JAPANNEW AND EMERGING FORMS OF CORRUPTION AND THE
EFFECTIVE COUNTERMEASURES IN JAPAN
Hiroshi Kubo *I. INTRODUCTION
Based on the 2021 survey of Transparency International, Japan ranked 18 among 180
countries globally in terms of the Corruption Perception Index (1 best, 180 worst). And ingeneral, Japanese citizens place a relatively high degree of trust in public servants. That said,
Japan is not a corruption-free country, and we still have a long way to go before eliminating
corruption completely from our society. In this paper, I would like to touch upon “New andEmerging Forms of Corruption and the Effective Countermeasures in Japan” including the
explanations of our investigative agencies and how public prosecutors investigate corruption
cases in Japan.
II. INVESTIGATIVE AGENCIES IN JAPAN
A. The Police
In Japan, the police are the main investigative agency. Although officers of someadministrative bodies, such as narcotics agents and coast guard officers, also have limited
jurisdiction to investigate certain types of offences, police officers have general jurisdiction
over all types of offences. There is no special investigative agency which exclusively
investigates and prosecutes corruption cases in Japan. The vast majority of criminal cases
including corruption cases are investigated by the police and referred to public prosecutors.
Since the police do not have the power to decide whether to prosecute criminal cases, all cases
investigated by the police must be sent to public prosecutors for disposition except for very
limited minor offences. The police have headquarters in each of Japan’s 47 prefectures.
Currently there are approximately 260,000 police officers in Japan.
B. Public Prosecutors
Public prosecutors have the exclusive power to decide whether or not to prosecute eachcriminal case. Moreover, they are fully authorized to conduct criminal investigations, andactively supplement police investigations by directly interviewing witnesses and interrogatingsuspects as well as instructing police officers to investigate matters which they deem necessary.
There are 50 District Public Prosecutors’ Offices in Japan (1 in each of 46 prefectures and 4 in
Hokkaido in accordance with its vast size). Currently there are approximately 2,700 publicprosecutors in Japan.
III. HOW PUBLIC PROSECUTORS INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION CASES
A. Collecting Initial Information
In this section, I would like to touch upon how public prosecutors investigate corruption
cases especially in bribery cases. Since these cases are committed secretly among very limited
parties, it is extremely difficult to collect initial information as well as sufficient evidence to*Professor, UNAFEI.

-- 83
83 --

SIXTEENTH REGIONAL SEMINAR ON GOOD GOVERNANCE

establish their guilt. Therefore, I believe it is worthwhile to address bribery cases and look into
how investigation is conducted in such cases.
First of all, public prosecutors need to collect initial information to commence theirinvestigation. They need some grounds or leads to initiate cases. And there are some methods
to collect initial information of these cases, such as complaints from witnesses in the form of
telephone, letters, emails etc., through investigation of other cases, publications such as weekly
magazines or newspapers and so on. That said, public prosecutors must bear in mind that thecredibility of the collected initial information is always dubious, as some people may
intentionally disseminate false negative information to frame their adversaries. Therefore,public prosecutors must, in the first place, examine whether the collected information istrustworthy enough to commence an investigation. If they fail to do so, they will definitely
cause great harm to the people involved and loose the trust of society, which they need themost.
B. Tracing the Flow of Illicit Funds
In the investigation of corruption cases, identifying and proving the flow of illicit funds isfundamental and crucial. For example, in a bribery case, tracing the flow of money – namelyfrom the source of the bribe to the receipt of the bribe as well as the concealment or use of thebribe by the recipient – is indispensable to prove the facts of the case objectively. Also, tracing
the flow of money enables public prosecutors to confiscate the bribe as criminal proceeds fromthe offender.
In order to trace the flow of illicit funds, first of all, search and seizure is imperative. By
executing search and seizure in a prompt and proper manner, gathering physical evidence will
be possible. For example, in the process of search and seizure, public prosecutors could collectnecessary physical evidence including receipts, letters, memos, diaries, contract documents,
photos, bankcards, passbooks, CDs, DVDs, USBs, computers, smartphones and otherelectronic devices etc. Then public prosecutors could develop the big picture of the flow ofillicit funds by analysing the collected evidence.
Secondly, interviewing witnesses and interrogating suspects are also necessary. Even if
physical evidence was properly collected and analysed as mentioned above, that does notalways mean everything has been completely answered. In many cases, the explanations of
witnesses or suspects are needed to clarify the entire flow of the funds. For example, oncemoney in a bank account is detected, if it was withdrawn from the bank account and its current
whereabouts are unknown based on the analysis of the collected physical evidence, then publicprosecutors further need to seek the explanations of witnesses or suspects in order to clarify
the outcome of the withdrawal of the money. Their explanations could supplement the flow of
the money corroborated by the collected physical evidence.
In addition, there are also cases where international cooperation between other countries orregions is indispensable. For example, if the money in a bank account in Japan was transferred
to a bank account in other country or region, public prosecutors would probably encounter
difficulties in tracing the flow of the money afterward, because public prosecutors in Japan do
not have jurisdiction over other countries and regions. In such cases, Japanese publicprosecutors would seek assistance from investigative authorities of other countries or regions
and ask them to provide necessary information to clarify the flow of the money. By utilizingthese methods, public prosecutors seek to trace the flow of illicit funds.

