Police probe releases scathing report in falsely accused firm case
An internal police review criticized a "dysfunctional" investigative chain of command that led to three officials of a Yokohama-based company being falsely accused of exporting equipment that could be used as biologial weapons.
The Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department, the National Police Agency and the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office announced on Aug. 7 the findings that outlined issues with the investigation of Ohkawara Kakohki Co. and bail procedures.
While 19 officials from the MPD's Public Security Bureau at the time of the investigation were disciplined, no disciplinary action was taken against any prosecutors.
'I once again deeply apologize to the three individuals arrested and everyone else investigated for the significant trouble and anguish we put them through,' MPD Chief Yuji Sakoda said at a news conference.
Yoshinobu Kusunoki, commissioner-general of the NPA, said, 'Public security and foreign affairs departments nationwide will sincerely reflect on the shortcomings revealed in this case and will ensure that measures are implemented to prevent a recurrence.'
In response to the release of the probe, Ohkawara Kakohki, which manufactures and exports spray dryers, held a news conference on the same day.
Masaaki Okawara, 76, the company president and one of the three individuals who were arrested, expressed his disapproval, saying that the review left 'personal accountability extremely vague.'
'This is because the review was conducted internally,' he said.
Ohkawara Kakohki had been calling for an independent review that includes a third party.
The MPD's review was based on the finalized court ruling that fully acknowledged the illegality of the Public Security Bureau's investigation.
The review concluded that the chain of command was flawed in its operation because senior officials including the head of the bureau failed to properly direct the investigation, leading to 'grave errors' such as the unlawful arrests.
The probe listed specific problems, such as that investigators failed to reconsider their own interpretation of the regulations—even after the trade ministry raised doubts.
Furthermore, when an experiment with the company's equipment produced results that contradicted the investigation's premise, investigators neither conducted a follow-up inquiry nor shared the findings with senior Public Security Bureau officials and prosecutors.
The review also addressed the MPD's actions after the indictment was withdrawn. It withdrew the MPD's claim in the state compensation lawsuit that the testimony of active-duty police officers—who stated that the case was a 'fabrication'—was purely 'grand fiction.'
The review stated that this action 'could discourage officers from freely expressing their opinions in the future.'
The Supreme Public Prosecutors Office, in its own review report, pointed out that prosecutors had failed to properly evaluate exculpatory evidence that could have weakened the suspicion of guilt when they decided to indict.
Regarding their continued opposition to bail requests, the review noted that their response 'must be described as inappropriate.'
The state compensation lawsuit revealed that when an investigator suggested revisiting the MPD's case strategy, a senior official shut the possibility down, saying, 'Will you take responsibility for dropping the case?"
However, the MPD's review did not acknowledge this exchange.
Tsuyoshi Takada, a lawyer representing Ohkawara Kakohki, said that the review was insufficient.
Takada criticized the disciplinary action taken against the police officers as 'too lenient,' stating, 'This is a direct reflection of the inadequate review.'
Takada also called the lack of any punishment for prosecutors a 'very serious problem.'
In its report, the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office acknowledged that the prosecutor's continued opposition to granting bail to Shizuo Aishima, a company adviser who died after his release was denied, was 'inappropriate.'
Takada praised this specific finding.
On the other hand, there has been no move for a review by the judiciary, which denied the bail request.
'We are not demanding a formal review," Takada said. "We just want them to learn from this case and recognize that their work can cost a person their life.'
The bereaved family of Aishima, which has not accepted an apology from the officials, did not attend the company's news conference.
Takada read a statement from Aishima's eldest son, which said, 'It is a step forward that they have established some solid preventative measures. We will now deliberate on how we would like to be apologized to.'
