False accusation nation

 Hostage justice is a partial phenomenon

In Japan's history, although human rights ideas have been formally given from the top, citizens have never claimed human rights on their own.
Because, literally, he has never received human rights education.
In fact, little changed because the monarchy constitution, the Meiji Constitution, formally replaced the Japanese sovereign constitution.
In particular, judicial power is not surprising, since its bureaucracy, or official, has not changed at all.

This is a major cause of the history of false accusations in Japan, which has continued from the postwar period to the present.
The people have been believed in myths, which are completely unfounded, to say that if the constitution is easily replaced, the rights and consciousness of the people and the legal spirit of civil servants will change together.
The media and press reporters have bought both roles.
Prior to the war, he played an explicit role as a government purveyor, but the essence remained unchanged after the war.
It is only natural that neither government organizations nor the press have been replaced by humans.
However, Japan has made a leap forward in post-war reconstruction, especially in the field of economic science, heading for developed countries.
It is also true that this rise to mass consumption civilization has given the people the illusion that their spiritual lives are improving and leveling up in parallel.

The inconvenient truth has always been concealed by the government, and has always been buried in the dark in the form of passive media and scholarly intellectual cooperation.
It was not born yesterday, such as hostage justice.
It has existed in Japan since ancient times.
It is openly present in this democratic era of Reiwa.
It has been 100 years since the constitution was transformed into a democratic constitution, and the feudal politics of criminal justice ignoring human rights is still alive.
It is clear how the public has been informed and how the media and academia are not performing their original functions.

In the history of false accusations, there have been no examples of failure at the stage of hostage justice.
The Ghosn case is the first failure of hostage justice.
As a result, the structure of the false accusations in Japan was exposed to the daylight, even to the bones.
Even in this period, the Japanese media did not recognize that the essence of the Ghosn case was a false accusation, an example of a failure during the hostage justice stage of the process.

Most foreign reporters can anticipate future developments.
Only Japanese reporters cannot predict where the trial will be.
The proof is that the prosecution leak information, which was dripping like a storm, has dried up like a river with dead water sources.
Such an idiot. The incident is about to begin with the Ghosn counterattack.

Japanese newspaper reporters do not have the intellectual ability to judge the content and direction of a trial.
Despite being a criminal reporter, he doesn't do the basics of criminal trials at all.
There is a situation in which this has been arrested by a prosecutor and drooling leak information of all-you-can-eat, and reporting it as it is.

Why is the prosecution silenced now without shedding Ghosn's disadvantageous information?
I hope Japanese journalists at least have such questions.
Why doesn't the trial proceed?
Did any expert explain?
Yame-ken(procecutor-ritired lawyer) and TV lawyers irresponsibly, they are spilling fakenews information such as "Gone's trial will not be held in the future."
The appearance of the Japanese media, together with the prosecutors, deciding on a "malicious silence" is probably a strange sight to the world press.

Editorial(False accusation theory)

 The judge is responsible for the false accusations

Since it is the judge who ultimately decides the defendant's innocence, it is only natural that the judge is liable for false charges.
However, in Japan, I have never heard of a judge taking any responsibilities, even if a judge repeatedly repeated false charges.
The problem is that the democratic society is educated so that the people do not think it is unusual or "unusual".
Japanese people get angry that anti-Japanese education is being conducted in neighboring countries in Asia.
First of all, the Japanese should reflect on the fact that "public employee pampering education" is being conducted in the Japanese society.
Because false accusations actually inflict innocent people.

False accusation is a crime by a lawyer

False accusations are caused by a trial, which is a procedure that only a lawyer can participate in and operate, so the main culprit is the judge, and both the prosecutor and the lawyer are accomplices.
In many past false accusations, national counsel did not defend themselves from innocence, but mostly ended with only guilty pleadings.What does this say without complicity?
The root cause is the responsibility of all lawyers who have made trials a secret behind the temple.
This is because the esotericity of the text of the law is a source of authority.
People need to know that the shallow depth of lawyers is one of the fundamental reasons for false charges.

