＜prologue＞
I started a blog called “The Baby Boomer Generation’s Miscellaneous Blog”（Dankai-sedai no garakutatyou:団塊世代の我楽多（がらくた）帳） in July 2018, about a year before I fully retired. More than six years have passed since then, and the number of articles has increased considerably.
So, in order to make them accessible to people who don’t understand Japanese, I decided to translate my past articles into English and publish them.
It may sound a bit exaggerated, but I would like to make this my life’s work.
It should be noted that haiku and waka （Japanese short fixed form poems） are quite difficult to translate into English, so some parts are written in Japanese.
If you are interested in haiku or waka and would like to know more, please read introductory or specialized books on haiku or waka written in English.
I also write many articles about the Japanese language. I would be happy if these inspire more people to want to learn Japanese.
my blog’s URL:団塊世代の我楽多（がらくた）帳 | 団塊世代が雑学や面白い話を発信しています
my X’s URL:団塊世代の我楽多帳（@historia49）さん / X
<Added January 28, 2022> The Inquest of Prosecutors Board has decided to indict dozens of the 100 individuals who received cash.
In connection with the large-scale bribery case surrounding the Hiroshima constituency in the July 2019 House of Councillors election, the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office Special Investigation Division dismissed 100 individuals accused of violating the Public Offices Election Act (bribery) for receiving cash from former Minister of Justice and former House of Representatives member Katsuyuki Kawai (58) (convicted in the first trial) and his wife, former House of Councillors member Anri Kawai (48) (convicted in the first trial). The Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office’s Sixth Inquest of Prosecutors has reportedly decided that 35 individuals, including Hiroshima prefectural assembly members, should be indicted and 46 individuals should be indicted, and that the non-indictment was inappropriate. Regarding 19 individuals, including prefectural assembly members and supporters who voluntarily returned the cash before the prosecutors began their investigation, the board also ruled that they should not be indicted, recognizing that non-indictment was appropriate.
While I believe it’s only natural to indict all 100 people who received cash, the fact that the prosecutors have belatedly decided that 35 of them should be indicted is perhaps something to be commended.
However, unless the prosecutors provide a clear explanation of who they were favoring in the first place and why they decided not to indict all 100 people, I don’t think it will convince many citizens.
The Special Investigation Unit will reinvestigate and make a new decision within three months on whether to indict or not. Even if the decision is again not made, if the Review Board issues a second resolution that indictment should be made, the lawyer designated to act as prosecutor will be able to force indictment.
<Added July 6, 2021> The Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office’s decision to “not indict any of the 100 individuals who received cash” remains highly questionable.
Even though some politicians received payments in the millions of yen, the prosecutors stated, “Given the circumstances, including the fact that defendant Katsuyuki, who wields great political influence, forced cash on them, we decided that there was no need to hold them criminally responsible.” This explanation is completely incomprehensible, and makes me wonder, “Is this really a fair prosecution?”
<Added March 9, 2021> It’s unfair that not a single prefectural or city assembly member who was bribed has been charged.
Former House of Councillors member Anri Kawai’s guilty verdict has been finalized, but former Justice Minister Katsuyuki Kawai, who was released on bail, is still on trial.
What remains puzzling is that even now, not a single prefectural or city assembly member who was bribed has been charged. If this continues, it will be like the “getting away” of small and medium-sized restaurants that benefited from the COVID-19 short-hours subsidy bubble, and I believe it is extremely unfair.
One concern is whether the 150 million yen in funding from the LDP headquarters could be subject to the crime of granting funds, but at present there appears to be no movement in that direction.
We will be keeping an eye on the testimony (revelations?) made by former Justice Minister Kawai Katsuyuki at the trial.
The case of election violations (bribery) against House of Councillors member Anri Kawai, who was elected in the July 2019 House of Councillors election, has escalated to the arrest of former Minister of Justice Katsuyuki Kawai and House of Councillors member Anri Kawai. This is an extraordinary development, marking the first time in constitutional history that a former Minister of Justice has been arrested.
What is unusual about this case is that it is not only a large-scale bribery case involving 94 local government leaders and assembly members, campaign leaders, and influential local figures, but also that the majority of those alleged to have received cash have subsequently admitted to receiving it.
The Kawais are accused of conspiring to ensure Anri’s election by giving a total of 1.7 million yen in cash to five people between late March and mid-June 2019 with the intention of requesting them to vote or coordinate votes. Katsuyuki is also accused of independently giving a total of approximately 24 million yen in cash to 91 people on 116 occasions between late March and early August 2019.
Incidentally, the fact that the majority of those allegedly receiving cash have admitted to receiving it one after another raises the question of whether they resigned themselves to the fact that the matter was so widely reported, or whether a plea bargain was reached.
Furthermore, it raises the question of whether the extremely large amount of funding provided by the LDP headquarters to Anri prior to the House of Councillors election, amounting to 150 million yen, constitutes the “crime of providing funds” under the Public Offices Election Act.
1. Was a “plea bargain” involved?
A “plea bargain” is “a criminal proceeding in which a defendant and a prosecutor obtain cooperation in an investigation or trial in exchange for a dispositional benefit, backed by the prosecutor’s discretion in criminal proceedings.”
Plea bargains were not originally permitted in Japan, but the revised Code of Criminal Procedure was enacted in May 2016, and plea bargains became permitted as of June 1, 2018.
The first case to which this law was applied was the Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems bribery case, and the second was the Carlos Ghosn case.
The recent “election violation case involving former Justice Minister Kawai Katsuyuki and House of Councillors member Kawai Anri” may be the third case to be applied.
One legal professional has suggested that “the bribed parties may not be charged this time.” The reason seems to be that there were approximately 40 bribed local assembly members, and there are concerns that if charges were filed, it would have a major impact on local politics.
If this is the case, however, one has to say that the prosecutors’ decisions on whether to indict or not are arbitrary, and that plea bargaining is being applied arbitrarily. We hope for a rigorous investigation by the prosecutors and fair and strict punishment.
2. Is it possible that the “crime of granting funds” will be applied to the 150 million yen in funding provided by the LDP headquarters?
Another thing that concerns me is the extremely large amount of funding provided, totaling 150 million yen, perhaps with the aim of ensuring the election of both Kawai and incumbent LDP House of Councillors member Akimasa Mizobe, or with the aim of ensuring the election of Kawai Anri alone. This amount is significantly higher than that of other candidates (10 times the amount typically provided for election expenses).
If the party that decided to provide such a large amount of election funds did so with the understanding that it would be used to provide funds to “voters,” etc., then this would violate Article 221-5 of the Public Offices Election Act, which refers to the “crime of providing money or goods with the intent to bribe someone” (the provision of money or goods with the intent to bribe someone).
I hope that the prosecutors will conduct a thorough investigation.