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.