Ichiro Ozawa, head of the People’s Life First party, was once again found not guilty by a court.

The Tokyo High Court dismissed an appeal lodged by court-appointed lawyers acting as prosecutors and upheld a lower court ruling acquitting Ozawa of violating the Political Funds Control Law over his alleged role in a suspicious land deal conducted by his fund management body, Rikuzan-kai.

The high court ruling acknowledged that the 400 million yen provided by Ozawa to the fund management body to purchase land was not registered with Rikuzan-kai, underscoring the sloppy accounting process of its political funds.

On the other hand, the ruling concluded Ozawa did not receive a detailed report on the land deal from his secretary at the time. “There is a possibility Ozawa believed the contents of [Rikuzan-kai’s] political fund reports were legitimate,” the ruling said.

The court-appointed lawyers said they will discuss whether to lodge a final appeal, but appeals to the Supreme Court are limited to cases in which rulings contain constitutional violations or inconsistencies with past top court rulings. It is more likely the not-guilty ruling will become final.

Ozawa’s trial is the first of its kind in which a politician has been indicted under the mandatory indictment system following decisions by the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution, which is composed of ordinary citizens. It is likely debates on whether to review the system will ignite again as Ozawa has been twice ruled not guilty.

However, the committee was justified in demanding the court ― which was open to the public―uncover all the facts of the case, as Ozawa had failed to provide reasonable explanations on the political funds scandal.

The government has established a public disclosure system on political funds under the Political Funds Control Law to ensure an environment that would allow free and fair election campaigns.

As taxpayers’ money has been poured into political funds after the enactment of the Political Party Subsidies Law, there is a growing demand for transparency in the flow of political funds.

Rikuzan-kai’s land deal involved money transactions totaling hundreds of millions of yen, but the political fund management body made false statements in its reports. This clearly goes against the spirit of the Political Funds Control Law.

One purpose of the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution system is to reflect the view of people in criminal justice in a similar way to the lay judge system. So far, only six mandatory indictments have taken place since the system was established. What is important now is for the mandatory indictment system to be used in more cases. It is too early to review the system at this stage.

However, experts have pointed out that this places a heavy burden on court-appointed lawyers, who have to present their cases based on limited evidence. The system should be examined with the aim of improving it.

In the Ozawa trial, the public prosecutors should be criticized for submitting a falsified investigative report to the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution, which led the people to question whether it was appropriate for the committee to indict Ozawa. It was also discovered during the trial that prosecutors had coerced and coaxed Ozawa’s former secretaries to provide statements in line with the aims of the prosecutors. The prosecutors must take to heart the lessons learned from the trial.

The prosecutors have decided not to indict a former prosecutor who falsified the investigative report, and other prosecutors involved in compiling the report, prompting a citizens group to file a complaint against the decision with the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution. We urge the committee to examine it strictly and fairly. 

(The Yomiuri Shimbun)
(Asia News Network)