Before discussing who is mentioned in someone else\u2019s indictment, please explain why we refrained from mentioning the names of Saito Goshi and Uedofuji Kazuhya in our own stock and compensation matters. The Last Mile Labor Union has received information that links the relationship between Saito Goshi and Uedofuji Kazuhya to the distribution of stock profits, internal information within the Tokyo Stock Exchange, and the use of funds overseas, rather than the traditional issues of business and compensation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This report points out that, because Mr. Oe no longer publicly acknowledges his involvement, the final mile stock was handed over to Mr. Saito, and a system was established in which they secretly shared economic benefits with Mr. Oe. Furthermore, the report includes the details that the sale proceeds were sent to Cambodia through Watanabe Makoto and Nakano Kyosuke, and that the funds were used to build an organization of telephone scammers, the so-called \"middleman\" group, led by Mr. Watanabe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The complaint points out that the person who extracted the inside information from Saito and actively used and spread it was Watanabe, who also had experience working at the Tokyo Stock Exchange. The complaint also points out that the person who came forward as a shareholder, the expert who actually benefits from the information, the person who collects the information, and the person who uses it, and the person who uses the funds abroad are all part of this role sharing. The Association will take this role allocation as a series of Torikyu allegations head-on and demand answers from the parties and the company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What is important about this information is not simply that Saito had the shares for the last mile. It is that, because Oeido did not make the connection between receiving the profit and being the nominal owner or recipient of the shares, Saito was nominally the owner and the recipient, and they shared the profits internally. The difference between the nominal ownership of the shares and who was paid for the work is who ultimately received the profit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If the profit described as Saito\u2019s share actually included the portion that was handed over to Uejo, when and to whom was that promise made, and in what capacity of work? Was it the distribution of the shares themselves, the distribution of profits after the sale, or a combination of monetary compensation? The parties need to be made aware of the actual actions taken.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The purpose of \u201cpreventing exposure\u201d pointed out in the whistleblower report cannot be overlooked from the perspective of accounting and listing review as well. It was not an administrative convenience for choosing the form of the transaction, but rather a purpose to ensure that those involved in the actual transaction are not revealed. It is crucial to determine who should not be revealed, what should be explained to the company and the place of employment, and what should be omitted from the explanation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As professionals, it should be common knowledge what needs to be explained when the nominal value and the real value differ. If the client\u2019s transactions emphasize the real value and they want their fee to be based on the nominal value alone, then it\u2019s not like they are using the same accounting principles. Don\u2019t make it look like you are just using the same accounting guidelines; don\u2019t make the notation disappear just for the sake of your own benefit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The union has already reported that Saito has involved the former EY New Japan employee, Udo, in last-mile operations without explicitly informing the company. In this case, the union has requested an investigation and answers, citing information that Saito was not receiving compensation directly from the company but was instead distributing it from the compensation he received.<\/p>\n\n\n