2012.4.25初版
「小沢一郎議員強制起訴議決」を行った東京第五検察審査会疑惑について
April 25, 2012
Suspicions over the Tokyo 5th Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution That Filed a Mandatory Indictment against Diet Member Ichiro Ozawa
Volunteer citizens pursuing their suspicions about the dubious prosecution of Mr. Ozawa
T.S and K.I
History of the Incident
On March 3, 2009, when Diet member Ichiro Ozawa was also the president of the
Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), Mr. Takanori Ohkubo, who was a secretary of Mr. Ichiro
Ozawa and also in charge of accounting, was prosecuted in connection with illicit donations.
Specifically, the prosecution claimed that the Rikuzankai, Mr. Ozawa's political fund
management body received illicit donations from two nonexistent dummy political
organizations. The two political organizations were, however, proven to be not dummies in
court (in the Nishimatsu case.)
The prosecutors then invented the Rikuzankai case (regarding inaccurate dating of real
estate acquisitions), and conducted an extensive investigation spending a large budget of 3
billion yen. As a result of this investigation, the prosecutors charged three former secretaries of
Mr. Ozawa and the three former secretaries were judged guilty at the first trial. However, Mr.
Ozawa was not charged, because of insufficient evidence.
After that, citizens filed a motion with the Tokyo Fifth Committee for the Inquest of
Prosecution that the investigation conducted by the prosecutors of this dropped case was
insufficient. A Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution whose members are supposedly chosen
by lot was convened twice, and the committee decided to charge Mr. Ozawa both times. Based
on these decisions, Mr. Ozawa faced mandatory indictment. The case is currently being heard
and the verdict will be given on April 26. It turned out that the investigation report submitted to
the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution was fabricated by one of the prosecutors.
Citizens' Suspicions
1. Did the Committee for the Inquest into the Prosecution convene and resolve in a
regular way?
The prosecutors determined not to pursue the case after completing a large-scale investigation, but the decision was reversed by the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution without
conducting any re-investigation. We find this highly suspect.
The six major newspapers reported on September 8, 2010 that the investigation was being
upgraded and that a decision would probably be made at the end of October. The decision was,
however, made on September 14, six days after the release of the report. September 14 was the
date of the presidential election of the DPJ, in which Mr. Ozawa was running. These facts cause
us to suspect that, if Mr. Ozawa was elected as the president, some kind of political power
attempted to depose Mr. Ozawa as party president using the mandatory indictment decision as a
political card. It is impossible to make a decision that quickly the Committee for the Inquest of
Prosecution held at that time was regular.
The Office of Committees for the Inquest of Prosecution has never disclosed the dates of the
committee meetings, the number of times the committee meetings were held, and the rooms used
for the committee meetings. They did not even keep minutes.
The Asahi Shimbun the next day reported the announcement of the decision (October 5) and the
report of Yomiuri Shimbun on the second day after the announcement (October 6) was based on a
dubious leak by someone related to the committee and cannot be trusted at all.
2. Were any of the committee members selected fairly by lot?
The average age of the members of the first committee was initially announced as 34.27 and then
changed to 34.55. The average age of the members of the second committee was initially
announced as 30.9, then changed to 33.91, and then changed again to 34.55. A miscalculation of
the average age of 1 1 people is most unlikely. Moreover, the average ages of the first and second
committee members were exactly the same, 34.55. The probability of an average coincidentally
resulting in the same young age (34.55) is about 0.000001%, meaning that it cannot be a
coincidence.
We requested them to disclose the age, the date of birth, and the birth month of each committee
member, but they have never done so. A total of 44 committee members have been selected,
including the supplementary members. However, nothing can be inquired of them despite the
suspect decisions that have been made by the committee.
3. We suspect that the Supreme Court Secretariat may have exerted its influence in the
selection of the committee members, committee supporting member(lawyer), and the
timing of decisions.
With the lot software created by the Supreme Court Secretariat, it is possible to manually input the names of candidates who are not selected as committee member candidates by the board of
elections and freely erase any candidates.
Our Activities to Clear ud Suspicions
In order to clear up the abovementioned suspicions, we contacted the Office of the Committees for
the Inquest of Prosecution and the Supreme Court Secretariat that manages the committee office to ask questions and made a right-to-know request. As a result, the following facts were
disclosed.
1. The Supreme Court Secretariat controls and manages the Office of Committees for the
Inquest of Prosecution.
① Court administrative officials are designated as the office clerks of the Committee for the
Inquest of Prosecution, and the Supreme Court Secretariat is in charge of all personnel
affairs such as transfer, promotion and pay rises. They also restructure the framework of the
organization.
② The secretariat creates the rules and manuals used in the operation of Committees for the Inquest of Prosecution. The secretariat directs the operation via documents.
③ The secretariat performs certain operations for the committee, such as sending questionnaires to committee member candidates.
④ The secretariat creates tools such as the lot system software and handbooks for the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution.
⑤ The secretariat undertakes budgeting and operation planning.
2. The Office of Committees for the Inquest of Prosecution has never disclosed the dates of the
committee meetings, the number of times committee meetings were held, and the rooms used for the committee meetings. No conference minutes have been disclosed either.
3. The Office does not disclose the age, the date of birth, and the birth month of committee
members or member candidates.
4. We requested disclosure of invoices for daily allowances and traffic expenses. However, we were
shown only documents with the member names, dates of appearance and payees' bank account information blacked out. No one has confirmed the existence of the committee members.
5. The Office does not disclose the names of petitioners.
6. A citizen reported to us that the explanations, required by law, about how to exercise one's membership of the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution were given on September 28 (indicating a possibility of a breach of law)
Conclusion
Whether committee members were selected according to the law, whether the Committee for the
Inquest of Prosecution was convened in a regular way, what information and explanations the prosecutors gave to the committee, and what discussions took place there: none of these have been
disclosed. There is much that is suspicious, and violations of the law may well have happened.
According to the Act on Committees for Inquest of Prosecution, a Committee for the Inquest of
Prosecution is to perform its operation independently. But in actuality, the Supreme Court
Secretariat controls the Office of Committees for Inquest of Prosecution and is suspected to exert
some kind of influence on the decisions made by the committee.
To dispel the above suspicions, the Supreme Court Secretariat and the Office of the Committee for
Inquest of Prosecution must disclose the facts. The final judgment should only be made after disclosure of those facts.
Index 冤罪のもくじへ