113TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’
PAPERSPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERSINVESTIGATION OF CORRUPTION IN JAPAN
Tamotsu Hasegawa*I. CORRUPT PRACTICES BY
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN
JAPANJapan’s prosecutor’s offices handle andprocess bribery offences committed bygovernment officials. According tostatistics for 1997, there were about 170
government officials under arrest, of whom
150 were accused of taking bribes.
According to a breakdown by public officeof the accused, the largest number recorded
was: 80 for local government officials,
followed by 50 assembly members of local
government. The remainder consisted of
10 police officials and 10 officials in the
National Tax Administration.
In Japan, as mentioned above, thenumber of cases in which public servants
are exposed as being involved in bribery
are few, but such crimes are carefullyplanned and are secretive in nature. So
the proportion of cases that remain hidden
are rather more than with other criminalcases, and the actual number exposed
through the courts is rather small. Thusin Japan, finding out illegal actions by
public servants, such as bribery, is quite
an important issue for investigating
authorities.
There are typical examples in which
bribery is committed by government
officials in Japan. Administrative
bureaucrats exercise their administrative
rights at their own discretion, in a broad
sense. Information on decision-making
processes is inadequately disclosed byadministrative organizations. Under such
* Public Prosecutor, Tokyo District Prosecutors Office,Japan

circumstances, bribes are offered to secure
special business favors from government
officials in connection with the granting ofgovernment licenses or the awarding ofgovernment contracts for public works.
These kinds of bribery cases receive
public attention. In one such case, the ViceMinister of Health and Welfare took a bribefrom a business owner in return for the
granting of a construction subsidy for anaged persons welfare facility. In anothercase, an executive director of a securities
company provided a high-ranking officialof the Ministry of Finance with luxurious
business entertainment, which constitutes
the offence of taking a bribe for favors given
in relation to government approval of afinancial product.
In Japan, nomination is made forselection of contractors under a competitive
bidding system. Contracts to carry out
public works are awarded by local
governments to the successful bidder(s)among the nominated contractors.
Prospective contractors have offered bribes
to government officials in return forfavoritism during the selection of
nominated bidders. Government officials
have taken these bribes from prospective
bidders to disclose the lowest bid price inthe bidding procedure. These corrupt
officials were accused of bribery.
In addition to bribery offences committed
by administrative bureaucrats, there aremany recorded occasions of members of theDiet being involved.1 Diet members havestrong business connections withparticular industries. They have been
1

The Diet is the Japanese parliament.

469

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
known to approach an administrative
organ to formulate an industrial policy thatis advantageous to one particular industry.
In this process, the particular industry
offers inducements to the Diet members to
influence political decisions in its favor.
Here are some examples of members of
the Diet being involved in bribery. In recent
years, the Fair Trade Commission
attempted to accuse certain construction
companies of consulting among themselves
to orchestrate predetermined exaggerated
bids for public works before the bids wereopened. The chairman of the Fair Trade
Commission was subjected to politicalpressure from a member of the Diet, who
was consequently accused of receiving abribe from the construction companies toprevent the proposed accusation. Similarly,
in a tax evasion case, a member of the Diet
was accused of receiving political donations
from many construction companies, withthe sole aim of collecting the money for his
personal use.
In Japan, those in government service
should never accept, for themself or theirf a m i l y, f a v o r s o r b e n e f i t s u n d e r
circumstances which might be construed
as influencing the performance of his or her
governmental duties. In general,
government employees, including
officeholders, adhere to the Code of Ethics
for Government Service. Bribery is notnecessarily rampant as a social custom. On
the other hand, Japan’s social structure
and the environment surrounding
government employees contains manyfactors that could be seen as a hotbed forcorruption. In Japan, investigating
authorities are under great pressure to
expose corrupt practices by government
employees, especially by office holders in
the national government - high-ranking
government officials and members of the
Diet.