Editorial( Announcement of main office and leak information of prosecutors)

Big head office announcement

During the Pacific War, the headquarters distributed false information to the people only to inspire the people's will to fight.The publicity spreaders were the press and reporters.After the war, intellectuals all criticized the main office, but did not hear any self-criticism or remorse about the media that helped.
The Ghosn case was reported in the same way that the report was taken by the reporter, with the head office replaced by prosecutors.
The media is repeating the history of making the same mistake again

Prosecution leak information

In the Ghosn case, Ghosn had already been dyed as a black guilty by prosecutor leaks before the publication of accurate, evidence-based information in the trial.
There is no guarantee that prosecution leak information is true.
Up to this point, it is exactly the same as before the war, when the headquarters announced a false war situation.
If there is any inconvenient truth for the public prosecutor Ghosn's freedom and announces from abroad, that means that the people have been danced to the announcement of the headquarters in Heisei/Reiwa.

 

Summary of facts (5)

 The meaning of the 10 billion yen lawsuit

I'm sorry for Nissan's shareholders, but I heard this news and bursted
into laughter.
Ghosn claims that Nissan will go bankrupt within two years.
In fact, stock prices have been on a long-term decline since the coup.This is a clear warning signal when Toyota is on the rise and Honda is flat.
The public will not be convinced of the lawsuit of 10 billion yen, but the important thing is not to secure 10 billion yen in receivables, etc. Is a lawsuit seeking responsibility.
Even in the case of a public breach, the prosecution and the courts are trying to avoid it, and it is obvious how stupid that another riot police sought responsibility for the breach.

Neither the media nor the public know that this legal riot police is the backdrop of the Ghosn case.
With the emergence and rush of this unit, Nissan has launched a number of litigation cases worldwide that do not seem like commercial companies.
For-profit companies usually calculate a company's reputation and avoid litigation.
In particular, we do not pursue liability suits because we cannot expect them to be cost-effective.

The fact that it is truly ridiculous as a corporate act means that this case will take five to ten years to conclude, during which time it is highly possible that Nissan itself will disappear and disappear.
In other words, the initial payment of 300 million yen per person for the attorney lawyer and 1.5 billion yen per person for five lawyers.
After that, even if the annual expenses are spent, the lawsuit has no chance of winning.
If such high-risk investments are made by company executives, the company will just go bankrupt.

The lawsuits for damages against officers in corporate lawsuits are very difficult .

It is based on the approval of the Board of Directors, and unless the owner is a well-managed entrepreneur, the damages to the company can be regarded as the responsibility of one representative director.
Because it is difficult.
The lawyer who undertakes the lawsuit can even affirm that he or she does not know the Companies Act.

Summary of facts (4)

 Failure of hostage justice

Prosecutors who have failed to obtain a mandatory confession no longer have strong evidence.

Hostage justice is, in other words, a confession-centered trial.
The prosecution failed to do so and has no evidence to convict Ghosn, so the outcome of the trial is visible.
What is not visible is the Japanese media and the people who have been guided by it.
The prosecutor's and judge's approach here is to make the trial as long as possible.

The signs are already appearing.
Even though they have been arrested for a year and three months, even the first trial date has not been specified.
Surprisingly, the reason why the deadline has been delayed is that prosecutors refused to disclose, and resisted, judicial bargaining in pretrial arrangements, which should have been a system for speedy and efficient hearings. Is tolerated by the court.
Prosecutors openly disregard even if they are in their own interests, even in the case of pre-arrangement procedures prescribed by law for the purpose of expeditious trial.

Abuse of escape cases

If a lawyer has been appointed, the trial proceedings must begin even if the defendant is not available.

Ghosn escaped while the court was delaying the date.
Just because a lawyer has been appointed, the accused has been unable to appear in court.
The Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that even in this case, a trial procedure can be performed (Article 286-2 of the Act).
Nevertheless, the court has taken meaningless court proceedings.
Apparently, Ghosn's trial is likely to be suspended or dismissed.
That would be a complete violation of the Constitution and a criminal procedure law.

Operation Smokescreen

Prosecutors guided the public's attention to the immediate case.

Prosecutors have arrested ineffective ICPO arrangements and have fallen themselves into self-trapped ant hell.
The ICPO arrangements are based on the principles of Member States' egalitarianism and the World Parliament, and they do not know that prosecutors will be painful and frustrating if used in domestic poses or smokescreen operations.
First of all, it is required to agree the venue of the beneficiary within 40 days.
If the recipient is not Japanese, this is a natural procedure, and it is clear that failure will occur here.
Second, the arranger will receive a request for cancellation of international arrangements.
If you are seriously considering punishment for a crime, there is no reason to stay on the venue, so rejection of the agreement is judged to be dishonest.

Summary of facts (3)

 Plea bargaining doctrine

Impossible complicity. Suspicion of self-proclaimed complicity.