(This article was written by Hiraku Higa, Hikaru Yokoyama, Yusuke Morishita, Noriki Nishioka and senior staff writer Shimpachi Yoshida.)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Mainichi
4 hours ago
- The Mainichi
China and the US clash at the UN over the Panama Canal, a focus of Trump's attention
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The United States and China clashed over the Panama Canal at the United Nations on Monday, with the U.S. warning that Beijing's influence over the key waterway could threaten global trade and security and China calling U.S. accusations a pretext to take over the canal. The clash took place at a U.N. Security Council meeting where Panama's President Jose Raul Mulino stressed the neutrality of the canal and his country's ownership of the waterway linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Panama holds the council presidency this month, and Mulino was chairing a meeting on challenges to maritime security. Interpol Secretary General Valdecy Urquiza told members these include piracy, armed robbery, transnational crime and cyber criminals weaponizing artificial intelligence to attack ports where there is "minimal cyber security, maximum exposure." U.S. President Donald Trump thrust Panama into the spotlight even before winning election last November by suggesting that his country should consider retaking control of the Panama Canal and accusing Panama of ceding influence to China. The U.S. built the canal in the early 1900s as it looked for ways to facilitate the transit of commercial and military vessels between its coasts. Control of the waterway transferred to Panama in 1999 under a treaty signed in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. China's U.N. Ambassador Fu Cong emphasized to the council that "Panama has consistently and effectively managed the canal, making significant contributions to global shipping and trade." "China has always respected the permanent neutrality of the canal and firmly supports Panama in safeguarding its sovereignty over the canal to ensure its openness and smooth operation," he said. Acting U.S. Ambassador Dorothy Shea, who spoke afterward, went after China, expressing concern about its "outsized influence over the Panama Canal area, especially over critical infrastructure and port operations." Alluding to its claims in the South China Sea, she said, "China's expansive and unlawful maritime claims and aggressive actions demonstrate its threat to maritime security and commerce." She said the U.S. rejects these claims and supports countries opposing them. "China's influence in the canal area is not just a risk to Panama and the United States, but rather a potential threat to global trade and security," Shea said. The Trump administration has pressured China to have the Hong Kong-based operator of ports at either end of the canal sell those interests to a U.S. consortium that includes BlackRock Inc. Panama has vehemently rejected a takeover of the canal, but in April, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth visited Panama and agreed with Mulino to step up security coordination. The agreement also gives U.S. troops access to strategic air and naval facilities in the Central American nation, which sparked large protests in Panama's capital. China's Fu asked for the floor to respond to Shea's accusations after all council members spoke, this time lashing out at the Trump administration. "The United States' fabrication of lies and groundless attacks against China are nothing but a pretext for seeking control of the canal," he said. The Chinese envoy called the U.S. and its deployment of offensive weapons in the South China Sea area "the biggest disrupter of peace and stability" in the region, and he accused the administration of exacerbating risks to global maritime security. "China firmly opposes economic coercion and bullying practices and urges the United States to stop fabricating rumors, lies and creating trouble," Fu said. Murillo then responded, saying he wanted to stress Panama's sovereignty "in terms of the ownership of the canal" and the multilateral treaty governing its administration. He called the canal's neutrality "the only and the best defense" to any specific or global threats.
Japan Today
5 hours ago
- Japan Today
China, U.S. clash at U.N. over Panama Canal
A cargo ship navigates through the Panama Canal, seen from the Cerro Ancon in Panama City, Tuesday, July 29, 2025. (AP Photo/Matias Delacroix) By EDITH M. LEDERER The United States and China clashed over the Panama Canal at the United Nations on Monday, with the U.S. warning that Beijing's influence over the key waterway could threaten global trade and security and China calling U.S. accusations a pretext to take over the canal. The clash took place at a U.N. Security Council meeting where Panama's President José Raúl Mulino stressed the neutrality of the canal and his country's ownership of the waterway linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Panama holds the council presidency this month, and Mulino was chairing a meeting on challenges to maritime security. Interpol Secretary General Valdecy Urquiza told members these include piracy, armed robbery, transnational crime and cyber criminals weaponizing artificial intelligence to attack ports where there is 'minimal cyber security, maximum exposure.' U.S. President Donald Trump thrust Panama into the spotlight even before winning election last November by suggesting that his country should consider retaking control of the Panama Canal and accusing Panama of ceding influence to China. The U.S. built the canal in the early 1900s as it looked for ways to facilitate the transit of commercial and military vessels between its coasts. Control of the waterway transferred to Panama in 1999 under a treaty signed in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. China's U.N. Ambassador Fu Cong emphasized to the council that 'Panama has consistently and effectively managed the canal, making significant contributions to global shipping and trade.' 