470

II. BRIBERY INVESTIGATIONS OF
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
A. Public Prosecutor’s Involvementin Bribery Cases that are
Exposed by Police Officers
In Japan, the police force is the primary
investigating authority in criminal cases.
In principle, public prosecutors conduct
supplementary investigations of criminalcases referred to them by police officers,
before determining whether or not toinstitute prosecution. A public prosecutor’s
office is an independent investigating
authority, as are police stations. As ageneral rule, these two investigating
authorities work in close cooperation witheach other.
In bribery cases, police officers conduct
the criminal investigation if they
themselves expose the leads. To perform
effectively during the investigation of abribery case, police officers require a solid
understanding of investigative techniquesand legal interpretation. As the courts
make ever more complicated rulings that
expand the rights of the defendants, thelegal requirements for the admissibility ofconfessions may appear different in certain
jurisdictions. Public prosecutors are often
involved at the initial stage of criminal
investigation, thus exercising control andsupervision over the police work. This is
to rectify improperly handled
investigations and ill-advised conduct on
the part of law enforcement officers,
especially incomplete interpretation of thelaw and evaluation of physical evidence.
Good cooperative relations aremaintained between public prosecutor’s
offices and police stations. Publicprosecutors and police officers often holdmeetings to discuss a particular case indetail before an identified suspect istransferred from the police station to the
public prosecutor’s office. Even after the113TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
case is referred to the prosecutor’s office,the police maintain a close liaison with theprosecutor’s office for competent collectionof physical evidence.
B. Independent Investigation by
Public Prosecutors
In Japan, a public prosecutor is
authorized to conduct a criminal
investigation into any type of crime as he/she sees fit. In addition to cases referredto them by the police, public prosecutors
identify particular cases and conduct theirown criminal investigations.
Statistics for 1997 show the number ofpeople questioned by police officers
compared with suspects interrogated bypublic prosecutors. The police officers
questioned about 150 suspects, rather morethan the 20 suspects interrogated by publicprosecutors. The number of criminal
accusations is small on the part of publicprosecutors, but the majority of bribery
offences committed by government officials
or members of the Diet were exposed in thecourse of independent investigation by
public prosecutors.
Public prosecutors are expected to
conduct preliminary investigations ofbribery offences committed by officeholders in the national government - highranking government officials andpoliticians. In practice, public prosecutors
perform their investigative duties during
investigation of bribery cases. This ispartly because the public prosecutor is askilled practitioner of such diverse skills
as legal interpretation and investigativetechniques for white-collar crimes, andpartly because the public prosecutor’s office
is independent.
The Public Prosecutor ’s Office Law
provides that no person in the office of
public prosecutor can be removed nor
disadvantageously treated, even by the

Minister of Justice, without reasonablecause. Moreover, the Law stipulates that,for the purpose of protecting the exercisingof prosecution rights, especially for the
purpose of eliminating any politicalpressure and interference of theinvestigative procedures of a publicprosecutor, the Minister of Justice may only
command the Prosecutor-General of theSupreme Public Prosecutor’s Office withrespect to investigations or prosecutions ofindividual cases. This means that the
Ministry of Justice cannot interfere directlywith criminal investigations or the solvingof crimes conducted by any publicprosecutor. In this way, the independenceof the public prosecutor is secured. Publicprosecutors remain neutral in exercising
their prosecution rights against politicalgroups.
III. ORGANIZATION OF PUBLICPROSECUTORS OFFICES
As described earlier, public prosecutors
are authorized to conduct criminal
investigations at their own discretion, afactor that is characteristic of the Japanesepublic prosecutors system. Criminal
investigation relies heavily on theinvestigative duties of public prosecutors,
including the institution of publicprosecution and the maintenance of public
trials.
In Japan, the public prosecutor’s officehas a special investigative department thattakes charge of investigations into bribery
and economic crimes committed bygovernment officials. These special
investigative departments are establishedat the District Public Prosecutor’s Offices
in Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya. In addition,
special criminal departments have been
established at 10 district public prosecutors
offices throughout Japan.

471

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
At the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors
Office, the Special Investigation
Department has a total of 125 legal
officials, comprising of 40 publicprosecutors and 85 public prosecutor ’s
assistant officers. These 40 publicprosecutors are made up of one director,
three deputy-directors and 36
subordinates. All 36 public prosecutors areprofessionals with four to 18 years ofexperience since assuming office. They aregrouped into three special investigative
teams headed by the three deputydirectors.
The following sections address thecurrent situation of independent
investigations conducted by the Special
Investigation Department and the
problems of investigative procedures.
IV. DETECTION OF A BRIBE IN
PROGRESSThe Special Investigation Department
employs three investigative techniques tofind leads for suspicious activities while abribe is in progress. Firstly, publicprosecutors examine news coverage, suchas in newspapers and magazines. Anothersource of information is the question andanswer proceedings during the Diet or local
government assembly sessions. Publicprosecutors look for any suspicious activity
conducted by government officials or
politicians. Extensive interviews andbackground investigations are initiated toi d e n t i f y s u s p e c t s . I n p a r t i c u l a r,
examination of the contents of speeches
made by Diet or local government assembly
members is one important investigativetechnique to solicit leads in a bribery-inprogress case. Public prosecutors always
monitor trends in the Diet and local
government assemblies. If a matter ofbusiness interest is discussed at a meeting
held by a particular corporation ororganization, the minutes are made472

