The Supreme Public Prosecutors Office has acknowledged that inappropriate questioning took place in the 2019 vote-buying case involving former Justice Minister Katsuyuki Kawai. A report was released regarding the probe into allegations of inappropriate questioning by the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office’s special investigation squad of a former member of the Hiroshima city assembly.
The former assembly member’s defense revealed that a prosecutor had urged him to admit to violating the public offices election law by implying that he could avoid indictment or receive a lenient penalty, despite his denial of the allegations against him. The top prosecutors office admitted that the prosecutor did not promise that the former assembly member would escape indictment, but did acknowledge that the prosecutor had raised the former assembly member’s expectations.
Furthermore, it was suspected that another prosecutor had influenced the former assembly member to make statements in court in accordance with interrogation reports. The top prosecutors office determined that the second prosecutor did not act inappropriately but should have exercised more caution in the situation.
In October of this year, the Hiroshima District Court found the former assembly member guilty in relation to the case. The defendant has since appealed the ruling. According to the court’s decision, the former assembly member had received ¥300,000 in cash from former Justice Minister Kawai in April 2019, knowing that the money was compensation for working to help Kawai’s wife win a House of Councillors election.
These revelations have sparked concern about the conduct of the special investigation squad and the handling of the vote-buying case. The public is calling for thorough investigations into the actions of the prosecutors involved to ensure that justice is served and to prevent any similar incidents from occurring in the future.
The report from the top prosecutors office has brought attention to the integrity and fairness of the Japanese legal system in high-profile cases. The inappropriate actions of the prosecutors have raised significant questions about the treatment of defendants and the methods used to obtain confessions.
As the former assembly member’s appeal is considered, many are closely watching the outcome to see if the prosecutors involved will be held accountable for their behavior. It remains to be seen how the legal authorities will address and learn from this troubling situation, and what measures will be taken to prevent any recurrence of such conduct in the future.
