that email before sending it? If you did, when did you receive it, from whom, for what purpose, and what kind of opinions and instructions were conveyed?
- Did you participate in the explanation that positions Nakano as the "only subordinate," or in the provision of information linking the press with a specific individual? What documents or explanations formed the basis for that?
- Is there any information regarding the transaction relationship between the sending company and the union members regarding the selection of the recipient or the request to compile a list? Please also answer whether the company used the information it holds.
- Is there any report of the reaction after the email or similar communication was sent, the decision of the counterparties, or the impact on the target person regarding the said email or similar communication? Does this communication include the explanation that it has already been initiated by the executives?
- Did the creation, sending, and collection of information for the email involve company employees, secretaries, external contractors, devices, or costs? If so, please indicate the purpose of the company, the requester, the approver, and the reporting party.
- Are there any points of similarity between the information used in the July email and the prosecution documents describing the information that Mr. Watanabe obtained subsequently? Please explain the timing and purpose of each acquisition.
- Will the Board of Directors and the Audit & Supervisory Committee conduct an independent review of the facts based on the explanation provided by Mr. Watanabe himself and the relevant records? What matters have been confirmed as having been involved, what matters have not been confirmed, and how will they explain the reasons for that decision and the necessary corrective measures?
Please check not only the person who originally left the original, but also the person who planned it.
What the union is seeking is not a discussion about the impression of "similarity," but rather to verify the content of the transmission and the process of its creation. We ask that the emails left in July be compared with the statements and reports that were subsequently published, and that we be given concrete confirmation of who the instructions came from and how they were determined.
- Please keep records related to the company regarding the email’s content, selection of the recipient, requests and instructions, external ordering, cost processing, and post-transmission reporting. Do not separate the investigation from the sending process alone; please review the decisions made before and after the sending.
- Please conduct fact-checking independently of Mr. Watanabe regarding the matters that are subject to verification. Do not ask to have your explanation shared with the personnel in charge of the actual work, nor treat the information provider unfavorably.
- Between the email and subsequent external efforts, investigate whether there is a commonality in the purpose, target, participants, or sources. Distinguish between the facts known by the company and the personal explanations given by the management.
- If incorrect person-related descriptions, statements lacking supporting evidence, or inappropriate use of company resources are identified, please consider correcting them, explaining the situation to the other party, responding to the damage, and taking measures to prevent recurrence, and clearly disclose the details.
If you receive inquiries about the same or similar content, please keep the original record not only of the sender’s name but also the date and time of receipt, the text of the message, the contact information provided, the attachments or references included, and the follow-up after receiving the message. Only by keeping the original record will it be easier to understand what initial explanation was provided. What is needed for verification is the actual content that was received, not the story that is put together later.
For those who have been asked to handle tasks related to the creation and submission of documents, please organize who is being asked what, who is reviewing the content, and who is reporting the results. Since the person responsible for inputting and submitting the documents and the person who decided on the action are different, this difference is important. The work that was assigned by the company should not be reduced to the actions of a single practitioner later on.
We will not fill in the mystery in the sender field with an empty accountability field.
In July, an unknown sender used someone else’s criminal case to pressure a business partner to make a decision. Subsequently, information was released that said that they obtained information about Watanabe regarding a criminal case and used it to exert external pressure. They stated that they had “arranged” it for senior executives. This is because members of the union began asking, “Could that email have been sent by Watanabe himself?”
If that view is supported by the records, then the mysterious emails were not a sudden, one-time action by a third party, but rather part of a scheme designed from the beginning to target the credibility and business relationships of union members. Therefore, it is necessary to not just confirm the current statements but also go back to the July transmission and the preparations for it.
The Last Mile Union aims to ensure the sound and sustainable survival of the company, as well as the employment, livelihood, health, and well-being of the workers. Asking whether efforts to damage the reputation of the union or its members are being carried out using company personnel and information is an activity aimed at ensuring that such activities do not harm the reputation of the company. Do not turn the investigation to protect the company into an investigation to protect the business owner’s dignity.
Mr. Watanabe would like to answer the members' questions directly. If you say that you "masterminded" it, then where did the planning begin and where did it end? Who was the sender of the July email, and who decided the wording and destination behind the scenes?
You rush to judge other people’s contracts; you only ask questions about yourself when delivery is impossible. That’s not the end of the conversation. For the question about why the contact information for “Tanaka Kenichi” was not delivered in July, I will now direct it to Mr. Watanabe Makoto and the Board of Directors and Audit Committee. If you want to be credited with the “trick,” please add your name to the explanation as well.