TOKYO -- Police here failed to respond for months to multiple whistleblowing reports by an officer about the alleged illegality of its investigation into the president and others at a machinery company over a military export case which the prosecution later dropped, the Mainichi Shimbun has learned.

The president and other officials of Yokohama-based Ohkawara Kakohki Co. were arrested and charged in March 2020 on suspicion of violating the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act by exporting spray-drying equipment which the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) alleged had sterilization capabilities that could be used in the development and manufacturing of biological and chemical weapons. However, in July 2021, the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office announced that they would drop the charges.

It's recognized that the decision on whether to investigate a public interest whistleblowing report must be communicated to the whistleblower within 20 days of its receipt. An expert points out that the MPD's action contradicts the intent of the Whistleblower Protection Act.

32-page internal report via fax

According to sources close to the matter, the MPD received three reports that pointed to the potential illegality in its investigation, which were sent by an MPD officer as 32 pages of documents via fax at the MPD's whistleblowing counter between October and November 2023,

The reports began, "Laws were violated in the investigation of the Ohkawara Kakohki case, so I am reporting internally."

The contents outlined three alleged violations. The first was that a report including the results of an interview with someone in the same industry as Ohkawara Kakohki was actually made without any interview. Secondly, although an interrogator intentionally shredded deposition documents on a former Ohkawara executive, this was reported as a blunder. Lastly, some of the measurement data from temperature tests of the company's spray drier equipment was excluded -- potentially for the MPD to build a case by asserting that the machinery fell under the guidelines for an export ban.

Alleging that the above acts constituted violations of laws against the creation and use of false official documents and concealing a criminal, among other offenses, the reports called for an investigation of officers in the MPD's Public Security Bureau.

The officer who sent the reports was anonymous, and included their private email address as a contact method.

'Set aside' until inquiry

The desk for internal reporting is in the MPD's first personnel division, which also handles disciplinary action against officers. The division emailed the whistleblower acknowledging receipt of the first two allegations within five days of receiving the faxes, but did not send any messages confirming the status of an investigation, or even to acknowledge receiving reports on the third allegation.

In February this year, the whistleblower sent an email asking whether the reports had been received and the status of the investigation. In March, the division sent an email saying, "Apologies for not noticing this sooner. We will conduct a thorough investigation." This came nearly five months after the first report, and at least three had elapsed since the third.

The personnel division apparently went silent after that, and still have not clarified when the investigation commenced or how much progress it had made.

According to guidelines of the Whistleblower Protection Act as set by the Consumer Affairs Agency, if businesses or public bodies receive whistleblower reports, they must in principle carry out an investigation. If there is a valid reason, they may forego an investigation, however that is limited to cases such as those that have already been resolved. It is also considered preferable to inform the complainant of things such as the investigation's time of commencement and current status.

By law, if organizations do not respond to internal reports within 20 days, they are banned from firings or other punitive acts even if the reporting party takes their whistleblowing to the media or other outside parties.

Conducting survey a major interest: expert

Shukutoku University's professor Shogo Hino, an expert on the Whistleblower Protection Act, expressed the view that, "Whether or not to initiate an investigation is of a major interest for whistleblowers. If not investigated, they believe there is no hope of correcting the misconduct, and are forced to consider external reporting. Based on the gist of the law and an explanation of guidelines, the organization is required to provide substantial information to the whistleblower."

Sophia University professor Toshihiro Okayama, an expert on whistleblowing within organizations, commented, "If there is no evidence that a 'necessary investigation' has been conducted and no notice has been given, I have to suspect that the MPD's whistleblower system is inadequate. If an investigation has not been conducted for a long period of time, that is a failure to maintain the system required by the Whistleblower Protection Act."

Regarding the points made in the second and third parts of the whistleblower's report, the legal team for Ohkawara Kakohki filed a criminal complaint in March and April. In November, the MPD's second investigation division responsible for the wrongful arrests forwarded the results of their investigation into three officers to the Tokyo prosecutors.

The MPD has responded, "Due to the nature of whistleblowing, we cannot answer questions that assume the presence or absence of a report." No details were provided and it was not clarified whether the department is investigating.

(Japanese original by Koji Endo, Tokyo City News Department)