CH3CHO comments

I hope Mr. Khaled Al-Juffali cut down all business relations with Nissan and show what consequence they face if they discredit their business partners in the Middle East.

I am not so sure if it is good.

Most public high schools in Japan have co-education policy and keep the boy-girl ratio around 50-50. So, the cut off test score for entrance exam differs depending on the sex of the applicant. By changing the application form, the co-education policy cannot be maintained.

Samit BasuToday 08:22 am JST

No where in the 1965 treaty says any claim before 1965 is settled. Read the treaty text.

I have shown you in the other thread, haven't I?

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20583/volume-583-I-8473-English.pdf

Article 2

The Contracting Parties confirm that [the] problem concerning property, rights and interests of the two Contracting Parties and their nationals (including juridical persons) and concerning claims between the Contracting Parties and their nationals, including those provided for in Article IV, paragraph (a) of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951, is settled completely and finally

Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2, no contention shall be made with respect to the measures on property, rights and interests of either Contracting Party and its nationals which are within the jurisdiction of the other Contracting Party on the date of the signing of the present Agreement, or with respect to any claims of either Contracting Party and its nationals against the other Contracting Party and its nationals arising from the causes which occurred on or before the said date.

You see the word "claims" twice in the article 2.

By the way, RoK is not a successor of the Korean Empire, not even the southern half of it. It was built by denying the Korean Empire and the Emperor. If 1910 treaty was invalid from the beginning, the Korean Empire would still be the legitimate government of Korea. Tell me when the Republic of Korea was given power from the Korean Emperor?

If the 1910 treaty was ruled illegal by the ICJ, then Japan is now exposed to far more damages claims than it currently is.

The 1910 treaty was between Japan and the Korean Empire, which does not exist any more. The 1965 treaty is between Japan and Republic of Korea, which is a different entity from the Korean Empire. The fate of 1910 treaty has nothing to do with present day Korea. Do you think that the Korean Empire should be brought back to existence as a result of invalidating the 1910 treaty? In addition, according to the constitution of the Korean Empire, any asset of the Empire belongs to the Korean Emperor. So, if the compensation for anything were to be awarded, it goes to the Emperor who does not exist and whose heirs do not exist any more, because Korean Presidents after the end of WW2 persecuted the former Royals.

The 1965 treaty says that any claim before 1965 is settled, therefore any claim due to 1910 treaty is also settled by the payments of the 1965 treaty.

Alex EinzJan. 9 09:38 pm JST

why jp gov is involved in private matter?

Because the case is hardly a private matter. Back in 1938, Japanese Parliament enacted National Mobilization Act which allowed the Government to draft its citizens to work in factories that were essential for the war efforts to cover the labor shortages due to the Second Sino Japanese War. The factories were also ordered to produce certain amount of materials for the war. Today, the Korean plaintiffs call the draft "slave labor" whereas the Japanese government calls it citizens' duty. The factories were sued by the Koreans, but the factories themselves did not have much choice at that time. In reality, the laborers worked for the military rather than the factories. So, the Japanese government is involved in this case.

Article II

*The Contracting Parties confirm that [the] problem concerning property, rights and interests of the two Contracting Parties and their nationals (including juridical persons) and concerning claims between the Contracting Parties and their nationals, including those provided for in Article IV, paragraph (a) of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951, is settled completely and finally.*

The provisions of the present Article shall not affect the following

You see the word "claims", which covers claims for damages.

Samit BasuJan. 7 03:50 pm JST

The 1965 treaty only covered back wages and assets.

Read the treaty. Where in it does it say that it only covers "back wages and assets"? It clearly says that any claim is settled. Samit, this fact was shown to you several times already in this site.

Now, I have to ask you a serious question. Why do you keep telling falsehood? I see the same problem here as a fake news destroys free and democratic society.

Samit BasuToday 02:41 pm JST

This is why the country with a trade surplus never starts a trade war.

No. What we see today is that Japanese assets in South Korea are no longer legally safe. So, what we will see soon is wholesale divestiture and capital flight from South Korea by Japanese investors.

The compensation payments were paid in 1965 which was accepted by South Korean government. If Korean courts arbitrarily award additional compensations to its citizens, there will be no end. So, divestiture from South Korea is the rational reaction.

According to the Korea Japan agreement in 1965 in question,

Article III

1 Any dispute between the High Contracting Parties concerning the interpretation or the implementation of this Agreement shall be settled primarily through diplomatic channels.

2 Any dispute which cannot be settled under the provision of paragraph 1 above shall be submitted for decision to an arbitral commission of three arbitrators;

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreement_Between_Japan_and_the_Republic_of_Korea_Concerning_the_Settlement_of_Problems_in_Regard_to_Property_and_Claims_and_Economic_Cooperation

so an international arbitration including an arbitration by ICJ is called for.