Japan's Judicial Trade Law is a legal system that reveals the essential flaws of Japanese criminal justice, which has been criticized as prosecutor justice.
There is no sufficient logical examination, and the prosecution is a system for prosecution.

The timing of the agreement is crucial.

In an accomplice case, after prosecution, there is a judge's eye and a lawyer's eye, so there is no problem if one of the accomplices becomes a disadvantage testimony of another accomplice, that is, an enemy witness .
Prosecutors have no hesitation in disclosing the process of forming a cooperative agreement.
In this case, the cooperator is called the defendant.
The problem is a plea bargain at the investigation stage before prosecution.
It is a world of darkness because it is a world without the eyes of a judge or a lawyer.
If it is a general abstraction theory, the discussion will be complicated.

Alleged plea bargain

The first point of contact between prosecutor and co-accomplice is suspicion itself

How did the two self-proclaimed accomplices, Hari Nada, Managing Director and Toshiaki Onuma, interact with the prosecution?
First, as a logical premise, two self-described accomplices must be aware of being accomplices.
However, if they are aware that they are accomplices, they deny themselves that they are accomplices.
Conceal the facts as evidence and deny being the culprit.
Why did you conceal and not deny?
This is the biggest contradiction.
Was the crime of four people so obvious?

Here you come across a serious contradiction. If the crime is obvious, why have the internal auditors, as well as the external auditors, the external audit firm, and the SEC overlooked for eight years?

Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to consider the fact of the crime based on the name of the crime and the requirements of the crime.

Critical matters in securities report

An important matter in this matter is executive compensation

The three executives (Ghosn, Kelly, and Saikawa), who decided on the specific amount of executive remuneration, were determined to make double decisions, especially for Ghosn.
In addition to the executive compensation actually received in each period, the same amount is specified and written in the form of a contract amount for non-competition contracts and consulting contracts at the time of future retirement.・ It is said that Nada and Onuma were ordered to keep secrets in a safe in a secretary room.
Hari Nada and Onuma are alleged to have been complicit in the concealment of the Future Reward Decision.

There is no accounting for future executive compensation in corporate accounting.
Remuneration received by executives upon their future retirement includes retirement benefits and contributions, all of which have approved metrics based on years of service and for which provisions have been made.
Therefore, corporate debt, that is, compensation for executives, cannot be in any way, because compensation that does not comply with those provisions cannot be approved by the Board in the first place.
In criminal law terms, it is an impunity.

Summary of facts (2)

Ignoring statute of limitations

Supreme court case supporting the prosecution's domineering.

There is a significant reason that the SEC has failed to keep pace with prosecutors and has only filed administrative and criminal charges for the last three years.
This is largely related to the prosecution's own prosecution, separating the first five years from the last three years.All criminal lawyers have decided to silence in shame of the past.
This is because the prosecution statute is in effect for the first five years.

There are shameful cases in criminal cases in Japan.
It is a precedent prevailing in the famous Hakusan Maru case 58 years ago.
In reality, it is a popular knowledge that has spread to the public with the private knowledge that escaping overseas does not complete aging.

Prosecutors have used the Supreme Court case as a shield to investigate the criminal's overseas travel history, and have filed countless cases stating that the prescription has not been completed.
This has had very discriminatory consequences for those traveling abroad and working, especially foreigners.

The Ghosn case is no exception.
Ghosn is originally a foreigner living in a foreign country, so he is rather short in Japan.
Ghosn was indicted in this position eight years ago, stating that "the statute of limitations will not be completed while abroad."

The prosecution's calculation of the period of suspension of the prosecution includes extremely serious case violations and logic violations.
However, as is often the case, none of the scholars has pointed out a serious case violation.
Since the court case was illegal in the first place, and because it was further interpreted illegally, the sign with the rule of law should be lowered immediately.

Let's start by explaining what violates case law.The case in this case was a smuggling criminal, and after a single smuggling, he re-entered the country and found himself exposed and found guilty.
The period of suspension of the prosecution was one continuous period.
Ghosn's are intermittent departure periods in which entry and departure are
repeated.
The prosecutor added this simply.
Intermittent departure periods were summed up, with the interpretation of the case clearly different from the case in the case.
This alone is clearly a violation of case law.Just in case, let me explain why the sum of intermittent departure periods is absurd.
This is because the statute of limitations will start as soon as you enter the country, and the statute of limitation will be completed from the statutory statute of limitation at the time of the criminal offense, regardless of whether or not there has been a statute of limitations.

