Hacker News Reader

Comment by laurieg | Hacker News Reader

The most curious thing: Why were none of the Japanese executives arrested? Not even briefly for questioning? Ghosn was held for hundreds of days, Kelly is currently undergoing trial.

It seems to me that this was a corporate coup with assistance from the prosecutors office. The plan was Ghosn would be arrested, admit guilt straightaway, possibly under some questionable interrogation[1] and then get a fine/suspended sentence. Nissan could be free from Ghosn with a minimum of fuss.

Of course, it didn't go down that way, but Ghosn fleeing the country was probably the next best thing. Public opinion in Japan generally seems to be "Why would you run if you are innocent?" and the case is forgotten.

It will be interesting to see if any revelations come out in Kelly's trial (currently underway).

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/world/asia/11japan.html

View on HN

> It seems to me that this was a corporate coup with assistance from the prosecutors office.

You couldn't be more right here. Been working with japanese companies for years so those things do not come as a surprise.

There is a lot of corporate fraud happening in Japan, particularly at large corporations. No way Ghosn was innocent - however at the same time all japanese at Nissan board were well aware of what was happening and benefitted from that. Were they arrested you may ask? Certainly no. They took the power and if you ask me, I can't be more bearish on Nissan's future.

They don't because in Japan they're not as worried about their own citizen leaving the country.

When you get caught stealing something in Japan they will take you into custody for over 20 days, no bail, no nothing. I believe it's 10 days and then 1 or 2 extensions(but I don't remember the details). This only applies to foreigners.

Basically the idea is that the only real punishment they can give you is whatever they can give you for breaking the rules before you flee the country.

But yeah, there's obviously also an aspect of racism there.

Here is a short interview with a Japanese lawyer on how the law screws over foreigners: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1ZLGqL1FMo

After watching this, i could understand why Carlos Ghosn did what he did; it is an abhorrent "Hostage Justice" system.

That's an interesting interview. Too bad the editing of the video leaves a bit to be desired: it seems to cut out parts and skip in such a way that it's hard to tell what exactly the lawyer originally said, and how much the editing affects how you understand what was said.

The editing is probably benign in intention, but I would much rather hear a longer and perhaps more convoluted explanation than something cut-for-convenience where I'm not sure if I'm hearing and understanding the interviewee's answers the way he said them.

I am not sure what you are driving at. Of course we all can do with a detailed interview with all nuances explained but obviously given the sensitive subject matter, it would be almost impossible to do/get right. Given that the interviewer is not a professional journalist/investigator (i.e. any editorial limitations, legal or otherwise, he might have been forced to work with), he has done a commendable job of highlighting a very important problem in Japan and that too from a authentic Japanese source who speaks good English. I did not find any problems in comprehending the main points.

Every tourist to Japan who might have a tendency to "let down their hair" needs to watch this video.

I'm not really driving at anything. I'd just feel more comfortable with less cutting when discussing a matter where details could be important.

I didn't really find any problems with comprehension either. I'm just not sure if the understanding I get is affected by editing.

I appreciate the effort to explain the system in general, and I suppose also from a foreigner or tourist point of view. I have been to Japan twice, and while I'm not the type that's likely to get into trouble, it's always good to understand the culture you're visiting.

It seemed pretty clear the Nissan part of the Renault-Nissan alliance didn't like the changes Ghosn had made because he made cuts to certain parts of the company that were underperforming. Even though Ghosn's reforms were successful, the Nissan side of the alliance was slighted and seems to have ultimately schemed to set up Ghosn and push him out.

Japan has >99% conviction rate if you get arrested. That's precisely why you would run if you're innocent. Although it's more complicated.

https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/carlos-ghosn-and-japans-99-c...

That's an often-quoted statistic that really doesn't mean what it looks like. The main reason their conviction rate is so high is not that they have some bloodthirsty kangaroo court, but rather that charges are very likely to be dropped by the prosecution if there isn't compelling evidence certain to end in conviction, rather than the prosecution risking losing the case.

I don't believe that is the main reason. Forced confessions without a lawyer present is a huge factor in Japan's conviction rate.

> In Japan this occurs in the context of forced confessions during detention of suspects whose lawyers are not present during interrogation. In the United States a similar danger is present in plea bargaining. There is a well-known “trial penalty” — a defendant who spurns the prosecutor’s offer of a plea bargain will generally receive a significantly higher sentence if found guilty at trial. Both systems struggle to provide oversight of confessions and plea bargains, respectively, by means of judicial hearings.

This very article says the same, if read past the headline:

> Japan’s often-cited conviction rate of over 99 percent is a percentage of all prosecuted cases, not just contested cases. It is eye-catching, but misleading, since it counts as convictions those cases in which defendants pleaded guilty. If the U.S. conviction rate were calculated in a similar manner it would also exceed 99 percent since so few cases are contested at trial (in FY 2018 only 320 of the total number of 79,704 federal defendants were acquitted at trial).