According to the letter of the law, anyone who has not chosen either way within the period prescribed is required to make a decision within a month or they are stripped of their nationality.

This is not quite true.

Read Japanese nationality law.

http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?ft=1&re=2&dn=1&x=0&y=0&co=01&ia=03&ky=%E5%9B%BD%E7%B1%8D%E6%B3%95&page=1

Read Article 14, 15 and 16.

One has to choose one nationality at the age of 22, but there is no penalty for delaying or not choosing. Even if one does not choose, they cannot invalidate Japanese nationality. They just give periodical notice to choose one as soon as possible. If one chooses Japanese nationality, all one has to do is this;

Article 16. A Japanese citizen who makes the selection declaration shall endeavor to renounce his/her foreign nationality.

Yes, "endeavor".

The only automatic loss of Japanese nationality is written in article 11.

Article 11　(1)　If a Japanese citizen acquires the nationality of a foreign country at his/her choice, he/she loses Japanese nationality.

So, born Japanese dual citizens do not really worry about losing citizenship.

I mean statute of limitation.

Statue of limitation for CEO's fraud against his company is 7 years. It is 2018 now. An alleged fraud in 2008 is not usually allowed to be prosecuted. The exception is that the clock does not move while the alleged perpetrator is out of Japanese territory. So, if Ghosn stayed in Japan for more than 7 years in the last 10 years, the allegation is acquitted without going into formal court procedure.

In Korean culture, making excuses is commended, whereas apologizing is sinful. If a person makes excuses, that means he is still trying to be a friend of the victim. If he admits guilt and apologizes, that means is he is no longer a friend of the victim and so he is a betrayer.

So, how ridiculous it may sound, South Korean government will continue making excuses on this incident.

Samit BasuToday 09:07 am JST

Because damages weren't covered by the 1965 Treaty

I think you are the only one who says so. The treaty uses the word "claim". It includes compensation for damages. Any right to receive money is a claim, whether the right comes from legal acts or illegal damages.

The treaty says, "no claims shall be made". Everything was settled with the Japanese payment in 1965.

We should also look at the dispute resolution clause of the treaty.

Article III

1 Any dispute between the High Contracting Parties concerning the interpretation or the implementation of this Agreement shall be settled primarily through diplomatic channels.

2 Any dispute which cannot be settled under the provision of paragraph 1 above shall be submitted for decision to an arbitral commission of three arbitrators

Because of this clause in the treaty, Supreme Court of South Korea does not have the final say in the interpretation of the treaty. "Any dispute" must be brought to an international arbitration, if it cannot be settled diplomatically.

KabukiloverDec. 4  11:23 am JST

The link is very relevant. The "allegation" against the former Supreme Court Justices was that they delayed the judgement of this very case of Korean former conscripted workers.

Nissan veteran Hiroto Saikawa, who took over from Ghosn as the automaker's chief executive last year, has harshly criticized his former boss and vowed to instill greater transparency and accountability at Nissan.

Saikawa, you belong to jail.

You had to immediately disclose to the shareholders the fact that there were irregularities in the financial statements by the Tokyo Stock Exchange regulations when you came to know the whistle blowing, which you did not.

You filed confirmation letter to the Financial Services Agency on November 12, 2018 just one week before Ghosn's arrest that there is no irregularity in Nissan's financial statements, which is nothing but a lie and a crime.

You still have not filed "revised" financial statements, which you should have done by now if, indeed, Ghosn made false financial statements.

Renault should demand Nissan's extraordinary shareholders' meeting as soon as possible to replace Nissan's corrupt directors. Otherwise, Nissan may buy Renault's shares and invalidates Renault's Nissan shares, as Japanese law says that if a company holds more than 25% of shares of its shareholder, the shareholder's shares in the company loses voting rights.

Now, Moon administration of South Korea is arresting the former Supreme Court Judges who were un-sympathetic to the Korean conscripted workers.

Korea Joomg Ang Daily December 4, 2018

The prosecution’s revelation about the raid, which emerged on the same day that they filed for the arrests of two former Supreme Court Justices, signals that investigators are ramping up their probe into the power abuse scandal. The prosecution is reportedly planning to summon the prime suspect in the case, former Chief Justice Yang, in the next few days. 

http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=3056423

Here is a document made in 1965 that lists what is included, but is not limited to, in the payment made in accordance with the 1965 agreement.

http://www.f8.wx301.smilestart.ne.jp/nihonkokai/zaimusyo/zaimusyo-2/139.pdf

要綱５　被徴用韓人未収金、補償金及びその他の請求権

Point 5. Unreceived money, compensation and other claims of conscripted Korean workers.