The reason that the Hakusan Maru case itself is an illegal case in the first place is evident from the large controversy at the Criminal Procedure Law Society from that time.
However, at that time, the scholar's logical justice was defeated by the judge and the prosecutor's doctrine of neglect and logic.
Since that time, the ruling pointed out that it would unfairly discriminate against overseas employees.
Sixty years later, in the Ghosn case, it is clearly a case of foreign discrimination
You have to be in the limelight.
However, the age of precedents was too old, and nobody concretely considered the case and logic of precedents.
Because he does not reconsider, only the conclusion continues to walk alone.

Hakusan Maru Supreme Court Case

The direct question was whether the “when the offender is outside the country” in the first paragraph of Article 255, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code would be the sole requirement for suspension of prosecution.
Or, in two cases, "when the criminal is outside the country" and "when the criminal is running away (case)", "the prescription shall be suspended because the copy of the indictment cannot be effectively served. 

The Supreme Court interpreted formally two parallel sentences at the location of the term “case”.
On the other hand, ordinary Japanese interpreted that, in spite of the position of the word "case", taking into account the meaning, two cases where a copy of the indictment could not be reached, in which case the prescription would stop. 

The deciding factor between whether the Supreme Court's interpretation is correct or the ordinary Japanese interpretation is actually laid down in the provisions of Article 254 of the preceding Article, which is the principle rule of the statute of limitations.
To put it simply, a prerequisite for the suspension of the prosecution statute is that the prosecutor is at a stage where a prosecution can be filed.
The wording simply states that "the prosecutor will prosecute a prosecution," but it means that if the case is not mature up to that point, the prosecution shall not be suspended or recognized.
The essence of the prescription system is that it has a legal effect on the existence of certain objective facts.
In particular, since the prosecution statute is the statute of limitations on the prosecution's right to prosecute, it requires the existence of the prosecutor's objective legal act.
That is nothing but a prosecution.

However, this alone does not solve the problem.
It remains a question of what to do in case of non-arrival of the indictment.
Article 254 stipulates only the case of arrival and does not state the case of non-arrival.
Therefore, Article 255 supplementarily stipulates the case where the indictment has not been reached.
There was no problem unless an example of non-reach was given.
The prosecutor abused it because it had two examples, with sloppy and inaccurate Japanese expressions.
The judge further assisted by forcing the interpretation.

But the problem did not end there.The Supreme Court was a breach that had to show a reasonable reason for the statute to stop simply by saying "the culprit was abroad."
If this succeeded, there was no problem, but the Supreme Court failed.
But no theory at the time pointed to this failure.
So this illegal case survived.

The case law says. If the culprit is outside the country, the right of criminal scrutiny would be out of reach of the state and the search could not be conducted.
It is clear from a little concrete consideration that this is a bright red fallacy.
By the way, let's point out the deception in the case of Hakusan Maru.
Smuggling offenses are completed when they cross territorial waters. After that, there is no need to investigate because the criminal is out of the country and whatever he does is not related to the crime.
There is no hindrance to the investigation within the territorial waters.
All other domestic criminals have no difficulty in investigating even if the culprit is abroad.
In the case of foreign criminals, the Japanese criminal right is certainly not covered, but rather the local penalty is applied first, so the exercise of national power is a double punishment.
There is no inconvenience even if the investigation is not possible. How the Supreme Court's reasoning
It is obvious that it is literally a desk theory.

Summary of facts (1)

 Sudden arrest

Ghosn was suddenly arrested on November 19, 2018.
An exclusive live broadcast of this was a large scoop of only TV Asahi.
Ghosn's crime reports, such as the storm of the Asahi Shimbun, followed for a week as top-notch articles.
It was a public and private criminal report prepared in advance and for a long time.

It is extremely rare that the world's largest corporations are suddenly arrested for allegedly violating the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, or even falsely stating a security report.
In the first place, the form in which only the top two were arrested was not legally possible.
However, this inconsistency in the legal theory has not yet been curiously pointed out by Japanese legal experts.This is the practice of corporate accounting and corporate law in Japan.

Journalists do not know the details of the arrest procedure because they are ignorant of the law.
Ghosn's arrest requires prima facie evidence, and it is no wonder that it is corporate accounting data from the offense.
And it is unlikely that corporate accounting data will be voluntarily provided to prosecutors without the knowledge of the top two, except by theft or criminal means.
A new bargain was used to deceive this.
Reporters have become more and more smoke-filled.

Discovery of conspiracy

The Nissan executive was ready and the French ambassador experienced it.

