Mr Saikawa signed it and no charges for him.
The question is not whether Saikawa signed the accounts. It's whether he knew they were inaccurate and didn't meet the reporting regulations when he signed them. The Nissan directors divided tasks amongst themselves and the issue of executive compensation fell entirely to Ghosn and his team.
It's entirely possible that Saikawa knew Ghosn was up to something fishy, but there probably isn't enough evidence to support prosecuting Saikawa. Japanese prosecutors are reluctant to press charges unless they have an ironclad case. That's part of the reason the conviction rate is 99%. Alternatively, Saikawa may be the unidentified Nissan whistle-blower.
-2 ( +5 / -7 )
Obvious that since Kelly had to have everything signed off by his superiors that he was just doing his job as prescribed by his employers
But Greg Kelly was not just a Nissan employee. He was the representative director and it's in this capacity that he's being prosecuted. If Kelly knowingly signed off on inaccurate securities filings, that's entirely on him. The other directors were not his superiors.
2 ( +7 / -5 )
I wouldn't be surprised if Kelly is acquitted, or at the very least receives an extremely light sentence. The centerpiece of Kelly's defense would have been calling Carlos Ghosn as a witness. Kelly shouldn't end up paying the price for the court's own failure to recognise how much of a flight risk Ghosn was when they agreed to bail him. This will probably weigh heavily on the judge's decision.
2 ( +7 / -5 )
For being regarded as someone who has committed a crime you need a valid court sentence, which doesn't exist in this case.
That might sound logical but it's not how it works. The way Japanese courts have applied article 103 is to ask whether the person in question subjectively believed that they were helping someone evade the justice system. Guilt depends on their state of mind at the time they enabled the escape. It does not require a formal conviction of the person who escaped. If it did, only perpetrators of failed escapes would ever be prosecuted while the successful ones would walk free. The key question with the Taylors is whether they knew Ghosn had been charged and whether they believed he had no intention of ever returning to Japan to stand trial. If the answer is yes, they will be convicted.
So as you can see the treaty says they can't be re-arrested with further crimes unless those crimes have been filed with the extradition and the casetext does not include any other crimes.
That's correct but if Japan wants to add additional charges, the US can consent. It's common practice and I see no reason why they wouldn't. It would be entirely up to the Secretary of State. If you want more info see Berenguer v. Vance, 473 F. Supp. 1195 (D.D.C. 1979).
0 ( +2 / -2 )
Then he made a big party on a Sushi restaurant in Osaka on his last night in Japan. One of my friends was in that party.
Unfortunately your friend must be pulling your leg. The authorities have Ghosn on surveillance cameras exiting Shin-Osaka station at 7:24 pm, entering room 4609 at the Star Gate Hotel (near KIX) at 8:14 pm, and the black box being wheeled out at 9:57 pm. Not much time there for a big sushi party.
9 ( +9 / -0 )
Your message is confusing. You say ghosn committed a crime, but then you say he was facing charges. He hasn't committed any crime seeing as it hasn't been proven yet.
Fair enough. The Taylors have been arrested for suspicion of harboring and enabling the escape of someone who is suspected of committing a crime.
5 ( +8 / -3 )
They were arrested for something that “technically isn’t a crime” but prosecutors say they have enough evidence of that non-crime to convict them.
The article does a very poor job of explaining this. Violating bail conditions is not in itself a crime, and prosecutors aren't pretending otherwise. The Taylors have been arrested on suspicion of harboring and enabling the escape of someone who has committed a crime. That crime is not bail jumping. It's the original criminal charges Ghosn was facing.
14 ( +21 / -7 )
Why should the money be paid back to Japan?
It is not Japan's money so that would be theft.
The fine is 30man.
Because Japan has additional laws allowing for the proceeds of crime to be seized and/or repaid. The rules are complex but I wouldn't be surprised if they apply here. The problem will be enforcing any order outside of Japan.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
I suspect prosecutors are hoping that the Taylors provide information implicating Ghosn's wife Carole or son Anthony in planning and financing the escape. Carlos himself is probably resigned to spending the rest of his days in Lebanon, but it's something else entirely to subject your family to the same fate. If his wife or son can be charged and extradited while traveling overseas, will Ghosn return to Japan to testify in their defence?
-2 ( +6 / -8 )
I don't know. Maybe mandatory anal swabs are a good way to discourage non-essential air travel :)
39 ( +49 / -10 )
Which was weird - he had 0.02 BAC, but the law where he was is 0.08 BAC.