- 84 - 84 -

JAPANC. Identifying the Nature of the Funds
After identifying and proving the flow of illicit funds, public prosecutors need to identify
and prove the nature of the funds. In some cases, suspects may admit the receipt or use of thefunds; however, they claim that the receipt or the use is legal. They argue that the receipt or
use of the funds is based on legitimate transactions, or they have the legitimate right to receiveor use the funds. In order to examine or, if necessary, rebut their arguments, public prosecutors
need to thoroughly identify the nature of the funds and prove whether their receipt or use of
the funds is illegal and groundless or not.
To identify and prove the nature of the funds, public prosecutors need to collect physicalevidence including documents, data, etc., and analyse them comprehensively in addition tointerviewing witnesses and interrogating suspects. Based on the analysis of the collected
evidence and interrogations of suspects etc., public prosecutors may precisely understand how
and why the funds were received or used by the suspects.
It is especially important to obtain the confessions of the suspects and the statements of
the witnesses in order to prove the nature of the funds because they are the only ones who know
the truth of their stories. For example, in a bribery case, if a bribe giver admits that funds wereintended to bribe the bribe taker, and at the same time, based on the overall investigation, no
evidence was found to corroborate legitimate transactions etc. between the provider and therecipient, it is highly likely that their guilt will be established at trials.
In order to obtain the confessions, it is necessary to listen carefully to the voices of thesuspects and never deny their arguments completely. They may sometimes lie or hide the true
story but, at the same time, they may reveal the truth to some extent. If public prosecutors try
to press their opinions unilaterally, the suspects would refuse to talk and never tell the truth topublic prosecutors. And it is also essential to present the collected objective evidence to thesuspects and seek their opinions on the evidence. By being presented with overwhelming
objective evidence, some suspects might give up arguing on and start telling the truth to publicprosecutors.
D. Identifying All the Suspects
Public prosecutors also need to identify all the suspects involved in a case. In some bribery
cases, in addition to a bribe giver and bribe taker, there is also an architect who organizes thecrime and a beneficiary who receives criminal proceeds in the end, including gang members
and politicians etc. These figures tend to hide behind other junior figures and press their
responsibilities to those people to escape from their own charges, but they are the ones whoshould be held accountable the most.
Public prosecutors must examine the case thoroughly, identify all the suspects, especiallythe kingpin, and bring all of them to justice without fail. Public prosecutors must collect andanalyse enough evidence so that court can be fully confident to establish guilt of all the suspects
beyond reasonable doubt.
IV. NEW AND EMERGING FORMS OF CORRUPTION IN JAPANA. Covid-19-Related Cases
From the outset of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, there were cases where individuals andlegal entities defrauded the Japanese Government out of subsidies originally designed to assist
those adversely affected by Covid-19 in Japan. As of 6 October 2022, more than 1,600