Ghosn, who couldn't help at all, immediately asked the French ambassador to come to Nissan for a lawyer.
The French ambassador immediately visited Nissan to inform Ghosn's request.
However, he was immediately rejected.
This is a very unexpected response.
Since the top of the company has been arrested, it is common sense for the company to run first as a lawyer.
Here, the French ambassador realized that the rest of the board members had been violated and immediately told Ghosn.
Ghosn now understands the essence of all of the cases.

The fact that the case was a conspiracy designed by the rest of the board members was actually reported as a boast from the beginning.
It is a conspiracy against Kelly.
Kelly was sick, and was abroad to recuperate.
Initially, he refused the request to join the company from the Tokyo head office.
It was reported that it managed to soothe that he came to Japan and that it quickly detained him.
If you think back, Ghosn and Kelly were already black criminals at this point, and the guilty presumption was natural.
Ghosn consistently argued that the case was a conspiracy by prosecutors and rebels, but the Japanese media had no ear to listen.

The alleged fact is obviously wet clothes

Prosecutor's self-interpreted interpretation and the competent authorities to silence.

If you have read at least once the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (hereinafter referred to as the FIEA), you can understand that this law is the basis for administrative sanctions targeting issuing companies.
Criminal penalties are only a few of the vast number of articles, and only Articles 197 (1) and 207 (1) (1) relate to false statements of important matters in securities reports.
The former punishes the submitter, and the latter punishes those who have committed false statements.
Each item is described by a person in charge of each department, and the entire procedure is finally confirmed and approved by the board of directors, so this is a regulation.
The problem is the criterion of importance.
Because it is a quantitative description, it is a judgment as to how much the difference from the true value is important.
Judgment of its significance must be sufficient to influence investor judgment.
The specific matter in this case is executive compensation, and the process for determining executive compensation is open to the public.
According to it, the total amount of executive remuneration for the period is determined at the general meeting of shareholders,
Specific executive remuneration is determined by the Board of Directors, but Nissan has delegated the determination of the specific amount to three more directors.
Ghosn, Kelly and Hiroto Saikawa have been left to a joint decision.
With this procedure, if the total amount of executive remuneration is within the resolution of the General Meeting of Shareholders, there will be no problems.
In fact, Nissan's executive compensation has long satisfied this requirement.

What made the prosecution falsely described?
The prosecutor alleges that Ghosn had received roughly the same amount of secret remuneration in addition to the published executive remuneration each quarter.However, at the time of future retirement of officers, the remuneration was determined to be the remuneration amount for non-competition contracts and external consulting contracts, and each year, a specific amount was determined, and it was written and kept secretly in the secretary room safe .

Prosecutors obviously do not know the beginnings of corporate accounting.
Executive remuneration is a corporate debt, and even a debt paid in the future is accrual-based. Therefore, it must be approved and approved by the Board of Directors together with a provision in each period before it becomes a formal debt.
In the first place, the determination of the specific amount of remuneration by the three directors is merely a “draft” to be submitted to the Board of Directors.
It's just a piece of paper, whether it's in the back of a vault or on a desk, secret or not, without board approval.

One of the certified public accountants of the Supervisory Office, the SEC, the internal auditors, and the external audit company has not pointed out any false statements for many years. But what we didn't do and kept silence is quite natural.
However, the SEC later coordinated with prosecutors for the last three years, and filed administrative sanctions and criminal charges.
Despite criminal proceedings already being undertaken, there are no known cases of criminal charges.
An extremely large message has been posted in the last three years, and will be described separately.

Anti-literacy interpretation

 

Example 1 of anti-literacy interpretation

Examples of prescription law

The Criminal Procedure Code has only two articles that define the suspension of prosecution. For nearly 60 years, this article has been unlawfully interpreted. This situation alone is a testament to how academic and logical consideration has not been given to criminal justice in Japan.

In terms of the structure of the articles and legislative techniques, Article 254 of the Act is a principle rule, and Article 255 of the next article is a supplementary rule. However, 60 years ago, prosecutors and judges saw Article 255 as a parallel and parallel with Article 254 as an independent statute of limitations. However, this is an afterthought, and neither the prosecutor nor the judge at the time simply wanted to assert that the prosecution filed in connection with smuggling was valid.

