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.