An investigator testified that Tokyo police officers fabricated an investigation concerning exports of possible military equipment that led to false charges being filed against three senior company officials.

The assistant inspector, who still belongs to the Public Security Bureau of Tokyo’s Metropolitan Police Department, told the Tokyo District Court on June 30 that senior investigators are often overly determined to pursue even weak cases because they are worried about their job evaluations.

His testimony came in a lawsuit filed by the company, which is demanding 570 million yen ($3.9 million) in damages from the central government and the Tokyo metropolitan government.

In March 2020, Tokyo police arrested Masaaki Okawara, president of Ohkawara Kakohki Co., and two other senior officials on suspicion of violating the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Law.

According to the investigation, the company’s spray dryers could be used to make biological weapons, and they were exported without permission from the central government.

The three suspects were indicted by the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office.

While awaiting trial, one of the suspects, company adviser Shizuo Aishima, died of stomach cancer at age 72.

The possibility then emerged that the spray dryers actually cleared the trade ministry’s ordinance on restricting exports of equipment that could have military applications.

Prosecutors rescinded the indictments in July 2021, just before the first hearing in the trial.

The company, Okawara and Aishima’s family filed the lawsuit in September 2021, saying the ministry’s requirements were vague.

But the central government and metropolitan government have argued that there were no problems with the investigation.

However, in extremely rare testimony, an active police officer challenged the legality of the investigation.

‘PERSONAL GREED’ OF INVESTIGATOR

During the June 30 witness examination, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs asked the assistant inspector: “The ministry had not decided on the interpretation (of its export requirements). Isn’t it inevitable that people would say the Public Security Bureau took advantage of that and made up (the case)?”

The assistant inspector replied, “Well, it was a fabrication.”

He said another investigator had suggested additional testing on the dryers because the company’s descriptions were different from the Public Security Bureau’s assumptions when it checked the condition of the equipment.

But additional testing was not conducted, the witness said.

The assistant inspector also said the arrests and detentions were “unnecessary” because objective evidence had been obtained during a search of the company.

The judge asked him if he felt the Public Security Bureau was overly eager to prosecute the case.

He replied, “Yes.”

The assistant inspector said, “The export itself was not a problem, but the personal greed of the investigator made it so.”

He did not name the investigator.

When the judge asked him to explain the “investigator’s greed,” he replied that they had to prosecute the case.

“We did all these investigations even though there were no objective facts,” he continued. “I thought the case was built up in the way that the investigators wanted. I can’t think of anything else other than this.”

He said investigators can become greedy “when they look at their retirement and think about how far they can be promoted.”

When asked if he was referring to evaluations of their job performances, he said, “Yes.”

A police superintendent who was an inspector at that time testified, “It was a case that needed to be prosecuted at the time.”

Another assistant inspector told the court that senior investigators have a tendency to understate evidence that does not align with their assumptions in an investigation.

“If we had properly made a rebuttal, this would not have happened,” the assistant inspector said.

After the hearing closed, the plaintiffs’ lawyer expressed surprise at what he had heard: “An active assistant inspector confirmed that the case was made up from nothing.”

Okawara said of the testimonies, “I felt some relief that there are individuals who are willing to speak honestly in a police organization where orders from boss are absolute.”

The MPD said, “Since the case is still pending, we will refrain from commenting on it.”

(This article was written by Kazufumi Kaneko and Shingo Tsuru.)