The prescription law provides for the effects of facts that are both civil and criminal and objective and can be unambiguously proved by evidence. Since the prosecution statute is the lapse of the prosecution's right to prosecute, the failure to prosecute the prosecutor's right to prosecute is the rationale for the progress of the lapse. Accordingly, the statute of limitations can only be stopped by the prosecutor's objective lawful actions, which may be the exercise of the right of prosecution. The principle is "prosecution" set forth in Article 244 of the Act. However, even if a prosecution is filed, the prosecution may be dismissed. In that case, the suspension of the prosecution shall not be suspended. This is described in Article 254 of the Act. However, there is another extremely significant exception.That is when a copy of the indictment cannot reach the accused. In this case, since the prosecution itself is not effectively established, the prosecution is dismissed. However, the cause of the dismissal in this case is obviously different from the dismissal scheduled in Article 244 of the Act. Prosecutors have no fault. Therefore, an exceptional case in which a public prosecutor has no fault and results in rejection of a prosecution is additionally provided in Article 255 of the Act.

The latter part of Article 255 of the Act is exactly the case of a public action dismissal. Of course, the first sentence of the Supreme Court precedes the refusal of prosecution, but only the "position of the criminal", which has nothing to do with the actions of the prosecutor. In any sense, this does not mean "objective use of prosecutor's right to prosecute". In other words, there is no statutory suspension effect, either logically or legally.

The case of the Supreme Court was a violation of the Constitution as irrational discrimination, because it did not recognize statutory benefits from the beginning for Japanese or foreign residents residing overseas. Since then, there have been criticisms of the doctrine and lower judgments. The reality of this is none other than the Ghosn incident.

Example 2 of anti-literacy interpretation

Examples of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act

Ghosn's primary suspicion was the misrepresentation of a security report. It started with a security report eight years back from the time of the arrest. The statute of limitations is three years, in sharp contrast to the SEC's late complaints only over the last three years. However, the prosecution was cautious, prosecuting the prosecution in five years and the latest three years, and the media who did nothing was just wondering about this prosecution. It seemed that the Japanese media really wrote an article using only leak information.

Not only is the name of the offense redundant, but it seems that many reporters have never seen the financial report itself. This is because Nissan's published Securities Report clearly states that there are three important decision-makers at the time: Ghosn, Kelly and Saikawa. Therefore, only Ghosn and Kelly must first be aware of the contradictions in which arrests and prosecutions are made regarding the statement of officer compensation.

The suspicion that Ghosn was arrested was that he made a false statement in the executive remuneration. Moreover, it was of such a degree that it was judged "important."

In spite of the leak information, the content of the false statement published was astonishing to the public. Ghosn received a director's remuneration that was nearly double the announced director's remuneration for each business period and did not mention it.

The vast majority of people in the world noticed what name they were being paid for fraudulent executive compensation. Everyone was surprised again by the information that was flowing. No money was actually received, but an agreement that signed a non-competition contract or consultation contract when retiring in the future and the amount of the contract money at that time were expressed in concrete figures every term determined to be the sum ofit. The agreement was kept secret in a safe. The prosecution "interpreted" that specific figures had been determined each term and that they were nothing but future executive compensation.

Even beginners in corporate accounting know that executive remuneration is legally approved by the Board of Directors every year. The prosecutor's definition of "future executive compensation" does not exist at least in current corporate accounting principles. This is an interpretation of the prosecution's self-righteousness.

Example 3 of anti-literacy interpretation

Company Law Example 1

There are two cases of special breach of criminal offense. One of the first is the transfer of a derivative financial instrument under the name of Ghosn. The case was also known by the SEC, and the cautionary advice of the SEC restored the contract within the same business period. As a result, there was no loss or profit for the company at the end of the business period.

According to Ghosn's explanation, in the event of a loss during liquidation as a condition of the transfer, Ghosn has obtained the approval of the Board of Directors on the condition that he will guarantee the director's remuneration as collateral and bear the full amount. In fact, there were minutes to that effect. In the end, Ghosn solved this problem with his acquaintance as guarantor. In other words, Ghosn just got Nissan to be the guarantor, and to date, Ghosn has not lost any money in the derivative financial transaction. Ghosn and Nissan concluded the above contract and were arrested and charged with special breach. Ghosn has no intention of causing loss to Nissan, has canceled the contract before liquidation, and will not be guilty of breach.

