Murakami Fund

Currently Murakami is under investigation by the prosecutors office for insider trading offences. It's not been specified which company this occurred in.

The insider trading accusations are linked to Nippon Broadcasting. This also links to Horie and Livedoor.

Christopher, as an MBA holder, what's your take on all of this? Do you think there's any merit in the case? Or are they punishing Murakami for moving to Singapore, for stirring up trouble in the closed world of Japanese business, or by potentially making too much money on the Hanshin deal? Insider trading is extremely hard to prove, so maybe they're just trying to disrupt his business operations for a while to teach him a lesson.

Well the deal seems to have been done. According to the Mainichi Daily News, Murakami has agreed to sell Hanshin shares to Hankyu.

Under the circumstances, a wise business decision.

There are some grounds to the allegations as the timing of his selling of Nippon Broadcasting shares was suspicious. You generally can tell when insider trading happens very easily, but as you say, proving it is incredibly difficult and really you need an insider to spill the beans or an incredibly stupid document trail to get anywhere. Incidently, moving to Singapore is no escape as their currency and finance laws are incredibly strict.

Murakami was greedy and this irked his investors who pushed him to agree to Hankyu's offer. It was announced that the fund will sell its shares to Hankyu during today's match. However, this is unlike the Horie situation (where they were out to get Horie) and it will be interesting to see if the prosecutors are able to get the evidence to convict him.

- ... you need an insider to spill the beans or an incredibly stupid document trail to get anywhere.

And Murakami strikes me as someone who would pay attention to that sort of thing, unlike Horie, who may have been a little less disciplined.

- ... moving to Singapore is no escape as their currency and finance laws are incredibly strict.

True, but I thinking the alleged crime was committed when the company was still domiciled in Japan, so I guess they're not protected on that score anyway. And where are the decision makers (including Murakami himself) based? I imagine at least some of them would be subject to Japanese laws.

- ... unlike the Horie situation (where they were out to get Horie) ...

I don't know about that. The knives do seem to be out.

Yes, the alleged offences were committed in Japan and so would fall under Japanese jurisdiction. Murakami himself is living in Singapore now, but as for his board, I think most are still based in Japan.

Murakami is an ex-bureaucrat which gives him a certain amount of protection. Furthermore, he has not been making the same waves as Horie. For example, the Yomiuri Shimbun didn't see the need to smear him, so this, I think, is genuine. Timing might be designed to help Hankyu/Hanshin, but they're after him because they think he's genuinly guilty not because he needs to be hammered down.

Well he appears to have admitted that he may have made a mistake somewhere along the line. According to the BBC, he told reporters at the Tokyo Stock Exchange that:

"I consider myself a pro among pros, but I had to consider the outside possibility that I had made a mistake ... I have decided that I have to meekly admit my wrongdoing."

Whether he really believes that or whether he's trying to limit the damage, it stands in contrast to Horie's defiant attitude, which will undoubtedly help him.

Murakami has admitted his fault and resigned from his company. He has also been arrested. However, his comments are disingenuous - he knew exactly what he was doing and has been caught red handed. The case against him is really watertight and he had no option but to resign and admit his offence.

OK, he has now been arrested. I didn't have that news when I posted my last comment.

But is it simply a technical breach of the law or something particularly nefarious? Obviously the case against him is watertight if he's admitted he did it, but did he know exactly what he was doing? From my experience of Japanese commercial law it is sometimes written ambiguously, giving the bureaucrats too much discretionary power. Could he have just been pushing the envelope a little too aggressively and the bureaucrats decided to rein him in (particularly as he wasn't playing ball on this Hanshin-Hankyu deal)?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, Christopher, but you seem to be 100% certain that he's telling a pack of lies. Considering his background, could there be another angle to this?

