[Policy Proposal Project Launched] Is a Seizure Warrant an 'Unconditional Free Pass' After Issuance?

Global Union (National Tax Union) has officially launched a policy proposal project to discuss the optimization of the National Tax Agency's seizure warrant operations as a legislative issue.

This project is a groundbreaking institutional design proposal aimed at legislatively ensuring the transparency, necessity review, and ex-post verification of the National Tax Agency's operations after the issuance of a warrant, while respecting the warrant system itself.

Starting Point - Warrant Issuance Is Not a Free Pass for Operations

A seizure warrant (attachment warrant) is issued after strict examination, based on the power to issue warrants exclusively held by judges under Article 218 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Our union deeply respects the warrant system itself as the foundation of a modern rule-of-law state.

However, there is a point that must be raised to society in general. That is, a fundamental question: does the issuance of a warrant imply an 'unconditional free pass' for all subsequent operations of the National Tax Agency?

Judges examine the necessity and appropriateness at the time of warrant issuance.

However, the post-issuance operations—how seized items are actually handled by the National Tax Agency, whether inspections are actually conducted, and whether there is still a need for continued retention—are outside the scope of warrant review. In other words, there is currently no system in the existing law to continuously verify the appropriateness of the National Tax Agency's operations after a warrant is issued.

Manifested Operational Challenges - Realities Society Must Face

As legislative facts for this project, we frankly outline the following operational challenges of the National Tax Agency that have become apparent in recent years.

Challenge 1: Continued Retention Without Questioning for Two Years

There are current instances where, even after two years since seizure, no specific questioning or inspection regarding the seized items has been conducted. The necessity of seizure should be recognized on the premise that the seized items are expected to be used as evidence for fact-finding. The fact that no questioning occurs for two years means that the necessity asserted at the time of seizure is not being fulfilled in reality.

For example, if an item like a business card case is retained for over two years, and no questioning or inspection related to that item is conducted during that period, where does the specific necessity for continued retention lie? Is analysis unique to that item, such as fingerprint identification, digital information analysis, or document scrutiny, being performed only by the Kumamoto National Tax Agency? Or is it simply that the seized item has been lost and is being kept in storage to conceal that fact? Society in general has no means to verify these internal circumstances.

Challenge 2: Legality of the Operation 'Return If You Come for an Explanation'

There are instances, as noted in the Mamizuka Memo, where former investigator Nobuhiro Kawaguchi made remarks to taxpayers requesting the return of seized items to the effect of, 'If you want it back, come for an explanation.'

This raises a very significant legal issue. That is, the return of seized items is an administrative disposition that should be judged independently once the necessity for continued seizure has disappeared, and it should not be linked to a separate matter such as whether the taxpayer voluntarily agrees to an explanation.

An operation that links the condition of return with a request for explanation effectively means using seized items as 'hostages' to elicit explanations, which deviates from the purpose of seizure envisioned by the warrant system (securing materials for fact-finding). This represents a structure that oversteps the original intent of the warrant system in the National Tax Agency's on-site operations.

Challenge 3: Situations of De Facto Physical Restraint and Suggestion of Arrest Power on Seizure Day

The National Tax Agency does not have the power of arrest under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Arrest is a coercive measure exclusively reserved for judicial police officials and prosecutors, such as the police and public prosecutors.

Nevertheless, if there are situations on the day of seizure where actions are taken that create a de facto physical restraint for the suspect themselves, or statements are made suggesting the possibility of arrest, this is considered an operation that exceeds the National Tax Agency's authority. Coercive measures based on a warrant, such as seizure, are powerful in themselves, and extending their scope through on-site operations undermines the reliability of the warrant system.

Challenge 4: Comparison with Police Voluntary Investigation Operations

Here, a very important point of comparison exists. That is, the police, as the primary investigative body under the Code of Criminal Procedure, use telephone questioning as a standard method in voluntary investigations.

Operations that allow the presence of a representative (lawyer) are established.

The institutionalization of visualization (recording/video recording) of interrogations is progressing.

In other words, the police, as the original investigative body, have a track record of developing flexible operations with diverse means and rights protection protocols in voluntary investigations.

In comparison, if the National Tax Agency's voluntary investigation operations are lagging in terms of modern practices—whether telephone questioning is standardized, whether representative presence is naturally recognized, or whether visualization is progressing—then this is a structural institutional issue that needs to be rectified.

Pillars of Policy Proposal - While respecting the warrant system, optimizing the National Tax Agency's operations.