Example 2 of company law

The second alleged offense is a complete prosecution delusion.The sales incentives properly granted by Nissan to the sales agent actually have a distribution agreement between Ghosn and the sales agent owner, and the sales agent ultimately represents Ghosn's wife according to the secret agreement. The prosecution claims that the company has been credited. Certainly, there is a close relationship between Ghosn and the distributor owner, and it appears that the distributor owner eventually funded Ghosn's wife's company. The problem is the purpose and motivation of the funding. Even if the owner invests, invests, or grants Ghosn's wife's company in hopes of continuing

hospitality, regardless of its name, it is a matter of longevity. Unless Ghosn instructs the amount of the sales incentives, especially the special treatment that is different from other sales agents, it is a relationship of eccentricity and respiration. It cannot be a crime. In the first place, sales incentives are granted, and no crime can be admitted unless the amount is extraordinary. Prosecutors, of course, cannot objectively and clearly distinguish the boundary between reasonable and illegal amounts.

Countries whose interpretation of the law is dominated by marauders are not law-controlled.

Why do Japanese people not see the articles of law written in Japanese? Why don't you see with your own eyes and confirm with your own head? Japan's legal backwardness is just this one word. People are convinced that the law is difficult, and most of them do not understand it. Thus, the Japanese legal community has a grand authoritarianism. In this authoritarian world, it is lawyers who monopolize the role of telling God, like a priest or shrine maiden, and the judge is God. Japanese gods often make mistakes. The victim is nothing but a false victim.

News organizations and academic research institutions are accomplices of false charges

The public's insensitivity to false charges is a result of education and reporting. The majority of the people are unaware or ignorant of the fact that an enormous amount of false accusations have been produced and are still being produced. There is no expert who speaks out of the apparent false accusation of the Ghosn case as a false accusation, except attorney Nobuo Gohara. I wonder if this is a country with tens of thousands of lawyers, a country with free speech and personal rights guaranteed.

Plea bargain

 

Lawyer ethics violation

Japan's plea bargain is concluded by an accomplice, an attorney, and a public prosecutor. Cooperating accomplices cooperate with investigators by witnessing and submitting evidence about other accomplices, and prosecutors respond to this cooperation with various reducing criminal liability. (In this regard, there is a problem that unduly restricts the judge's discretionary power.) The attorney will sign the consent form as the co-accomplice's custody. The contents of the plea bargain will be confirmed in writing and agreed upon by the three parties.

The immediate problem here is that the appointed lawyer recognizes the accomplices' accompliceship from the outset. At this point, the co-accomplice is only a self-described accomplice. A self-proclaimed accomplice may be innocent or the main offender. It is clearly against lawyer's ethics to sign the agreement without the pursuit of the truth, at the mercy of the self-proclaimed accomplice. Because it violates the duty of truth. Moreover, innocence is against the interests of the client and therefore against the intent of the mandate. Relationships with other accomplices have not been ascertained if co-afflicted accomplices claim to be accomplices for escaping their liability for other crimes, or if they are transferring responsibility to lightly accomplices. Then the appointed lawyer becomes an offender. Because of the structural nature of this matter, Japanese plea bargain is an offense in its existence.

The problem of self-described accomplices

The accomplice's confession has always been a problem in its credibility. The credibility of the statement evidence is just It is difficult to confirm the authenticity, and there is a high possibility that false testimony will be given because of the transfer of responsibility. Therefore, having a consent lawyer does not guarantee any credibility. In the past, some accomplices confessed that they were not accomplices, but they made confession by using a secret contract to reduce other crimes.

Illegal collection evidence

In this case, there are two self-identified accomplices; in the form of the alleged offense, all accounting evidence is property of the company, and providing it to third parties without the company's permission is a crime of theft. Verbally stating the contents of the accounting material does mean that it is a crime. After all, the cooperating accomplice was a thief and cooperated with the investigation, which was an illegal investigation. This is obvious to prosecutors, of course, as a lawyer at law. Evidence becomes illegally collected evidence and its ability to prove evidence is denied. This is the reason the prosecution continued to resist the lawyers' request to disclose evidence of plea bargaining.

Traditional underground plea bargain

This case is a rare case where both the plea bargain in the table and the plea bargain of underground exist at the same time. Because underground plea bargain is a illegal contract between the prosecutor and the person who should be the suspect, it cannot directly prove the existence. However, the absurdity that the person who should have been the suspect should not be the suspect, and the arrested Ghosn and Kelly as witnesses to the hostile witness, are presumed to exist. In this case, Hiroto Saikawa, the former CEO.