Murakami's background is in mergers and acquisitions, so it's very much relevant to the area his fund operated in. Furthermore, he considered himself (in a rough translation) as a pro among pros. One thing that is obvious from the Hankyu buyout is Murakami's greed. He wanted to sell at an even higher price despite the fact that his fund would make a massive profit and the fact that he was asking for the shares to be over-priced. Other examples in his past history also show this trait. This is what caused him to go down the insider trading route (it's a common failing of all insider traders).

He saw the opportunity and grabbed it without worrying about the law. All of his press conference was just self-justification and avoiding the blame as much as possible, which if you follow other cases (in America and the U.K. for example) is quite common. Murakami received priveledged information which he then used to make a profit, and his reaction shows that he knew what he was doing was wrong.

As I said, you may be right about Murakami's intentions, but I'm also worried that he was a target simply because the authorities wanted to make an example of him, and this possibly had more to do with his aggressive business style rather than the seriousness of the offense.

Is this the beginning of a campaign to crack down on financial irregularities in Japan? If so, I'm looking forward to many, many more arrests. I'd say about half the businessmen (and most would be men) in Japan should be worried about receiving a knock on the door. As you would know, the Japanese business world thrives on the peddling of information, perhaps more so than in other countries. I say, if the authorities are genuine, then let them go after everybody, not just the high profile guys, because Murakami is certainly not the first to make money from privileged information. But first they may wish to make the regulations clearer (although as you quite rightly point out, this may not be a defense for Murakami considering his background in M&As).

Ask around and you'll realize I'm not the only one saying this.

Murakami was a target because there was clear evidence. Put a monkey in a suit and use it to prosecute Murakami and you would get a conviction - it really is that clear.

As for the others, it's more difficult and getting the evidence is the problem with these cozy arrangements. Tightening the M & A regulations isn't actually the answer (though it would help later). What is needed is a genuinely strong and reliable whistleblowers law. Then you would begin to get people coming forward and maybe begin to see a crackdown.

Yes, from what I've now read it appears the prosecutors do have a clear case. But I'm inclined to believe that he probably didn't intend to break the law. I found this interesting snippet from a BusinessWeek article:

Experts say Japan's insider-trading laws are normally difficult to prove and even harder to enforce. But Murakami got tripped up by an obscure regulation, known as Article 167, which makes it illegal to invest in a company if you know that another investor is considering buying 5% of that company's stock.

Under the law, a 5% equity stake is considered a potential takeover bid. "It's a tricky part of the law," says Kunihiko Morishita, an attorney at Tokyo-based Anderson Mori & Tomotsune. "Even legal experts aren't aware of this, so it's possible Murakami didn't know about it."

This is where things get more difficult and interpretive. Normally, the "I didn't intend to break the law" defence is used by people who knew exactly what they were doing. Most legal systems adopt a principle of "ignorance is no defense" as a consequence. Ignorance is too easy to argue and so is ruled out as an excuse.

Whether or not Murakami knew about this article is difficult to say, but I would personally say he had to know. Despite the article in BusinessWeek this is not an obscure provision, it's fairly fundemental.

There are already discrepencies emerging between Murakami's account and the prosecutors' version. The level of detail in Murakami's accounts suggests a pre-prepared defence by him which also indicates foreknowledge. Watching Murakami one gets the impression of fairly standard shiftiness and evasiveness that executives of companies display when caught out.

This may be unfair to him, but I don't share your view of his ignorance and his actions indicate to me a high level of guilt and awareness. If it was a genuine mistake he needn't have resigned so precipitously. My impression is that whether or not he knew the law he wouldn't have cared anyway.

- Ignorance is too easy to argue and so is ruled out as an excuse.

Well it's ruled out as a legal defense - which is probably what you meant. But it still can be used as an excuse. Whether or not people believe you is another matter.

- There are already discrepencies emerging between Murakami's account and the prosecutors' version. The level of detail in Murakami's accounts suggests a pre-prepared defence by him which also indicates foreknowledge. Watching Murakami one gets the impression of fairly standard shiftiness and evasiveness that executives of companies display when caught out.

