The Osaka District Public Prosecutors Office’s special investigation unit has once again come under sharp criticism from the court for employing coercive interrogation tactics.
Other prosecutors have also been found to have violated suspects’ rights, resorting to abusive language and insults in efforts to force confessions that fit their preconceived narratives.
This should be a turning point—an opportunity for the prosecution as a whole to return to the core principles of fair and just criminal investigations.
In a lawsuit filed by a former real estate company president—who had been arrested and indicted by the special investigation squad for embezzlement but was later acquitted—the Osaka District Court dismissed his claim for government compensation, while criticizing the prosecutor’s interrogation tactics.
The criminal charges relied heavily on a statement from one of the president’s subordinates, who alleged, “The president was an accomplice.”
However, it later emerged that the prosecutor had subjected the subordinate to prolonged, aggressive questioning—shouting for hours, pounding on the desk and yelling threats such as, “Don’t mess with the prosecution.”
In the criminal trial, the court rejected the credibility of the subordinate’s testimony, leading to the president’s acquittal.
In its ruling on the former president’s civil suit for damages, the district court found the subordinate’s statement to be credible, determining that he had not been mentally overpowered by the prosecutor during the interrogation.
As a result, the court denied the government’s liability for compensation. The former president has since appealed the decision.
At the same time, however, the court condemned the prosecutor’s conduct, describing the interrogation as “coercive” and characterizing it as an attempt to force a confession that fit a predetermined narrative—calling it “extremely inappropriate.”
Sixteen years ago, the Osaka District Public Prosecutors Office’s special investigation unit wrongfully arrested Atsuko Muraki, then a bureau chief at the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, and even engaged in evidence tampering.
In the wake of that scandal, the prosecution undertook reforms, including the mandatory recording of interrogations and the introduction of supervisory prosecutors to monitor investigative conduct.
In the recent case, although the supervising prosecutor reported the interrogating prosecutor’s behavior to the chief prosecutor overseeing the investigation, the matter was dismissed with the conclusion that there were no issues with the interrogation of the subordinate.
The court justifiably criticized this response, noting a “lack of awareness within the prosecution regarding the problems with such interrogation practices” and raising doubts about whether the supervisory system is functioning as intended.
Problematic interrogation practices have surfaced not only in Osaka but also in the Tokyo and Wakayama district prosecutors’ offices, pointing to a broader systemic issue. In response, the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office has compiled a set of documents identifying the root causes and proposing countermeasures.
According to these documents, the underlying problems include “an obsession with obtaining confessions” and “a desire for recognition and career advancement.”
The proposed countermeasures emphasize the need to “strictly prohibit slander and abusive language, and to always respect the dignity of suspects and their legal representatives.”
While these are fundamental principles, the fact that they must be explicitly reaffirmed highlights the severity and persistence of the problem.
A pilot program is about to begin to expand the mandatory recording of interrogations to include cases under investigation where the suspect is not in custody but is expected to be prosecuted.
The challenge now lies in how effectively these recordings can be used to promote transparency and ensure proper interrogation practices.
–The Asahi Shimbun, April 1
AloJapan.com