Not weird when you consider Springsteen refused a roadside breathalyser test. If the 0.02 was recorded hours after his arrest and processing, it could still indicate that he was over the legal limit at the relevant time.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
"We found some answers, learned a few things, had some laughs, and a few drinks."
Talk of alcohol but no mention of Springsteen's recent DUI arrest or his upcoming trial? Seems like a deliberate omission by AFP to shield the former president from controversy.
1 ( +5 / -4 )
The Australian law, which would force Facebook and Alphabet Inc's Google to reach commercial deals with Australian publishers
I'm no fan of Facebook or Google but this law is just blatant protectionism for established media barons. Under the law, tech giants are only required to reach deals with organisations signed up to Australia's press regulator and earning over AUD$150,000 in at least 3 of the past 5 years. This effectively excludes most independent journalists, news blogs, and startups (which establishment media hates). Only the big players are allowed to share in the revenue while their competition is locked out.
4 ( +5 / -1 )
Every Facebook user generates unique content. Why not mandate a fairer social media revenue sharing system for everyone, including news media, independent commentators, and cat video creators? Why are politicians only interested in laws which benefit their friends in the establishment news media? This is what corruption looks like.
0 ( +4 / -4 )
Assuming the extradition goes through, the next development to look for is whether the Taylors are hit with additional charges when they arrive in Japan. The list could be extensive (filing a false customs declaration, providing false information to immigration officials, knowingly supplying an aircraft for criminal activity, and so on). Many of these possible charges carry maximum sentences which are either higher or as high as the 2 year max sentence of the charge they're being extradited on.
14 ( +16 / -2 )
Japan and the US do not have an extradition treaty.
They most certainly do.
18 ( +20 / -2 )
Bitcoin's value is driven entirely by its popularity rather than by anything intrinsically unique and unreplicatable in its code. If you think Bitcoin's first mover advantage will last for decades, go ahead and invest. In 2006 MySpace seemed like it would never be overtaken as the social network of choice.
5 ( +6 / -1 )
I considered that, but the Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare also supplied "Relevant Judicial Precedent " after the explanation.
In my view Case #2 could apply to our situation assuming his Japanese reading skills didn't improve and Amnesty was ready to provide additional support. There is almost certainly more to the story than we are being told. But I'm not sure the most common precedents are much help here. Lack of language ability is not a common problem arising in most Japanese labour disputes. It's a unique issue.
Looking at this more broadly, I'm curious to know why you (and others below) are so eager to see a world where someone like this cannot be easily dismissed. How do you benefit as a foreigner if Japanese labour laws during the probationary period are as strict and inflexible as you seem to want? Do you not see the danger in this?
Do you want a Japan where employers are open to trying out foreign employees even if their language skills don't seem 100%, because if things don't go as smoothly as expected during the probationary period they can easily part ways? Or do you want a Japan where employers are terrified to hire any foreigners because they can't be gotten rid of even if their lack of language ability turns out to be a disaster? Do you want every company to start demanding that every foreigner provide a certified copy of their JLPT N1 test results and a hand written essay to prove their Japanese abillity before they'll even grant an interview? The outcome of this case could determine which path we go down.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
"... facts come to be known that could not have been known (or could not be expected to have been known) at the outset.."
The last paragraph is the interesting part. Amnesty International Japan knew his Japanese ability before hiring him.
But one could just as easily interpret that in a way favourable to Amnesty International. Perhaps they knew at the outset that he couldn't read or write in Japanese, but they didn't know or expect just how debilitating this would be to the satisfactory performance of the role. He was, after all, the first (and presumably last) non-Japanese executive director they had ever hired. Neither party knew what they were jumping into, which is why they agreed a probationary period.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
they fall under duties both under the terms of their contract and under the Labor Standards Act and other labor legislation
If employers had that right, employees would have zero protection from arbitrary dismissal.
Yes, but labour laws in Japan do recognise the validity of temporary probationary periods. Temporary is the key word. The rationale behind limiting the employee's rights during this period is to avoid the costly drawn-out litigation we see in the article. Most unsuccessful employment relationships break down in the first few weeks and months and its better for everyone to just cut their losses and move on with their lives.