The document is referred to in the letter of understanding signed by Foreign Ministers of Korea and Japan on June 22, 1965.

Without any doubt, the money was paid in 1965.

The money was paid in 1965. Why does Japanese government or Japanese firms need to pay the second time?

Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Settlement of Problems in Regard to Property and Claims and Economic Cooperation (1965)

Article II

3 As a condition to comply with the provisions of paragraph 2 above, no claims shall be made with respect to the measures relating to the property, rights, and interests of either High Contracting Party and its people which were brought under the control of the other High Contracting Party on the date of the signing of the present Agreement, or to all the claims of either High Contracting Party and its people arising from the causes which occurred prior to that date.

The compensation for the damages caused by legal or illegal acts before 1965 was all settled by the payment in 1965.

michaelqtoddDec. 2 10:34 pm JST

I went to 2 very short meetings with judges and a police prosecutor both were conducted in quite formal Japanese and I was not allowed to have a lawyer present.

But the law says that a lawyer is allowed at the judge's hearing.

Simon FostonToday 12:09 am JST

It's odd, then, 

Yes, it is odd. One is contradicting the other. Which to believe?

Do I need to disprove even the obvious and the wildest misinformation?

Anyone can tell by reading the law.

http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?re=01&dn=1&x=0&y=0&co=1&ia=03&yo=&gn=&sy=&ht=&no=&bu=&ta=&ky=%E5%88%91%E4%BA%8B%E8%A8%B4%E8%A8%9F%E6%B3%95&page=6

Read article 199 of law of criminal procedure of Japan. It says arrest must be based on an arrest warrant issued by a judge.

Also read article 200. It says that the "charged offence" must be written on the arrest warrant. Then article 201, which says that the arrest warrant must be shown to the suspect when he is arrested.

Isn't it obvious?

Simon FostonToday  01:52 pm JST

In Japan, police do not have the power to arrest a suspect on their own. They have to provide enough proof of the crime to a judge for issuance of an arrest warrant, with which they can arrest the suspect. The allegation is disclosed to the arrested person. He or his lawyer can challenge the arrest warrant in court. If the appeal is successful, he is released.

The arrest warrant is valid for 72 hours. The police have to send the suspect to the prosecutors office within the first 48 hours. To further detain the suspect, the prosecutor has to petition a judge for a detention warrant. The warrant is granted only if the prosecutor provide enough evidence of crime that justify further detention. The defense lawyer or the suspect can challenge the detention warrant in court.

The detention warrant is valid for 10 days. The prosecutor can petition a judge for 10 day extension of the detention. The defense team can challenge the extension in court. The extension is possible only once. To continue the detention, the prosecutor has to "kiso" (indict) the person. The court may decide to detain the accused until the trial begins or may release the accused on bail until the trial.

Now, with vaguely defined "charge", when was the suspect charged?

Tokyo-EngrToday 07:11 am JST

Holding someone for weeks with no charges

This is or is not true depending on the meaning of "charge".

If "charge" means formal allegation, in Japan, a suspect is "charged" when he is arrested. The allegation must be filed to a judge for approval before the arrest and must be spelled out to a suspect when he is arrested. The suspect can challenge the allegation in the court of law while he is detained.

If "charge" means "kiso" which is usually translated as "indictment" but is actually the start of a trial, he is not "charged". Right, he is detained but the trial has not begun.

Comparing apples and oranges.

melonbarmonsterToday 06:11 am JST

I think proper delineation is war crime, victims. The Treaty expressly excludes them.*

Here is the link to the treaty, translated into English. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreement_Between_Japan_and_the_Republic_of_Korea_Concerning_the_Settlement_of_Problems_in_Regard_to_Property_and_Claims_and_Economic_Cooperation

Where does it "expressly exclude" war crime compensation payment? Would you point that out for us?

melonbarmonster, I think someone told you something that made you misunderstand. Be careful of what the same person tells you, because there is a lot of misinformation floating around Korea Japan debate.

The 1965 Treaty is a diplomatic agreement and doesn't include matters that involve war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Why not? Why cannot we agree to pay compensation for "war crimes and crimes against humanity"? If what you say is true, Japan should not pay anything, because a few years later, someone will say the payment does not cover damages for "war crimes and crimes against humanity".

The money was paid in 1965. Case closed.

HollisBrownToday 10:44 am JST

Yet his conclusion was to support Ghosn's removal as chairman. Weird logic.

Nothing weird. Mitsubishi Motors appointed Ghosn as the chairman just because he was the chairman of Nissan. Now, rightly or wrongly, he was dismissed from Nissan. It is only logical for Mitsubishi Motors to remove him form the chair. You would do exactly the same thing, if you were in Masuko' shoes.