'China has always respected the permanent neutrality of the canal and firmly supports Panama in safeguarding its sovereignty over the canal to ensure its openness and smooth operation,' he said. Acting U.S. Ambassador Dorothy Shea, who spoke afterward, went after China, expressing concern about its 'outsized influence over the Panama Canal area, especially over critical infrastructure and port operations.' Alluding to its claims in the South China Sea, she said, 'China's expansive and unlawful maritime claims and aggressive actions demonstrate its threat to maritime security and commerce.' She said the U.S. rejects these claims and supports countries opposing them. 'China's influence in the canal area is not just a risk to Panama and the United States, but rather a potential threat to global trade and security,' Shea said. The Trump administration has pressured China to have the Hong Kong-based operator of ports at either end of the canal sell those interests to a U.S. consortium that includes BlackRock Inc. Panama has vehemently rejected a takeover of the canal, but in April, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth visited Panama and agreed with Mulino to step up security coordination. The agreement also gives U.S. troops access to strategic air and naval facilities in the Central American nation, which sparked large protests in Panama's capital. China's Fu asked for the floor to respond to Shea's accusations after all council members spoke, this time lashing out at the Trump administration. 'The United States' fabrication of lies and groundless attacks against China are nothing but a pretext for seeking control of the canal,' he said. The Chinese envoy called the U.S. and its deployment of offensive weapons in the South China Sea area 'the biggest disrupter of peace and stability' in the region, and he accused the administration of exacerbating risks to global maritime security. 'China firmly opposes economic coercion and bullying practices and urges the United States to stop fabricating rumors, lies and creating trouble,' Fu said. Murillo then responded, saying he wanted to stress Panama's sovereignty 'in terms of the ownership of the canal' and the multilateral treaty governing its administration. He called the canal's neutrality 'the only and the best defense' to any specific or global threats. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Japan Today
6 hours ago
- Japan Today
Landmark trial kicks off over Trump's use of U.S. military in LA policing role
FILE PHOTO: Members of the California National Guard stand guard at the Paramount Business Center parking lot a day after clashes between protesters and law enforcement following multiple detentions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), in the Los Angeles County city of Paramount, California, U.S., June 8, 2025. REUTERS/Jill Connelly/File Photo By Dietrich Knauth and Jack Queen A landmark trial kicked off on Monday over the use by Donald Trump's administration of National Guard forces to support its deportation efforts and quell protests in Los Angeles, in a legal challenge to the U.S. president's break from long-standing norms against deploying troops on American streets. The three-day non-jury trial before San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer will determine if the government violated a 19th century law that bars the military from civil law enforcement when Trump deployed the troops in June, as the state of California claims in its legal challenge. "The factual question which the court must address is whether the military was used to enforce domestic law, and if so, whether there continues to be a threat that it could be done again," Breyer said at the start of Monday's court hearing. Los Angeles experienced days of unrest and protests sparked by mass immigration raids at places where people gather to find work, like Home Depot stores, a garment factory and a warehouse. The administration denies that troops were used in civil law enforcement and plans to show that they were protecting federal property and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Many of the troops have been withdrawn, but California's Attorney General Rob Bonta said on Monday that 300 National Guard members are still going on immigration raids and restricting civilian movements in the state. The Trump administration last week extended the activation of troops in the Los Angeles area through November 6, according to a court filing by Gavin Newsom, the state's Democratic governor. "The federal government deployed military troops to the streets of Los Angeles for the purposes of political theater and public intimidation," Bonta said in a statement. "This dangerous move has no precedent in American history." California and Newsom have asked Breyer to prohibit the troops from directly participating in domestic law enforcement activities. They say the National Guard is accompanying ICE agents on raids and assisting in arrests, in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and other laws that forbid the U.S. military from taking part in civilian law enforcement. The Republican president ordered 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles in June against Newsom's wishes. California's lawsuit ultimately seeks a ruling that would return its National Guard troops to state control and a declaration that Trump's action was illegal. The trial before Breyer will have limited impact, however, on Trump's plan to deploy hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington as part of a crackdown on violent crime in the U.S. capital city despite statistics showing that violent crime there hit a 30-year low in 2024. "I'm deploying the National Guard to help reestablish law, order and public safety in Washington, D.C.," Trump said on Monday. "And they're going to be allowed to do their job properly." Unlike in California and other states, where the governor typically decides when to activate Guard troops, the president directly controls the National Guard in Washington. A ruling against the administration could restrict the actions of those troops and constrain Trump if he deploys such forces to police other American cities. Trump said his efforts to fight crime will go beyond Washington and he has mentioned Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and Baltimore. Trump's decision to send troops into Los Angeles prompted a national debate about the use of the military on U.S. soil and inflamed political tensions in the second-most-populous U.S. city. A U.S. appeals court has allowed Trump to retain control of California's National Guard during the legal challenge. © Thomson Reuters 2025.
