Unfairly Jailed Horiemon!

RealJames · (#1 (**permalink**))

Takafumi Horie
(Twitter)

Was jailed today for 2.5years for grey-area maybe-crimes/activities which other major companies do (moving funds from subsidiaries to the parent company to increase stock values).

The prosecutor arrested him and use it's influence over the courts to pass a ridiculous judgement.

My broken understanding of it;
Horiemon has been trying to show the people that Japanese laws need to be changed but that major influences were preventing that to happen, technically he used the same loopholes that he was trying to show the public other companies were doing, but nothing was happening, so he took matters into his own hands.

RealJames · (#2 (**permalink**))

this is is my Honne-hero

he speaks truthfully about the situations he's in

JohnBraden · (#3 (**permalink**))

All I can say is that he has quite a following.... I can't read much of what he says....

RealJames · (#4 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBraden

All I can say is that he has quite a following.... I can't read much of what he says....

He's a really smart guy, and a great example, in my opinion, of where the younger generation of Japan is leading the country.

I'd like to hear other people's opinions, in particular those living in Japan.

Nyororin, what do you think of Horiemon and his situation?

siokan · (#5 (**permalink**))

The thing that Horie did is an offense and it is considerably malignant.
The excuse of doing the thing that other companies look alike, too is unsightly.
There is a person who committed suicide by this case, too.
After the case, he is doing doubtful business.
The evildoer though he is good at business.

It doesn't seem that he is reflecting.

Nyororin · (#6 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by RealJames

Nyororin, what do you think of Horiemon and his situation?

It doesn`t matter that other companies might have been doing the same thing. I think you`ve misunderstood about the "trying to show others" bit, because he has done nothing but abuse the loopholes, try to say he never did it and was a political target, and then backpedal and say that he is innocent because while he may have done it everyone else was doing it too.

Try to change the laws for the better? Nope. Try to abuse the system to put himself on top? Yep. He wasn`t trying to tell the people about the laws - He just abused them for his benefit, then pulled a "Everyone else was doing it!" when caught.

And all the while he has done his best to paint himself as somehow special enough that he should be forgiven while other people should be punished.

As for the unfair imprisonment bit - he has complained that he was only targeted because he had run for public office and was "unconventional"...
How his company was making so much money had been a bit of a mystery (they overdid it with falsifying), and OF COURSE he got extra scrutiny during his run for office (that uncovered a enough to do a long term investigation that ended in his arrest).

I definitely would NOT want someone like him leading the country.

RealJames · (#7 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyororin

It doesn`t matter that other companies might have been doing the same thing. I think you`ve misunderstood about the "trying to show others" bit, because he has done nothing but abuse the loopholes, try to say he never did it and was a political target, and then backpedal and say that he is innocent because while he may have done it everyone else was doing it too.

Try to change the laws for the better? Nope. Try to abuse the system to put himself on top? Yep. He wasn`t trying to tell the people about the laws - He just abused them for his benefit, then pulled a "Everyone else was doing it!" when caught.

And all the while he has done his best to paint himself as somehow special enough that he should be forgiven while other people should be punished.

As for the unfair imprisonment bit - he has complained that he was only targeted because he had run for public office and was "unconventional"...
How his company was making so much money had been a bit of a mystery (they overdid it with falsifying), and OF COURSE he got extra scrutiny during his run for office (that uncovered a enough to do a long term investigation that ended in his arrest).

I definitely would NOT want someone like him leading the country.

I definitely woudln't want him running the country either.

What I felt was unfair was how other companies doing the same thing got much lighter punishments, or just warnings.
Is that because of tatemae apologies that they got off easy? I'm a bit confused about why he gets 2.5 when others get probational periods or nothing.
Honestly it's difficult for me to follow it properly, the news uses big words >< lol
Thanks for clarifying it though, I appreciate that! Siokan too!

Nyororin · (#8 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by RealJames

What I felt was unfair was how other companies doing the same thing got much lighter punishments, or just warnings.
Is that because of tatemae apologies that they got off easy? I'm a bit confused about why he gets 2.5 when others get probational periods or nothing.

Why do some criminals get longer sentences than others? The same logic applies here.

Plea bargaining, basically. If you plead innocence, and then admit to doing it, but everyone else was doing it so okay right BEFORE YOUR TRIAL - do you expect that the judge is going to give you a lighter sentence than someone who admitted the wrongdoing, apologized, and worked with a lawyer on a sentence.

It is not a "Japan thing" - there is a reason why plea bargains are popular. You can plead guilty to a lesser charge and not risk getting the full brunt of a sentence. But if you plead innocence and are really guilty, it can backfire pretty seriously.

*Before* making any sort of plea, Horiemon stressed that he was completely innocent. He basically pleaded Not Guilty. But after his plea and BEFORE the trial, he admitted that he might have done it but, well, everyone else was doing it, so it would be unfair to charge him. (I think he saw that there was enough evidence to make sure that he would not get off scott free, so wanted to try and lessen the fall.) Basically, he was pleading not guilty while admitting his guilt. Then, when this (obviously) didn`t go well for him, he backpedalled and said that maybe it had happened, but he himself didn`t have anything to do with it, was so so very sorry that his company might have done something like that, etc etc.

