CH3CHO comments

zichiJan. 8 05:14 pm JST

Question: so every time you have stayed at a hotel or other type o accommodation you have been required to produce your ID?

cleoJan. 8 05:17 pm JST

I have never, ever, ever, been asked to show any kind of ID, passport, residence card, alien registration, anything, when staying anywhere in Japan.

Read the memorandum issued by Ministry of Labor, Health and Welfare. It points out that there are hotels that do loose ID checks and it demands rigorous ID checks. It seems you stayed at some of those lazy hotels, but that does not prove anything.

The question was whether it is 'illegal' to demand an ID. Zichi, you showed that "refusing accommodation" is illegal. OK. So?

Demanding an ID is one thing. Refusing accommodation is another. Proving that the latter is illegal does not make the former any more illegal. If you want to prove that the former is illegal, find a law that directly says that demanding an ID is illegal. This is where the weakness of your argument is.

Hotels can demand an ID in a way that is not evaluated as "refusing accommodation" in legal sense. Such as by calling the police as the Ministry's memo says, or by letting the guest wait in the lobby till he shows an ID.

zichi, you are only citing one part of the law.

Here is more relevant part.

https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/uploaded/attachment/98160.pdf

The regulation issued by the Ministry of Labor Health and Welfare asks hoteliers to rigorously check IDs and if a guest refuses to show an ID, hoteliers are required to call the police immediately.

WobotToday  10:24 am JST

I can imagine hotels and other places that illegally demand people 'who don't look Japanese' show proof of identity will start using this too.

There is nothing ”illegal" about demanding an ID when allowing someone to use private property. The hotel is just using usual precaution to protect its own property. Put yourself in their shoes. Do you let someone use your house without checking his or her ID, because you think checking an ID is illegal? Of course, the owner has to decide with whom he should be more cautious and less cautious, just because the consequence falls on the owner.

JalapenoToday 12:47 pm JST

He rode the Shinkansen? 

NHK reported the conditions of the bail here.

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20191231/k10012232711000.html

It said that a court approval was required when he makes a trip for 3 days or more. Any trip abroad was prohibited. So, he was free to go on a 2 day trip in Japan.

umbrellaToday  10:15 pm JST

Ghosn should sue the japanese prosecutors for wrongful arrest

Surely, he can seek damage in civil court. But that is possible only after he wins 'not guilty' verdict in the criminal court. He actually had a good chance of winning as his lawyers said, but he threw it away. He lost his case, and he will never be able to clear his name.

zones2surfToday  10:09 pm JST

However, France has said it would not extradite its citizens to another country.

Yeah, but French prosecutors have their ax to grind. I would not be surprised if they arrest Ghosn on fraud charges against Renault.

zichi, that is basically the same as what I wrote in this thread at 07:09 pm on Jan 6. What was your point?

Remember, police cannot issue a warrant. They "have to secure" it from a judge. The charged offence is written on the warrant, and it must be presented to the suspect. As you wrote, "the police have to present their case before a prosecutor, who is then required to apprise the accused of the charges and of the right to counsel." We can agree that the "charges" are filed even before a suspect is arrested.

A suspect may be detained for 23 days before indictment. If you think saying "a suspect may be detained for 23 days without charge" has the same meaning as the previous sentence, I would agree with you in that sense. But they sound quite different to me.

zichi, if you bother, read article 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure of Japan.

http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/

Article 200　(1)　Arrest warrants must contain the name and residence of the suspect, the charged offense, an outline of the alleged facts of the crime, the public office or other place where the suspect is to be brought, the period of validity and a statement that after expiry of the period of validity the arrest warrant may not be executed but must be returned, the date of issue, and other particulars as prescribed in the Rules of Court; and the judge must affix their name and seal to it.

The confusion comes from the double meaning of the word "charge". It may mean indictment as well as formal allegation.

gogogoToday  08:47 am JST

@CH3CHO: Please don't spread wrong information and change official quotes by the Japanese government... You can be held without charges / arrested / indicted (or anything else meaning formal charge in any translation) for 23 days on suspicion alone. If the police "think" you have something to do with a crime they can hold you for 23 days and try to find out if you really are involved.

Simply false. It is you who is "spreading wrong information".