available for examination by publicprosecutors.
Secondly, a public prosecutor’s officeaccepts complaints or accusations from acomplainant or accuser for crimes ofcorruption. The Special Investigation
Department has a public prosecutor who
takes charge of accepting written
complaints or accusation and letters frominformants. Suspicious situations worthyof investigation are detected frominformation contained in written
complaints or accusations and anonymous
letters. In recent years, an employee of acorporation accused an executive directorof a wrongful act. An executive officer of apolitician’s support association revealed thecorrupt practices of the politician. These
insider accusations are a major source of
information for detecting leads into ongoingbribery cases.
Thirdly, public prosecutors look for signsof suspicious activity during investigations
into the crime in question, thus adding
weight to the suspicion that some othercrimes have been committed. In a tax
evasion case, seized account books are
examined to identify the flow of funds, thus
revealing whether bribes were offered togovernment officials who could then be
accused of bribery. When an identified
suspect or witness is questioned withrespect to cases of embezzlement or breachof trust by executive directors of acorporation, statements are obtained
unexpectedly to detect corrupt practices,thus leading to the prosecution of briberyin-progress.
V. INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUESUSED BY THE SPECIALINVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT
During the course of investigation of abribery case, the Special Investigation
Deparatment conducts a thorough search

113TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
for evidence to collect as many physicalitems of evidence as possible. Seized
evidence is examined to prove an alleged
offence of corruption. A search for evidence
usually begins in the area to be raided,
while the suspect is under arrest. In aserious crime, all people present aremobilized while the raid is conducted andphysical evidence searched for. The
number of people mobilized during the
conducting of specific tasks often exceeds
100. All evidence recovered is seized during
the raid, including account books, businessdiaries, and any other items related to thealleged offence. Seized evidence is often
packed in hundreds of corrugatedcardboard boxes during a raid on the officesof a big company. The seized evidence isthen examined by public prosecutors indetail. They are then used as evidence thata crime was committed.
Secondly, during an investigation into
bribery, it is important to clarify the sourceof funds offered as bribes and how they
were used. To locate the source of funds
for bribes requires a thorough analysis ofaccount books. To this end, the Special
Investigation Department dispatches
public prosecutor’s assistant officers to the
National Tax College and a Regional
Taxation Bureau to develop skills inmaking an analysis of account books. Somepublic prosecutor ’s assistant officers
receive instruction in bookkeeping at
vocational schools. These publicprosecutor’s assistant officers, who haveacquired a working knowledge ofbookkeeping, are assigned to special tasks- the analysis of bank deposit slips,
vouchers used for business transactions,and ledgers, thus playing an increasingly
important role in conducting financial
investigations.
Thirdly, public prosecutors conduct
intense questioning of suspects or
witnesses to obtain their statements todetermine the truth about a fact inquestion. Bribery is a carefully planned andconcealed crime, making it difficult to prove
because physical evidence is not easy togather. So a statement made by an
identified suspect or witness is extremely
vital to ensure that successful evidence ispresented in court. Moreover, the fact thatthe money received was a bribe is quitedifficult to prove without a confession.
Public prosecutors do their best to makepreparations by collecting objective
evidence before beginning any
interrogation. This procedure assists the
public prosecutors in obtaining a statementfrom an identified suspect or witness. A
statement obtained from an identified
suspect or witness is checked against any
available background information on thesuspect or witness, thus establishing thecredibility of the statement. Finally, thep u b l i c p r o s e c u t o r ’s r e c o r d o f o r a lstatements is prepared and presented as
evidence in court.
As described earlier, the Special
Investigation Department follows basic
investigative techniques and procedures for
detecting leads during the course of
independent investigation into bribery
cases. No special authority is delegated to
the Special Investigation Department. No
special investigative techniques are used
for criminal investigations. In a bribery
case, criminal investigations conducted by
the Special Investigation Department
reflect the breadth of practical experience,
working knowledge, and investigative
methodologies on the part of each publicprosecutor.
VI. CHALLENGES TO BRIBERYINVESTIGATIONS
Public prosecutors in today’s society face
many challenges. Serious crimes such asbribery often results in lengthy, exhaustive,
and highly complex criminal

