On March 21, 2025, the Osaka District Court delivered a significant ruling, dismissing a lawsuit filed by Mr. Shinnobu Yamagishi, the former president of Presance Corporation. He had sought damages from the state, claiming that his arrest and indictment were the result of an illegal investigation linked to a notorious embezzlement case. The court ruled that there was no illegality in the prosecution's actions, which has reignited discussions about the standards of prosecution in Japan.
In December 2019, Yamagishi was arrested by the Osaka District Public Prosecutors Office's Special Investigation Department over allegations of embezzling approximately 2.1 billion yen. The charges stemmed from a land transaction connected with a school corporation, and allegations were made that he conspired with former officials of the corporation to misappropriate the funds. Yamagishi maintained his innocence throughout, asserting that the funds lent to the school were intended for relocation expenses, and argued that given the company's thriving performance at that time, there would be no logical reason for him to commit embezzlement.
During the legal proceedings, which ultimately resulted in Yamagishi's acquittal in November 2021, the court raised concerns about the credibility of the testimony provided by his former subordinate, which prosecutors used as a cornerstone of their case. In a dramatic turn, the court found that the interrogation techniques employed by prosecutor Daisuke Tanimoto were particularly coercive. Footage presented during the trial showed Tanimoto aggressively berating the subordinate—yelling, "You are a big criminal!" and questioning their integrity with statements like, "Prosecutors are no good!" Such tactics drew scrutiny and ultimately led to doubts about the legitimacy of the statements made under duress.
When the ruling came down, Judge Shinji Ota stated, "The prosecutor's judgment on the charges was not entirely unreasonable," emphasizing that the decision-making process surrounding Yamagishi's arrest had some rational basis at the time. This point was crucial, as it indicated that even if the allegations ultimately proved unfounded, the initial investigation didn't fall short of legal standards.
Furthermore, Judge Ota commented, "There was no illegality," directly addressing the claims of improper investigation and setting a precedent for how future cases might be handled. The ruling pointed to a broader implication regarding the balance between necessary investigations into corruption and the rights of individuals who may be unjustly accused.
The court's dismissal of the lawsuit and the rationale provided has sparked outrage among Yamagishi's supporters, who view this as a failure of the judicial system to protect individuals against prosecutorial misuse of power. Yamagishi’s legal team has announced plans to appeal the decision, reflecting their firm belief that the corruption within the prosecution's ranks deserves further scrutiny.
The incident has also attracted attention to the behavior of prosecutors in Japan, especially regarding aggressive interrogation methods. In Yamagishi’s case, Tanimoto's conduct during interrogations, characterized by yelling and intimidation, has raised questions about the ethical boundaries of legal proceedings. The Osaka High Court has already initiated a separate criminal trial for Tanimoto due to accusations of special public officer assault and abuse stemming from his interrogation techniques.
As Yamagishi continues to fight for recognition of his wrongful prosecution, the case is reshaping discussions around legal reform in Japan. Advocates for justice argue that there must be a systemic response to protect individuals from the kind of distress and humiliation that Yamagishi suffered due to prosecutorial overreach.
The lawsuit has not only brought to light the complexities of legal accountability but also prompted calls for reform within the judicial process to ensure that the rights of defendants are respected during investigations. The outcomes of Yamagishi’s appeal, as well as the criminal trial of prosecutor Tanimoto, will likely serve as pivotal points in the broader discourse on judicial reform and prosecutorial responsibility in Japan.
This ruling represents a critical juncture in Japanese law, illustrating the tension between the need to root out public corruption and the imperative to safeguard individual rights. As this case unfolds further, it will be closely watched as an indicator of how Japan addresses the challenges of ensuring justice while upholding the integrity of its legal system.
