Indicted under the Income Tax Act
Prosecutors in Yokohama allege that approximately ¥2.276 billion of FY2023 income was concealed and approximately ¥367 million in income tax evaded. Nakano Takayuki is charged with aiding that evasion.
No verdict has been reached · We ask for open scrutiny
A fair investigation
and a fair trial for
Why was an investment backed by a government confirmation certificate, and explained by a certified public accountant, treated as a conspiracy to evade tax?
We ask for answers, on the evidence and the law, about the origin of the pre-arrest footage, where the money finally came to rest, the continuing detention and ban on family visits, and consular access for a Korean national.
ARRESTED23 Jul 2026
INDICTED12 Aug 2026
VERDICTNone
PLEANot disclosed
We are not asking the public to decide guilt or innocence. We ask that the prosecution's case and the evidence against it be tested with equal rigour in open court.
THE CASE
The case in thirty seconds
What public reporting confirms, what supporters contend, and what remains unexplained about the money and the procedure.
An official certificate and professional advice
Mr Nakano is said to have produced records of enquiries to the Tokyo Metropolitan Government and METI, stating there was no problem with using the scheme; the certified public accountant Saito Satoshi is said to have assisted with the investment.
Where did the money that converged go?
Substantial investment made under Japan's angel-tax scheme converged on "Company N". Every account, related entity and stated purpose of transfer must be traced to establish who ultimately benefited.
Pre-arrest footage and detention
Coverage on the day of the arrest used footage captioned as filmed in January and March. The continuing detention and the ban on visits by family also require case-specific reasons.
An indictment is not a conviction. The Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office has not disclosed the pleas entered, and no court has yet ruled on the prosecution's case.
OPEN SCRUTINY
Six questions this case has to answer
"The scheme was abused" does not establish intent, conspiracy, the destination of the funds, the origin of the footage, or the need for detention.
ISSUE 01
Did an investor who relied on an official confirmation act with intent to evade tax?
How did Mr Kanemoto understand the records of administrative enquiries produced by Mr Nakano, and the accountant's advice? Intent cannot be judged without the whole of what he was told before investing.
ISSUE 02
What specific evidence makes the two men co-conspirators?
The date, place, means of communication, prior agreement and division of roles. Other investors solicited by Mr Nakano say they were harmed — on what basis was investment fraud ruled out first?
ISSUE 03
Who finally received the money after it was invested?
Every transaction through Company N, related entities and personal accounts should be traced: who instructed it, who received it, and whose benefit it became.
ISSUE 04
Who filmed and supplied footage four to six months before the arrest?
The identity of whoever filmed it, the purpose, when each broadcaster obtained it, whether any public body supplied it, and whether the originals and metadata are preserved.
ISSUE 05
What specific reason justifies continued detention and a ban on family visits?
For a man who cooperated with a long investigation and whose key records were seized, which concrete preparation to flee, and which act of destroying evidence, was actually found?
ISSUE 06
Did Korean nationality affect his treatment or the coverage?
Were consular notification and visits guaranteed? We ask whether nationality or overseas business was used unreasonably in assessing flight risk, in prolonged detention, in restricting visits, or in naming and filming him.
THE MONEY
Angel-tax money converged on Company N
Mr Kanemoto was one of the investors in Company N. Substantial investment made under the scheme converged on that company, and the money did not stay there.
Nakano Takayuki, said to have designed the structure and reported the administrative enquiries
Saito Satoshi, said to have given professional advice and assisted the investment
Co-conspirator, or the victim of a well-built investment fraud?
If Mr Nakano used an official confirmation and an accountant's credibility to mislead investors and obtain their money, the centre of this case is not tax evasion by an investor but possible investment fraud. Every investor in Company N should be asked what they were told when they were solicited.
PRE-ARREST FOOTAGE
Who was filming Mr Kanemoto months before his arrest?
The footage aired on the day of the arrest carried captions reading "Yokohama, January this year" and "Asahi Ward, Yokohama, March". Its origin and purpose go to the fairness of the coverage and the handling of investigative information.
Without naming a source, broadcasters and investigative bodies can still state who filmed the footage, on what dates, for what purpose, when it was obtained, whether any public body supplied it, and whether the originals and metadata have been preserved.
DETENTION AND DEFENCE
Detention is not a tool for extracting agreement with the prosecution's account
Supporters understand that Mr Kanemoto cooperated with a long investigation, remains in custody after the key records were seized, and is subject to a ban on visits from family since his indictment.
In custody since 23 July 2026
—
- What concrete preparation to flee has been identified?
Not overseas business or Korean nationality as attributes, but facts specific to this case: a ticket purchased, a home given up, assets moved, a passport hidden. - What specific evidence could still be destroyed?
If devices, ledgers, contracts and transfer records are already secured, identify the evidence that would be lost without detention. - Why are visits from family still prohibited after indictment?
Whose contact would affect which evidence, and how — a concrete fact, not an abstract possibility. - Is a denial, or a dispute over legal interpretation, being treated as a reason to keep him in custody?
If his account is wrong, it should be rebutted in open court with law and evidence.
Consular access
The Japanese government's own guidance states that when a foreign national is arrested or detained, the consular authorities of their state are to be notified without delay under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and related agreements, and that consular officers may meet and correspond with the detainee. Kanagawa Prefecture falls within the jurisdiction of the Consulate General of the Republic of Korea in Yokohama (which also covers Shizuoka and Yamanashi; +81-45-621-4531). The Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs operates a 24-hour consular call centre on +82-2-3210-0404. Consular assistance does not extend to diplomatic bargaining for release or leniency, or to interference in Japanese judicial proceedings — and we do not ask for that.
WHAT WE ASK FOR
Eight measures we call for
Not that anyone be believed unconditionally, but that evidence helping the prosecution and evidence undermining it be investigated, disclosed and tested with equal rigour.
- Produce the evidence of intent and conspiracy in open court
The date, place, means of communication, prior agreement and division of roles.
- Fully investigate the solicitation and advice of Nakano Takayuki and Saito Satoshi
Including the administrative enquiries, the accountant's advice, the drafting of contracts and assistance with the transfers.
- Interview every investor in Company N as a potential victim
If several investors were given the same explanation, examine the possibility of a repeated investment fraud.
- Trace every account and establish the final beneficiary
For the funds after investment: origin, destination, stated purpose, who instructed the transfer, and where the money came to rest.
- Have the Tokyo Metropolitan Government and METI preserve and explain their records
What was confirmed about Company N, what was answered, and where that differs from the criminal assessment.
- Establish how the pre-arrest footage was filmed, supplied and obtained
Broadcasters and investigative bodies should preserve the originals and metadata and confirm whether any public body supplied them.
- Review detention and the visits ban against facts specific to this case
A denial, or a legal argument, must not be a reason to prolong custody.
- Guarantee consular access and examine any imbalance based on nationality
Confirm notification and consular visits, and examine any effect of nationality on treatment, flight-risk assessment and coverage.
FINALLY
If there is evidence, produce it in open court.
Before keeping an investor who relied on an official confirmation in custody any longer, examine who designed the structure, who explained it, who moved the money, and who ended up with it. Answer with evidence and law, not with the power of arrest.