If you think of it in terms of some other crime, it becomes a bit more clear. Imagine two identical murders.
1: The person is caught, breaks down and admits their guilt, and then works with the prosecution to plead guilty to a slightly lesser charge. They make offers to do anything within their power to lessen the pain of those affected.
2: The person is caught, says they`re completely innocent, and wants to plead not guilty... But tells all their friends and anyone who listens that anyone in that situation would have murdered someone, why should they get punished? It`s a totally normal response, so even if evidence comes out that they were guilty, umm, it should be disregarded because it was a normal thing. But when things take a turn for the worse, they start saying that, well, maybe the murder was related to them, but they didn`t really do it themself. It was a friend! And they should have been able to stop mystery friend, but didn`t, so are now very very sorry ... But still should get off without punishment.

Which do you think will get a steeper sentence?

RealJames · (#9 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyororin

Why do some criminals get longer sentences than others? The same logic applies here.

Plea bargaining, basically. If you plead innocence, and then admit to doing it, but everyone else was doing it so okay right BEFORE YOUR TRIAL - do you expect that the judge is going to give you a lighter sentence than someone who admitted the wrongdoing, apologized, and worked with a lawyer on a sentence.

It is not a "Japan thing" - there is a reason why plea bargains are popular. You can plead guilty to a lesser charge and not risk getting the full brunt of a sentence. But if you plead innocence and are really guilty, it can backfire pretty seriously.

*Before* making any sort of plea, Horiemon stressed that he was completely innocent. He basically pleaded Not Guilty. But after his plea and BEFORE the trial, he admitted that he might have done it but, well, everyone else was doing it, so it would be unfair to charge him. (I think he saw that there was enough evidence to make sure that he would not get off scott free, so wanted to try and lessen the fall.) Basically, he was pleading not guilty while admitting his guilt. Then, when this (obviously) didn`t go well for him, he backpedalled and said that maybe it had happened, but he himself didn`t have anything to do with it, was so so very sorry that his company might have done something like that, etc etc.

If you think of it in terms of some other crime, it becomes a bit more clear. Imagine two identical murders.
1: The person is caught, breaks down and admits their guilt, and then works with the prosecution to plead guilty to a slightly lesser charge. They make offers to do anything within their power to lessen the pain of those affected.
2: The person is caught, says they`re completely innocent, and wants to plead not guilty... But tells all their friends and anyone who listens that anyone in that situation would have murdered someone, why should they get punished? It`s a totally normal response, so even if evidence comes out that they were guilty, umm, it should be disregarded because it was a normal thing. But when things take a turn for the worse, they start saying that, well, maybe the murder was related to them, but they didn`t really do it themself. It was a friend! And they should have been able to stop mystery friend, but didn`t, so are now very very sorry ... But still should get off without punishment.

Which do you think will get a steeper sentence?

Your explanation is perfect, and I understand exactly what you're saying.

I have a handful of Japanese friends here who love Horiemon and they are really upset about the way his situation was handled.
They are saying that the TV news and the information coming from professors and other experts on twitter and online is greatly differing and the tv news is painting him in an entirely different color.

I don't mean to put you on the spot and make you out to be some kind of Horiemon expert, or media expert for that matter. As a result, it makes me wonder if there is truth to my other friend's claims.

They are saying things like the prosecutors shouldn't be in bed with the court or there can't be a fair legal system, but that in his case the prosecutors use their influence with the courts to push his sentence.

They also say his "crimes" are in legally gray areas and that that's why other companies got such minor punishments, or none, while his were over the top.

Honestly it seems to me like they're complaining more about the legal system than Horiemon's situation.

It's hard to get a straight story haha.

edit:

I know these friends of mine can be pretty wrong about these things sometimes, I catch them on things I know more about myself. But they're also very right sometimes too. The song they sang bout Horiemon seemed plausible to me

Nyororin · (#10 (**permalink**))

To be honest, I haven`t really followed his story in depth since... well, the initial event. It`s been a few years. It actually took a couple of minutes for it to click as I hadn`t even heard his name for years.

I`m not an expert, but there are people who absolutely love him and who think that everything against him was unfair... And there are others who hate him and who think that things were way too lax on him because of how famous he was.

In the middle just kind of watching, I was pretty disappointed in how HE handled the accusations.

As for his punishment being "over the top"... He only got 2.5 years, most of which has been turned to probation and bouts of house arrest.

I agree that part of it has to do with his public image, but have a bit of trouble thinking that it was unjustified.

He didn`t just falsify things to get more money... He flaunted - and I mean FLAUNTED that money. He talked constantly about how it was his business skill and honest practices that made him successful.

Turns out he`d been deceiving investors and doing all sorts of creative math to "make" money.
It is one thing to move around assets to make a company look like it`s more successful in order to keep confidence - the thing most companies are guilty of on some level - but another to do it for personal profit that is flaunted to an extreme.