-- 85
85 --

SIXTEENTH REGIONAL SEMINAR ON GOOD GOVERNANCE

individuals and legal entities have wrongfully received subsidies of more than 17 billion yen,equivalent to US$116 million. Among these cases, some were committed by Japanese
Government officials, for example, those of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry(METI), which is in charge of the Covid-19-related subsidy programme, as well as one of the
National Tax Bureau, which is involved in the process of distributing subsidies. Two METI
officials were found guilty and sentenced to 2 years and 6 months in prison and 2 years inprison with the sentence suspended for 4 years, respectively, for swindling 15 million yen
jointly. And an official of the National Tax Bureau was also found guilty and sentenced to 3
years in prison with the sentence suspended for 5 years for swindling 7 million yen with his
accomplices. Those officials, all in their 20s, have allegedly abused their knowledge andexperience as officials of responsible ministries and bureaus and defrauded the government out
of funds which could have otherwise helped those in desperate need.
B. Corruption Cases Related to the Tokyo Olympics
In August 2022, a former Tokyo Olympic organizing committee board member wasarrested by the Tokyo Public Prosecutor’s Office over allegations that he was bribed 51 million
yen, equivalent to US$380,000, to secure a sponsorship contract for a business wear company
and grant it approval to sell official Games goods. Technically speaking, the organizing
committee board members are not public servants themselves, but they are categorized as“deemed public servants”. In Japan, some non-public servants are regarded as public servantsin accordance with the nature of their professions, which are highly public or related to the
public benefit etc., in line with those of public servants by the special acts. For example, theofficials of the Bank of Japan are not public servants, but they are deemed public servants by
the Bank of Japan Act in accordance with the nature of their professions. The deemed public
servants are punishable by the provisions which punish public servants such as bribery, abuseof authority by public servants etc. Likewise, the former board members are deemed public
servants based on the Special Act of the Tokyo Olympic Games, and they are subject topunishment for receiving bribes.
Public prosecutors arrested the founder (former chairperson) of the company, along withthe former vice chairperson and the senior managing director of the firm, for allegedly offering
those bribes to the former board member. It is said that the former board member denied
pushing organizing committee officials to give the company such favourable treatment, saying
the money was just paid for consulting services. Following this case, the former board member
was arrested several times in connection with other similar cases, but he also denies
wrongdoing. The investigations by public prosecutors are still ongoing, and the overall pictureof the cases is yet unclear. The Olympic Games were originally commenced to encourageinteractions among athletes regardless of their backgrounds in order to establish a peacefulworld, but recently they have become too extravagant. In fact, in the Tokyo Olympics (2021),
US$28 billon was used, whereas, in London Olympics (2012) and in Sydney Olympics (2000),
only US$15 billion and US$5 billion were used, respectively. 1 The expenses of the Olympic
Games have ballooned nearly sixfold in just 21 years. I believe this trend is one of the big
causes of such corruption cases, and the business wear companies and others sought to gain
their own interests in the Tokyo Olympics Games by exploiting the enormous clout of theformer board member on the organizing committee. If people concerned keep doing the samethings and do not change their directions, similar cases might occur in the near future as there
seems to be no sign of keeping the expenses of the Olympic Games down. And also, to prevent
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2021/07/27/tokyo-is-the-worlds-most-expensive-city-forconstruction-infographic/?sh=2a363d9170d2
1- 86 - 86 -