It is clear that the current management team of Nissan, including Saikawa, could not prevent or even disclose the alleged wrong doings for years. Renault should simply replace them. It is idiotic that they say that they be given a bigger role.

Itsonlyrocknroll, thanks. Great link. The section titled "Disclosure" is pertinent.

Disclosure

An open KK must disclose the aggregate remuneration of its directors (in KKs with a supervisory committee this includes directors who are members of the supervisory committee and other directors) or the respective remuneration of each director to its shareholders in its business report. If directors are given stock options, the company must disclose an outline of the terms and conditions of the stock options granted and the number of directors who have stock options. In its business report, a company with outside directors must make separate disclosures for outside directors and those who are not outside directors.

In addition, a listed KK must disclose the following information in the securities report under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Law:

The amount of remuneration and a breakdown by the type of payments (for example, salary, bonus, stock option or retirement payment) for each director, if his remuneration for the relevant fiscal year is JPY100 million or more.

> The total amounts of remuneration for directors and outside directors and a breakdown by the type of payments.

Ghosn received more than 100 yen. So he had to disclose "the amount of remuneration and a breakdown by the type of payments". But it does not say any disclosure requirements about fringe benefits, because it is not required.

https://tokyo2020.org/en/special/volunteer/application/

You have to work 8 hours a day for at least 10 days and receive NO MONEY, except 1,000 yen train ticket voucher per day.

You cannot watch the games while you are working. It is just amazing.

Miscarriage of justice.

Nissan's Stock exchange filings show, it is Saikawa who is responsible of the accuracy of the financial statements in question. See the filing on November 12, 2018 at EDINET.

当社取締役社長西川廣人及び最高財務責任者軽部博は、当社の第120期第２四半期(自 平成30年７月１日　至 平成30年９月30日)の四半期報告書の記載内容が金融商品取引法令に基づき適正に記載されていることを確認した。

確認に当たり、特記すべき事項はない。

It says Saikawa has confirmed that the financial statements are duly presented and there is nothing special to mention to the investors. This is an utter lie to the shareholders and the public. He knew the financials were under investigation and had legal responsibility to disclose the fact to the investors as soon as possible, which he did not.

Another filing by Nissan on June 28, 2008 is as follows.

取締役社長西川廣人及び最高財務責任者軽部博は、当社の財務報告に係る内部統制の整備及び運用に責任を有しており、企業会計審議会の公表した「財務報告に係る内部統制の評価及び監査の基準並びに財務報告に係る内部統制の評価及び監査に関する実施基準の設定について(意見書)」に示されている内部統制の基本的枠組みに準拠して財務報告に係る内部統制を整備及び運用している

It says that President Saikawa and CFO Karube are responsible for the maintenance and operation of the internal controls of the financial reporting, which they failed. If anyone is liable for the inaccuracy of the financial statements, it is Saikawa and Karube.

The charge against Ghosn is that he failed to disclose his fringe benefits in the Nissan's financial statements. By the way, disclosing fringe benefits to the public is one thing, reporting fringe benefits as income to the tax office is another. They should not be confused. Ask yourself if you disclose your earnings to the public.

Anyway, I looked through the financial statements of other Japanese companies, and none of them discloses fringe benefits of the directors. All they disclose are cash remuneration, stock remuneration and stock-option remuneration. I want to challenge the prosecutors if there is even one Japanese firm that discloses fringe benefits of the directors. Toyota does not. Honda does not. Nissan's Saikawa does not. Why not? Because disclosing fringe benefits to the public is not regulational requirement.

The prosecutors are pressing charges that do not exist in the laws. Their game plan is to extort confession of some other crime. I doubt it works.

"Japan's industry minister and France's finance minister are due to meet in Paris on Thursday to seek ways to stabilise it."

This is very abnormal. It is understandable that French minister wants to meet because French government owns 15% of Renault. But Japanese industry minister does not have any control over Nissan or the investigation, or the stock exchange filing. He has nothing to talk about. Unless he is orchestrating all the farce.

Braze

The only reason that they arrested the Ghosn is because the State did not get its cut of the funds.

You are mislead. The allegation has nothing to do with tax. The allegation is if he did not disclose some of his remuneration to the shareholders in the financial statements.

I just looked through the financial statements of Japanese firms at EDINET. None of the directors of famous Japanese firms disclosed fringe benefits to in the shareholders. The directors of Toyota did not. Honda did not. Fuji TV, Nippon TV, or TBS did not. Disclosing fringe benefits is NOT generally accepted accounting standards here. Why is it a crime not to disclose the fringe benefits, when it is Ghosn?