I was curious why I kept seeing this article coming up as an attack on Japan when the text clearly doesn't come across that way & yep, this link is the first google result for "japan 99% conviction rate"

The thing I can't believe is that Japan's trading partners like USA, Canada, UK, Europe etc. haven't said boo about this outrageous miscarriage of justice in which the Japanese government has been complicit. As for as I know not one government has spoken out publicly.

Carlos Ghosn is a small potato. His only connection to those countries you listed is France. Does he have connections with French politicians? Probably not.

He was the CEO and creator of Renault-Nissan. For sure he's politically connected in France.

Renault is partly owned by the French state though.

Justice is now dependent on having connections to politicians? In the great social paradise of EU? Good grief

You cannot assume the fellow is innocent. A government, particularly an ally, cannot be reckless with accusations.

What seems much more likely to me is that the Japanese government and the Japanese management of Nissan felt they had a right to controlling ownership of Nissan after that had been purchased and turned around by Ghosn. In the circumstance, if that's what they wanted, then they should have bought it back rather than setting up a kangaroo court.

I suspect from now on companies with subsidiaries in Japan will be sure their top level meetings don't take place on Japanese soil.

> What seems much more likely to me...

Maybe. All our information comes from journalists, who occasionally gets things wrong. After that, it's down to belief. We haven't seen the evidence nor any counter evidence. All we have is a biased article.

For me, leaving aside all of the dramatic details, we have the word of a Lebanese business man and his supporters versus the word of the Japanese government and the board of Nissan. Perhaps naive, but I'd tend to believe the Japanese government over some rando. It's not a banana republic over there. The government does not habitually collude with natives to squeeze foreigners. It's not like the UAE. Agreed, that's not evidence of anything, but as long as we're just talking "what seems much more likely" - what seems much more likely to me, is that the guy embezzled, got caught, had to flee the country and - unlike so many of these dreary, sordid little tales - he caught the ear of a sympathetic journalist to spin a sympathetic tale of escape and adventure.

Well, he will be tried in absentio if that's allowed in Japan, and the evidence against him will be entered into the public record. Then maybe we'll each have a better idea of what we're talking about.

To top it off Japan extradited US citizens for doing something not considered a crime in Japan! In what world does that happen?

That’s the nature of extradition.

Edit: Why the downvotes?

“If requested by the charging state, US states and territories must extradite anyone charged with a felony, misdemeanor, or even petty offense in another US state or territory, even if the offense is not a crime in the custodial state.”

As far as I’m aware this holds true of international extradition too. That’s kinda the whole point—you can’t escape justice by picking a destination that doesn’t prosecute your crime.

I did not downvote, but I suspect they're from your attempt to compare to domestic American law. While tempting, it's a misleading comparison here. US states do that because the US constitution has the "full faith and credit" clause requiring them to acknowledge and cooperate with the legal processes of other states. There is no equivalent internationally.

Dual criminality is a standard provision in most (nearly all? all?) extradition treaties. Canada's treaty with the USA for example says:

> Persons shall be delivered up according to the provisions of this Treaty for any of the offenses listed in the Schedule annexed to this Treaty, which is an integral part of this Treaty, provided these offenses are punishable by the laws of both Contracting Parties by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year.

and the US-Japan treaty says:

> Extradition shall be granted in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty for any offense listed in the Schedule annexed to this Treaty, which forms an integral part of this Treaty, when such an offense is punishable by the laws of both Contracting Parties by death, by life imprisonment, or by deprivation of liberty for a period of more than one year [...]

> US states do that because the US constitution has the "full faith and credit" clause

No, they do it because of the more specific Extradition Clause, not the Full Faith and Credit clause.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Clause

I Google and that was the first thing that came up, probably because I’m in the US. If international extradition language was easier to pull up on mobile I would have used that.

I wasn’t purposefully making the comparison but rather attempting to demonstrate that extradition is meant to follow the laws of the place where the crime took place rather than the place where the fugitive resides.

Unlike the US domestic situation, sovereign states are necessarily allowed some leeway in choosing which requests to honor. However it was my understanding that it is generally not a requirement that the alleged crime be illegal on both jurisdictions. Thank you for providing evidence to the contrary.

IMO it doesn't deserve a downvote, just clarification. What the post is saying is absolutely true. It's a fact.

I upvoted it.

Countries can still extradite in this scenario as a "favour" but there is typical a strong legal case against extradition if the charged crime is not a crime in the legal jurisdiction. (see current issue with Meng Wanzhou the Huawei CFO fighting extradition from Canada to USA)

>> That’s kinda the whole point—you can’t escape justice by picking a destination that doesn’t prosecute your crime.

You most certain can; combine poor relations with the country requesting extradition and you can avoid "justice" indefinitely.

> That's the nature of extradition

Generally, no, its not.

> As far as I’m aware this holds true of international extradition too.

