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?