Readers, know your rights. If a policeman tries to arrest you in Japan, tell him to show the warrant issued by a judge with allegations written on it. That will protect you, unless you want to voluntarily surrender yourself believing GoGoGo.

papigiulioToday  08:45 am JST

This means people with private jets could smuggle just about anything out of Japan? 

What is the matter? The customs check only the goods coming into the country. If you remember the good old days before 911, no one checked luggage of out going passengers even on commercial jets.

zichiJan. 6  10:10 pm JST

It's been some years since I lived there but bail and house arrest are two different matters. 

Thanks, zichi. I was just wondering why the Times used "under house arrest" for Ghosn.

Segata SanshiroToday 09:09 pm JST

The abrupt arrest

Interesting. Which country in the world informs criminals when the police is going to arrest them, so that it would not be abrupt.

Former Renault-Nissan boss Carlos Ghosn was justified in fleeing Japan while under house arrest for alleged accounting fraud

Is it common in the UK to call someone on bail "under house arrest"? In addition, he was free to leave his house.

Money makes the mare go. How much did he spend on PR or bribing the press?

TARA TAN KITAOKAToday  08:03 pm JST

the world is going to know, abt the negative japanese system soon,

I wonder how many people here knows how exactly Japanese criminal justice system works. The comments here makes me think it is very few.

gogogoToday  06:55 pm JST

Under Japanese law, persons suspected of a crime can be detained for 23 days without charge. The length of detention, up to the maximum period, is at the discretion of the public prosecutor and subject to the approval of local courts.

Very good quote. But the following would be more accurate.

*Under Japanese law, persons suspected of a crime can be detained for 23 days before indictment. The length of detention, up to the maximum period, is subject to the approval of local courts.*

macvToday  06:41 pm JST

INCORRECT police can detain you for 23 days and with extensions even longer WITHOUT CHARGES.

False.

Police cannot arrest a person without a warrant issued by a judge, except the crime is being committed in front of their eyes, in which case they have to intervene the crime anyway. To receive an arrest warrant, the police must show probable cause to a judge. The arrest warrant or exceptional arrest without a warrant is valid for 72 hours. Then, the judge may issue a detention warrant which is valid for 10 days. Then, the judge may issue an extension detention warrant which is valid for another 10 days. The three warrants add up to 23 days. So, it is not the police but a judge that can detain a suspect for 23 days.

You must also clarify the legal definition of "charge". I think showing probable cause to a judge before an arrest is charging. The charge is explained to the suspect when he is arrested. If you limit its meaning to formally indicting a person in a criminal court, yes, the prosecutors may indict the suspect after 23 day of the arrest.

JJ JetplaneToday  06:04 pm JST

They want to make bail conditions tougher?

It means to categorically disallow bail if the suspect is a foreigner.

Japanese prosecutors are happy because all the assets Ghosn left in Japan are now frozen and will be forfeited. This is a punishment heavier than a few years in jail they expected.

He is now a chip in international politics. Any nation can "voluntarily" extradite him to Japan upon entry. The US has a formal extradition treaty with Japan, so he cannot enter the US for the rest of his life. The Lebanese government may someday change their mind.

So, corrupt in Lebanon in fear.

RyderToday 01:32 am JST

Prosecutors should never have that level of power that they can imprison a man indefinitely

They should not and they do not. It is a judge who has the power to detain a pre-trial suspect in Japan. Prosecutors do not have any power to detain a suspect even a day.

This case will give the judges a second thought whenever a foreigner is brought before them for consideration for a bail.

Taehong KimToday 10:04 am JST

1965-pact doesn't cover individual compensations as Japan foreign minister and Japan supreme court admitted in 1991, 1994 and 2007.

A fruit of "keep people ignorant" policy by SK Government. The fact is that 1965 Treaty covers individual compensation claims which is painfully clear to those who read it, and that individual compensation claims of Korean nationals exist against SOUTH KOREAN government as Japanese government admitted in 1991, 1994 and 2007, because SK Government received the money from Japan in lieu of its nationals.

In addition, if there is a disagreement on the interpretation of the 1965 Treaty, the governments must refer to an international arbitration. This also applies to the Korean Supreme Court, and its ruling is subject to an arbitration.

Dream2030Today  09:40 pm JST

I mean Abe "also" requested governmental talks "in addition to an international arbitration." Moon has never requested any talks over the court ruling.