Major shareholder Renault hesitation 

The fate of the plea bargain is buried in the dark

The failure of hostage justice has prevented prosecutors from proving Ghosn's guilt with valid evidence. Moreover, Ghosn's escape. It is clear that prosecutors and courts will do their best to stop the judgment. The failure of hostage justice indicates the criminal offense of the plea bargaining. Ghosn's trial is not held to conceal this.Years or decades later, the replaced judge will dismiss the prosecution with an innocent face, because it cannot be left open forever. When people forgot. But Ghosn will not miss this prosecution and court misconduct silently. All legal measures and trials as counterattacks break out at home and abroad. Ghosn has already appealed to the world the irrationalities of international arrangements. If the ICPO cancels international arrangements, it is inevitable that Japan will lose its profile.

Where is the ICPO regulation concerned? 

Conspiracy

 

Conspiracy seen by French ambassador

Immediately after his arrest, the French ambassador was asked by Ghosn to rush to Nissan headquarters and conveyed his request to appoint a lawyer. The sight of the ambassador there was the rest of the directors who rejected the request calmly.In all, the arrest was a planned action. These facts were first revealed when Ghosn escaped abroad and became free to speak. The Japanese media show no interest in this surprising press. This is a problem before sensory paralysis. No, since the prosecution leak information has been reported guilty, if the truth that shows innocence comes out, it is the fact that there is no other way but to ignore and silence.

In Kerry's case, the plot was more naked. He had no plans to come to Japan, and was initially reported to have been apprehended by conspiracy and immediately arrested. This is unmistakably presumed guilty coverage.

Conspiracy seen from arrest warrant issuance procedure

The arrest warrant is issued by showing the warrant judge a charge of the crime and showing proof of the crime. Ghosn's suspicion was allegedly a false statement in a security report. In other words, the evidence mainly includes accounting materials owned by the company.Company-owned accounting data is voluntarily provided to third parties and prosecutors only with the consent of the Board of Directors or the representative. This is clearly a theft and a conspiracy, since Nissan's representatives, Ghosn and Kelly, voluntarily provided evidence without their knowledge. Who voluntarily submitted to the prosecution.

If you think about it and hit it, it is a prosecutor's investigation that dusts out. It seems impossible work for Japanese media who rely on leak information. Foreign reporters must be oblivious to the outline of false charges.

Conspiracy visible from additional prosecution of Nissan Corporation

Nissan is the main culprit for the misrepresentation of securities. First, a corporation is subject to administrative sanctions, and then humans are fined for criminal penalties if the case is serious and severely damaged. Any criminal offense to a director must be all officers who have approved the securities report. Of course, it also includes internal auditors.There is no rational legal basis limited to Ghosn and Kelly in any way.The order of punishment is completely reversed, arbitrary and prejudiced. In particular, it clearly shows that the fact that the later prosecuted Nissan Corporation admitted the charges earlier was more conspiracy than anything else.Usually, Ghosn and Kelly are fighting, so it is reasonable that the remaining directors and officers of the same crime also fight.

The conspiracy was elaborated over a long period

It is obviously impossible to expulse Ghosn and Kelly from Nissan for false statements in the securities report. Because it is a formal offender. So the conspirators sought to blame for a more felony extrajudicial offense. Major crime Renault cannot defend Ghosn in this crime. Therefore The only way to gather evidence of special breach of crime is to arrest and prosecute Nissan headquarters or a foreign branch for any crime that could lead to a forced investigation.The excuse for this raid was the misrepresentation of a formal offender in falsely stating important matters in a securities report. However, he was arrested a crime that was not originally a crime and broke down before obtaining strong conclusive evidence of his special abuse. This case is a major case that remains in history as a false charge case in which prosecutors also influenced the fate of global companies.

Regulatory authorities to keep silence -The remaining questions-

The actions taken by the regulatory authorities are completely different between the crime of misrepresentation of important matters in securities and the crime of special breach. In fact, Gone's personal transaction, the transfer of financial derivatives, has been rectified by the SEC and has been corrected. The prosecutor nevertheless indicted. The first special allegation. The problem is the second alleged extradition.Due to the perfectly normal nature of the transaction, the existence of a pre-share agreement between Ghosn and the owner of the sales incentive distributor in order to be a criminal offender is in respect of the sales incentive paid ｒequired.This is, by nature, only complete confession evidence. Ghosn consistently argued that there was no such secret sharing agreement, but prosecutors forced a confession even after long-term detention. If the confession of the distributor owner does not exist, it is a complete false accusation.Ghosn's residence was restricted and no free behavior was allowed to prohibit contact with the owner.Over time, the truth will become clear, including the presence or absence of this owner's confession.