JAPANthe recurrence of similar cases, we need to have an effective mechanism in place which robustly
scrutinizes conflicts of interest of all deemed public servants both incumbent and prospectivewith companies or individuals likely to be engaged in their businesses.
C. Cases Involving Cooperative Agreements
In Japan, the cooperative agreement system was created in 2016 and came into force in2018. The new system allows suspects and defendants to enter into negotiations with publicprosecutors, whereby evidence of others’ criminal conduct can be provided in return for
criminal charges being reduced or dropped. It covers white collar crimes such as fraud, bribery
and so on.
Since its introduction, the system has been used in several cases, and the first case wasrelated to a Japanese power equipment manufacturing company. The company was engaged in
the construction of a thermal power plant in a Southeast Asian country in 2015. However, inFebruary 2015, when the company’s logistics provider tried to unload components for the plant
at a jetty near the construction site, local residents along with public officials from the local
port authority claimed that the logistics provider had not properly obtained the necessary
licence to use the jetty and they blocked the jetty. The logistics provider was asked to pay a
bribe (around USD 600,000) in order to use the jetty, and the company’s employees paid thebribe to the local residents and the port authority officials, as requested, through the logistics
providers, so that they could avoid the delay of the construction. Later the company becameaware of the said case and could not deny the fact that the company’s employees had bribed
foreign public officials. Therefore, the company reported its findings to public prosecutors andentered into a cooperative agreement with public prosecutors in 2018 under which publicprosecutors agreed not to charge the company in exchange for its cooperation in theinvestigation. Three former employees were prosecuted for bribing foreign public officials, andall of them were found guilty. Among them, two were sentenced to 1 year and 6 months inprison with the sentence suspended for 3 years, and the remaining one was sentenced to 1 year
and 4 months in prison with the sentence suspended for 3 years. The number of cases in which
the cooperative agreement system has been used is still small in Japan; thus, it is yet premature
to judge whether the system is a truly effective means of investigation.
D. Exam-Related Cases
In Japan, national exams including the bar exam and other entrance exams of prestigious
universities, especially those of medical schools, are quiet competitive. In fact, only 2 or 3 outof 100 applicants passed the bar exam each year in the past, and they were indeed extremelycompetitive.
In 2015, an unprecedented case happened in relation to the bar exam in Japan. A professorof a law school who was one of the members to set the bar exam of that year, disclosed somequestions in advance to one of his female students, whom he was reportedly dating. This casebecame evident, as the female student gained unnaturally high marks. He fed exam questions
to the student because she had failed the exam a year before and he wanted to help her. He wasfound guilty and sentenced to 1 year in prison with the sentence suspended for 5 years.
Also in July 2022, a former senior education ministry official was found guilty andsentenced to 2 years and 6 months in prison, suspended for 5 years, for allegedly receiving
bribes related to a ministry support programme for private universities. He accepted a requestfrom the members of a medical university in Tokyo to give favourable treatment to the

-- 87
87 --

SIXTEENTH REGIONAL SEMINAR ON GOOD GOVERNANCE

university in return for his second son fraudulently passing the entrance exam of that university
in February 2018.
These are the two examples of corruption cases related to exams. These suspects were bothin highly responsible positions, and they should have or must have surely recognized the great
responsibilities attached to them at the moment of committing their crimes. However, they
averted their eyes from them and acted wrongfully in favour of their loved ones even thoughthese acts will turn out to be a major disadvantage for their loved ones in the end.
V. CONCLUSION
As mentioned above, corruption still exists in Japan and new cases are emerging. In orderto prevent and fight against corruption, I believe maintaining the integrity of public servants,
including those regarded as public servants, is crucial and imperative. In Japan, the National
Public Service Ethics Act was enacted in 1999, and the National Public Service Ethics Codewas also enacted in 2000 in order to maintain the integrity of public servants.
Based on the Act and Code etc., various trainings have been conducted for public servantsso as to maintain their integrity and to raise anti-corruption awareness. However, these efforts
are insufficient, and we still have much to do to completely eradicate corruption from oursociety. For example, in addition to conducting these trainings, we could enhance awarenessof the risks of corruption by informing them repeatedly of the actual cases and teach them how
corruption could destroy the suspect’s life. They need to realize from the bottom of their heartthat the results of corruption are enormous and irreparable. By learning these cases, I believe,
they can finally associate them with their own lives more directly.
And this is completely my personal opinion, and someone may strongly disagree, but, tosome extent, we may need to think of raising salaries of young public servants so that theywould be commensurate with their workload. It is said that some young public servants arequitting their jobs early because they think they are not paid enough for their work, especiallyfor overtime, compared to their peers in the private sector. In fact, after WWII, the system of
the salaries of the public servants in Japan was reformed, and the salaries of police officers
became higher than those of other public servants. That led to the decrease of the amount ofcorruption committed by police officers. Until then, in some prefectures, surprisingly, five percent of police officers received the sanction of disciplinary dismissal due to their wrongdoingin just one year 2 (currently, it is less than 0.0001%).
It is not clear whether the amount of salary is directly connected to corruption for the
moment (however, the officials of the METI and the National Tax Bureau, who committed
fraud in Covid-19-related cases, were all in their 20s), and we may need to consider budgetaryissues in advance, but if they receive salaries which they view as being commensurate with
their own work, it could dissuade them from becoming engaged in corruption in the future.

2

Keisatsugaku Ronshu (The Journal of Police Science) Vol. 65, No. 9, p. 108.

- 88 - 88 -