A Dpa may be executed if the Crown deems it necessary after assessing the importance of the evidence to be obtained from the suspect or accused by the acts below and other relevant factors. To enter into such an agreement, the suspect or defendant must perform one or more of the following acts: (i) communicate the actual facts to the investigating authorities; (ii) to testify the actual facts in court; or (iii) to provide evidence or other assistance to the investigating authorities (Article 350-2, paragraph 1, paragraph 1), of the CCP). At the time of the letter, there were no instances where the parties were using the bargaining system. Recently, the Attorney General`s Office issued the directive on the use of the bargaining system for prosecutors. The guideline takes a fairly conservative approach. For example, he says that the prosecutor will enter into the agreement if there are sufficient supporting documents in addition to the accused`s statements. The Attorney General`s office also stated that, for the time being, whether or not the prosecutor enters into the agreement, a decision will be made under the authority of the High Prosecutor. Since it is difficult for a suspect and an accused to negotiate alone with a prosecutor, it is necessary for defence counsel to participate in the negotiations. Once an agreement has been reached, the Crown, the suspect or the accused and defence counsel enter into a letter of contract. If the prosecutor`s office uses a suspect`s statements in accordance with the agreement or if a suspect testifies during the trial against others, the prosecutor must submit the letter of agreement to the court. The letter of agreement should also be presented in the trial of a suspect or accused working with a prosecutor. It has been reported that a senior executive and a former head of the Nissan division of the company`s secretariat have agreed to testify against Ghosn in exchange for crown witnesses from prosecutors. In May 2019, the OPP announced that arguments had been reached and that some executives would avoid prosecution.
The executives in question would have known that there remained critical evidence as to the company`s agreement to pay Ghosn a “fixed” amount of compensation after retirement (i.e. an amount that should be disclosed in the company`s accounts, but which had not been classified as such). It is not clear whether the OPP would have been able to obtain this evidence without the support of the relevant officers, or whether it would have been aware of the conduct in question. At least it appears that considerable investigative resources have been saved and that arguments may have led to a less costly investigation into one of the most important scandals in Japan in recent years. Yes, yes. A Japanese version of the data protection authorities came into force in June 2018. With respect to certain types of offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure (PCC), including corruption, fraud, embezzlement and tax offences, a prosecutor may enter into an agreement with a suspect or accused in order not to pursue the case, (ii) withdraw prosecutions, (iii) to pursue the case with certain charges or criminal law or to maintain such prosecutions. (iv) to request the addition or withdrawal or modification of certain censuses or criminal statutes, (v) to render an opinion on the sentence with a lighter sanction than usual in court after reviewing the evidence, or (vi) to follow the case in the context of summary proceedings (Article 350-2, paragraph 1, paragraph 2, of the CCP). Historically, corruption charges against foreign officials have rarely been brought in Japan, in part because of the complaint of collecting evidence outside the jurisdiction.