473

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
investigations. This requires a heavy
allocation of manpower. As describede a r l i e r, t h e S p e c i a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n
D e p a r t m e n t o f t h e To k y o D i s t r i c t
Prosecutor’s Office - the largest prosecution
team - has only 40 public prosecutors
assigned to criminal investigations. As aneffective way of managing a complex
investigation into serious crimes such asbribery and large-scale economic cases, themanpower shortage is replenished by thedispatch of additional public prosecutors
from other departments or other District
Prosecutors Offices throughout Japan. In
a world of frequent and dramatic changes
in information technology, social attitudes
and legal opinion, criminal offences arelikely to become more and more complex
in the future. Conducting complex
investigations in an efficient and proper
manner requires improvement ofinvestigative methodologies, as well as anincrease in the number of publicprosecutors in office.
In addition, criminal investigation into
bribery poses a major problem - how tosecure the appearance of an identified
suspect or witness. As Japanese citizens
become increasingly aware of their legal
rights, the suspect has full opportunity tocontact their defence counsel prior toquestioning. If identified suspects or
witnesses are summoned by theinvestigating authorities, they often refuse
to appear. Such suspects or witnesses
refuse to talk during questioning. To copewith these new trends requiresconsideration to be given to theintroduction of new investigativetechniques, such as an immunity system.
In contrast, Japanese citizens have strong
inhibitions about adopting newinvestigative techniques, such as
exemption from legal proceedings andentrapment.

474This situation would cause anotherproblem in Japan. The investigation’s
progress is often hindered by the suicide ofindividuals being questioned or important
witnesses, a contributing factor that has
significant effect on criminal
investigations. In Japan, a person being
questioned often commits suicide to avoid
any inconvenience being caused to theirorganization or immediate supervisor if he/she belongs to an organization. In recent
years, news media tends to disclose thenature of an alleged offence and theinvestigation’s progress. The suicide of aperson being questioned is often
attributable to the disclosure ofinvestigative information through news
media.
In a bribery case, a confession obtained
from an identified suspect or witness
constitutes extremely important evidence.
Another problem is how to establish incourt the voluntary nature and credibilityof a confession. In a bribery case, aconfession obtained from an identified
suspect at the criminal investigation stage
is often revoked by the accused, who denies
the voluntary nature and credibility of theconfession in court. When the criminallyaccused challenges the voluntary natureand credibility of the confession madeduring investigation, their arguments isthat he/she was intimidated into confessing
because he/she was locked in theinterrogation room during intensive
questioning.
If the voluntary nature and credibilityof confessions is tested at trial, any publicprosecutors who conducted aninvestigation of the case in question will
be called to testify in court to establish thefacts about the circumstances under which
the interrogation was conducted. The
admissibility of a voluntary confession
obtained during interrogation isestablished in court by a public prosecutor

113TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
who testifies that the contents of thevoluntary confession match the objective
evidence and statements made by all theparties involved. If there is a possibility
that the voluntary nature and credibilityof a confession is tested in court,
consideration should be given to the use ofvideo or tape recorders for transparency of
the investigative process.
To prevent the investigating authorities
from placing over-reliance on a confession,and to facilitate prosecution of a bribery
crime, the burden of proof should bechanged or presumption regulations should
be provided for. These effective proceduresshould be taken into consideration.
VII. PREPARING FOR COURT
In a bribery case, the defence counseland defendants have a legitimate right totest the admissibility of physical evidence
presented in court by public prosecutors.
When prosecuted bribery or economic cases
often involve complex fact finding andrequire a comprehensive list of all physicalevidence, the public investigator’s recordof oral statements and witnesses
interrogations. These procedures require
enormous effort to establish in court thatthe alleged crime was committed. The
Tokyo District Public Prosecutor’s Officehas a Public Trial Department and aSpecial Public Trial Department - anadditional department assigned to bribery
or economic cases. These departments
present truthful, objective information thatis effective in establishing the guilt of
criminals.

475