Dream2030Today 08:30 pm JST

If it really wanted to solve a problem, Abe government should have started to have governmental discussion first of course, before directly requesting to bring the case to international arbitration. 

The fact was that Abe also requested governmental talks. Moon rejected, citing "separation of powers".

Dream2030Today 07:32 pm JST

Nevertheless, what did Abe government? It just started to retaliate to irrelevant companies right after the Court’s decision

The fact was that Abe requested an international arbitration with regard to the said court ruling according to the 1965 Treaty. Moon rejected the arbitration even though the Treaty requires both parties to follow the arbitration procedures.

HeckleberryToday 06:58 am JST

So SK should violate its constitution to appease Japan?

According to the 1965 Korea Japan Basic Treaty, neither Korean nor Japanese court ruling is conclusive with regard to disputes about the Treaty. It says a domestic court ruling with regard to the interpretation of the Treaty is subject to international arbitration. Actually, this is the reasoning of the Constitution Court of Korea, which is the highest judicial authority in SK, when it denied the Japanese Supreme Court ruling that had denied compensation payments to Korean former comfort women.

Japan should join the coalition only if Iran also joins. If the nature of the coalition is peace-keeping, this is how it should look like. If Iran is not in, the nature of the coalition is to start a war against Iran. I guess Donald does not feel like a President without a war.

Samit BasuToday  07:48 am JST

Abe san should be ashamed in trying to export Fukushima seafood and produce

The issue is seafood from other parts of Japan than Fukushima.

papigiulioToday  08:54 am JST

You start to wonder if the produce we buy here in Japan is labelled correctly

Go prove it. But you cannot ban products based on some wild "mislabel" speculation.

Mike DashlerToday  02:07 pm JST

In free societies, isn't it the right of any consumer to decide where they purchase from? 

Exactly, that is why SK Government should not ban import.

goldeneagleToday  01:10 pm JST

I don’t understand why Japan is making fuss about it.

The initial panel gave Japan a favorable ruling. That means Japan did have a strong argument.

What I know about the previous ruling was that SK government failed to show radioactive contamination of Japanese seafood, and they lost the initial ruling. I do not know if they could show, this time, the contamination or if their argument was based only on "fear" of contamination as the article suggests.

Fearing radioactive contamination, Seoul imposed a partial ban on seafood imports

We express our clear support for interim President Guaido

If the reason is the lack of legitimacy of election, Japan should support neither of the two presidents.

It is their problem. Foreign powers should not get involved.

Bill AdamsToday 01:31 am JST

This guy is not, as far as I can see, a member of the SK government, 

He is the Speaker of the House, that is the head of the legislative branch of South Korean Government.

macvToday 06:41 am JST

bet he'll not get one yen compensation this is japan

You lose. He gets compensation.

sir_bentley28Today 08:32 am JST

u_s__reamerToday 08:50 am JST

You see why fake news is a serious problem.

I do not think it is a "crime".

Nissan paid money for the repairwork of Versailles. The repair was actually done. Versailles let Nissan use the place for free to show gratitude. No crime.

The waived bill could amount to the misuse of company resources, as well as tax evasion, if the benefit-in-kind was not declared to French authorities.

I doubt. Evaluating intangible gratitude in terms of money is no business of tax office.

SJToday 07:38 pm JST

you have better provide external sources supporting your claims,

Speaking of external sources, here is a US court ruling on world war II era Japanese forced labor litigation, in which the court turned down the plaintiff's claims against Japanese firms. It is a good read.

https://www2.gwu.edu/~memory/data/judicial/POWs_and_Forced_Labor_US/ClassAction/Sept212000Decision.pdf

SJToday 07:38 pm JST

It is amazing that in Japan any layman can so easily criticize evaluating statements of experts.

What is the qualification of a lawyer? Someone who can argue either way based on who pays him.

Yes, I can see a lot of names of lawyers in the letter you quoted. It looks more like a receipt than a research paper.

Atlantic Charter(1941)

First, their countries (the Allies) seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other;

Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;

Cairo Declaration(1943)

The Three Great Allies are fighting this war to restrain and punish the aggression of Japan. They covet no gain for themselves and have no thought of territorial expansion.

Potsdam Declaration(1945)

(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.

These were the guiding principles of WW2. Since the Allies had "no thought of territorial expansion", the Soviet Union or Russia cannot gain any new territory as a result of WW2. So, the islands in question belong to Japan.