Question from a reader:
Tōru Hashimoto has stated, “Do not judge Nakai if you cannot provide evidence,” but I believe this issue is not a trial to begin with. The third-party committee is conducting an internal investigation to see how the company has responded, and it is not meant to legally punish anyone. Isn’t it unreasonable to confuse this and
criticize it? Furthermore, ignoring the fact that Nakai’s side refused to lift the confidentiality obligation until the end and saying “it’s wrong not to show evidence” is not fair. If they had lifted it, more information could have been shared, so it is logically inconsistent to close off information and then claim “there isn’t enough explanation.” The third-party committee refrained from disclosing materials to protect the trust and privacy of other related parties, as noted in the guidelines of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations. I wonder how it is acceptable for a legal professional to interpret the rules conveniently by saying, “The guidelines are for Fuji and have nothing to do with Nakai.” I would like to ask how Tōru Hashimoto intends to take responsibility for the side that did not lift the confidentiality obligation while demanding, “Show the evidence,” and causing a stir against the internal investigation. Is he merely distorting the essence of the system to defend Nakai? It seems inconsistent to me.
Reflecting on Tōru Hashimoto’s Statements
Recently, Tōru Hashimoto’s comments regarding Nakai have stirred up a lot of discussion, particularly his statement, “Do not judge if you cannot provide evidence.” Personally, I find myself contemplating this issue a lot. First, I would like to discuss the role of the third-party committee. Unlike a trial, its purpose is to investigate how the company responded. It is not meant to legally punish someone, yet it appears that Hashimoto is confusing this distinction in his criticism. I can relate to this since I’ve had similar experiences. It feels unreasonable to introduce the perspective of “judgment” in a situation meant for investigation.
Confidentiality Obligations and Their Impact
Additionally, the fact that Nakai’s side did not lift the confidentiality obligation tends to be overlooked. It feels frustrating to be told, “There isn’t enough information” while something is being kept secret. It feels unfair, as if one is hiding something yet demanding full transparency from the other party. I believe the third-party committee’s decision not to disclose materials was to protect the trust and privacy of other stakeholders. Acting in accordance with the guidelines of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, interpreting it as “not related to Nakai” is questionable for a legal professional. Conveniently interpreting the rules is simply not right.
Lack of Consistency and Its Implications
Finally, regarding Hashimoto’s responsibility, I think it is contradictory for the side that did not lift the confidentiality obligation to say, “Show the evidence.” There seems to be a lack of consistency somewhere in this situation. It might be that he is bending the essence of the system to defend Nakai. I personally enjoy discussing these kinds of topics with friends, and it’s common for conversations like “Did you see the recent news?” to come up during casual gatherings. When opinions differ, the discussions can become quite lively. For instance, when a friend says, “That’s not right!” and we engage in a passionate debate, it’s a lot of fun. If anyone has opinions or experiences to share, I would love to hear them! It would be great to chat about it in the comments.