It is not, it is a feature of US domestic law from the extradition clause of the US Constitution, which reflects the much closer association of US states than foreign nations.

Dual criminality is the normal standard in extradition treaties (including the US-Japan one), though nothing (except perhaps individual rights under local law) prevents a state from extraditing persons when not required by a treaty, or deporting foreigners back to their country of nationality with similar effect.

> The most curious thing: Why were none of the Japanese executives arrested? Not even briefly for questioning? Ghosn was held for hundreds of days, Kelly is currently undergoing trial.

For the same reason the company was able to put out a press release minutes after his arrest.

Because only Ghosn (considered to) did embezzlement?

The embezzlement charges didn't seem to make much sense when I took a look. Taken literally, sure, maybe he embezzled. But this is a guy who basically set his own salary at whatever number he wanted every year for 20 years. And apparently there was a culture at the top of the company where the executives were able to spend quite freely using company money. If you are able to simply legally pay yourself more if you want to, the only reason you wouldn't is that you are under the impression you can simply use company money for personal use anyway. What's the difference, really? It's almost just an accounting issue; clarification for investors.

I read the articles a long time ago so I may be off by a bit but I recall that when I did the math Carlos Ghosn had a personal net worth of at least ~$115 million _at the time he was accused of embezzling just a few million dollars._ It's like a millionaire stealing $20,000. Certainly possible, but more likely to be some sort of misunderstanding given the circumstances.

I don't expect this to be a popular comment. But the charges never made much sense to me. And normally in cases of corporate embezzlement there isn't such a compelling alternate narrative/conspiracy to explain what happened.

I read it the same way. You said it better than I could.

It seems like an easy way to remove a Gaijin from a Nipponjin-position. Or maybe he made some other execs unhappy behind the scenes.

This is Fair. For GP:

> Why were none of the Japanese executives arrested?

Then zero arrest is expected, or you have any suspicion?

Saikawa, the CEO of Nissan at the time of Ghosn's arrest, has admitted to being overpaid.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/09/nissan-ceo-saikawa-to-step-d...

Martha Stewart went to prison for insider trading to avoid a loss of $45,673. She was worth in the hundreds of millions at the time.

Martha Stewart went to prison for lying to federal investigators and obstruction of justice, not for insider trading. The "insider trading" (not actually a crime; the actual criminal thing in such cases tends to be "securities fraud") charges were variously dropped or dismissed by the court, depending on the charge.

So she was actually innocent (in the legal system sense, at least) of the crime she was initially accused of, but guilty of obstructing the investigation.

Similar to the Ghosn story, actually: he's guilty of jumping bail and whatnot no matter what's going on with the substantive issue of embezzlement.

> Martha Stewart went to prison for lying to federal investigators

Kids, if the FBI comes a-knocking, shut. Your. Fat. Fucking. Mouth.

Ask for a lawyer and the shut the fuck up. It doesn't matter if you're innocent.

If you talk to the Feds and make a mistake, you can be charged with a felony for lying to to federal agents. Did you talk to that guy on Saturday, May 20th, 2017? Who knows? The Feds do, and if you don't remember precise details, you got yourself a felony charge. Felony. Even if you are innocent of anything else, you lied to a Federal investigator.

Shut up. Ask for a lawyer. And shut up.

(I'm OK with the downvotes, if this helps someone remember to shut up and get a lawyer)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgWHrkDX35o

It's always shut the fuck up Friday. 7 days a week.

I advice you to reform the US federal criminal law.

It's a glaring injustice that a completely random innocent person can be prosecuted for saying "I don't know"

Where do you live? I can guarantee your state security/police operates in a roughly comparable manner.

I live in places where light doesn't shine not of really my own choosing, because the Western establishment is really determined on destroying its business, and industry.

It's a shame that people who do have an option to not to live in hellholes, and having functioning democracy can't lift a finger to do something about that instead of doing nothing, while rambling on internet forums.

That's a few decimal places down from the point. Stewart was sentenced to five months of prison for what was a $45,673 crime which she then later had to repay with interest. She was worth 100s of millions at the time.

The point was that it's not impossible, merely because Ghosn was rich, that he didn't do the deed.

> Why were none of the Japanese executives arrested?

For what? A criminal is claiming his innocence, classical story, people do that all the time. Without further proof, why should anyone bother people who are probably innocent, and more important: powerful. That could seriously harm your career if you do something to lightly. Who would do that in this situation?

The other problem is the pretty strict chain of responsability people in Japan maintain. Especially in the legal system, there is a very strong and infamous believe that people do not fail in their work, and questioning it is a serious matter. This is a long known problem with japan, but it's quite hard to fix this. So even in a regular harmless case, hardly anyone would do something to insult someone else by questioning the result of their work.

> why should anyone bother people who are probably innocent, and more important: powerful

Oh you sweet summer child. Why, indeed? Why would anyone bother an innocent, powerful person?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com