They can't just fire him based on a new condition that wasn't part of their initial contract
Yes, strictly speaking you're correct. You can't impose a new employment contract on someone, but you can decide that the role you created is no longer commercially viable and will be abolished (ie. the position of monolingual executive director). If there are no other suitable jobs at the company, what is a redundant employee still on their probationary period entitled to other than the minimum notice period and their final paycheck? Surely not a 5 million yen payout and a permanent position in the same role?
-3 ( +1 / -4 )
The key question for me is how long will the vaccine induced immunity last? 3 months or 3 years? Nobody seems to have a good answer yet.
Many people aren't going to leave their homes, get on a train, wait in line at the clinic, and probably pay something, for just 3 to 6 months of immunity.
-6 ( +12 / -18 )
After the organization changed the job requirements during the probationary period.
As is their right. The probationary period is also an opportunity for the employer to test the feasibility of the new role they've created, not just the prospective employee. They might find the job description is inadequate, or that it should be split into two separate roles, or combined with another. The probationary period exists to protect the employer from all foreseeable risks of hiring.
-1 ( +5 / -6 )
Sexual slavery is not legal under the Geneva Convention from the day it was signed.
The Geneva Conventions are not a single document. The 3rd Geneva Convention, in force during WW2, does not address the issue of sexual slavery. The 4th GC does, but it was only adopted in 1950. It's not applicable to this conflict.
9 ( +15 / -6 )
If the issue is referred to the International Court of Justice, South Korea would likely raise whether Japan’s “comfort women” system of military sexual slavery was in violation of international law in force at that time
Many people may not realise that under the Geneva Conventions it's legal for an occupying army to compel the civilian population to engage in certain types of forced labour.
If this case had been heard in 1945, there's no question that it would have been considered a violation of the GC, because performing grossly immoral services at a brothel would never be considered legitimate work which an occupying power could demand from the civilian population.
In 2021 however, the situation is murkier. Social attitudes have changed significantly. Prostitution is no longer illegal in many countries. We are now encouraged to view sex workers as legitimate participants in the labour force and sex work as a type of essential health service rather than an immoral indulgence. If you can compel a civilian to become a nurse, why not a sex worker? It's one of the unintended consequences of normalising sex work.
6 ( +13 / -7 )
The lady in question has not been given a fair trial and has not had a chance to defend herself against these accusations.
I'm actually with you on this BB. This new trend of stripping people of citizenship runs contrary to the values most of these countries claim to uphold. It's a politically expedient way for politicians to avoid embarrassment.
Countries need to be held accountable for their citizens. The irony is that many of the most fanatical jihadis in ISIS were foreign fighters, because the freedoms in western nations allowed the more fundamentalist versions of Islam to be preached openly. In many Arab countries these fundamentalist preachers have long been outlawed and jailed by authorities.
-1 ( +3 / -4 )
It's like being promoted to captain of the Titanic after it's hit the iceberg. No thanks.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
They could cancel her New Zealand passport too. Then, what happens, she is stuck in Turkey?
The problem is countries signed up to the UN convention on statelessness can't revoke citizenship if it's the last citizenship a person has. It's a race to strip citizenship before the others do.
10 ( +11 / -1 )
Hehe, I always love seeing the extremists HATE on Ardern.
It has nothing to do with Ardern. It's about the one-sided policies New Zealand has adopted vis a vis Australia which have led to situations like this, and not for the first time.
For example; a non-citizen permanent resident of Australia has the right move, live and work in NZ and if they have a child in NZ it automatically becomes a NZ citizen. Going the other way, a non-citizen permanent resident of NZ has absolutely no right to live and work in Australia, and if they manage to get there by applying for a visa, any child born in Australia won't automatically become an Australian citizen.
It's policies like this which create so many NZ citizens with no real substantial ties to the country.
7 ( +11 / -4 )
If you stop handing out passports like hotcakes you won't have to worry about losing out to other countries in the citizenship stripping race.
-12 ( +11 / -23 )
Who is the one that has "committed a crime" ?
Carlos Ghosn. By, at the very least, violating Article 25(2) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act. You don't get the required departure confirmation from the immigration inspector when you hide in a box.
*(2) The alien set forth in the preceding paragraph shall not depart from Japan unless he/she has received confirmation of departure.*
And yes, violation of 25(2) is punishable by a fine or greater.
In my opinion there is also a strong case to be made for 'escape' to cover escape from the jurisdiction in relation to the original charges Ghosn was bailed for, and for 'escape from confinement' to cover Ghosn's confinement at home in accordance with his bail conditions, but we need not go there in order to keep things simple.
2 ( +4 / -2 )