Well of course this can easily be explained if he had received some prior warning of the pending charges, which would have enabled him to seek legal advice. Do you know when they first alerted him that he was under investigation? I assume he can afford a good legal team, so it's not surprising that there's a lot of detail in his account. I'm not sure that preparedness necessarily indicates guilt, although some might claim it does.

As far as the "standard shiftiness and evasiveness" is concerned, umm well how much of that is cultural, how much of that is natural personality? Could this "shiftiness" simply be nervousness in front of the cameras? I hope you're not saying that he simply looks guilty. He looked fairly straightforward to me in that press conference he gave. Perhaps you are being a little unfair on that score.

- If it was a genuine mistake he needn't have resigned so precipitously.

No, no, no - it was the smart thing to do, and that's what I would have advised him to do. It saved his company a whole lot of unnecessary damage. It doesn't point to guilt at all.

Anyway, I'm sure he knew he was pushing the envelope a little too aggressively, and while I said that I'm inclined to believe he may have been ignorant of the law (or at least certain aspects of the law, as it can get complicated, and even the lawyers sometimes have trouble), he should have been aware of what he was doing considering his background. Reckless is the word that springs to mind.

But don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to exonerate the guy, but I do like to explore all the different angles. I have a little experience in this area and I've learned to not take everything the police or prosecutors say at face value, especially in such high profile cases. If there's a discrepancy in the respective accounts, then I don't think we should automatically assume that the authorities are the ones with the correct story.

It is precisely because the case is high profile that the police and prosecutors will make sure they get it right. To get something like this wrong would be an enormous embarassment. What happened was that they got very precise information from Livedoor and from arrested former executives which enabled them to act.

Now looking at Murakami's resignation, the principle to remember here is mud sticks. If you resign immediately as a company boss you are admitting guilt. This is how it is perceived in the corporate world. If you screw up or are wrongly accused the correct approach is to stay around until things die down and then quietly withdraw. Resigning quickly is the worst thing you can do in that situation. Once this accusation came out it fundementally damaged the fund's credibility and Murakami's resignation will not save the company. They have a lot of work to do to rescue their reputation especially with their American clients.
As for Murakami's shiftiness and evasiveness you learn to recognise the signs when you follow a few of these cases of coporate corruption. He was too forceful in his press conference and his statements were too self serving. This is very common with chief executives from all nations when caught out. There was too much spin (once again you learn to recognise this) for him to be convincing. Working in the field, you need to know when you are being fed a line and when someone is on the level. Murakami is anything but on the level.

- It is precisely because the case is high profile that the police and prosecutors will make sure they get it right.

Yes, and to a prosecutor, "getting it right" means obtaining a conviction. And because this is a high profile case, there's enormous pressure on them to do just that. Whatever it takes. If you think all prosecutors are angels, read some of the following accounts of police/prosecutors who have not done the right thing, and why:

• The Center for Public Integrity: "A Short History of Exposing Misconduct"
• University of Missouri Kansas City: Background reading for "Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct" class
• Japan Policy Institute: "Bureaucratic Corruption in Japan"
• Paper by David T. Johnson, University and Waseda University: "Justice System Reform in Japan"

- ...the correct approach is to stay around until things die down and then quietly withdraw.

Well, my advice would be to do exactly the opposite, resign quickly and publicly so that the mud doesn't stick, and then ease back in after the dust has settled (my apologies for the mixed metaphor). I believe that's the most common (and logical approach). That's what Martha Stewart did [CNN Money].

- As for Murakami's shiftiness and evasiveness you learn to recognise the signs when you follow a few of these cases of coporate corruption.

Epecially when you're following it all in your second language. I'm sure it's very easy to follow the body language and subtle nuances of the language.

- He was too forceful in his press conference...

Ah yes, but he's from Osaka, you see. He probably did come across as too forceful to many Tokyoites. That's just the way we talk down here.

Christopher, you've said many sensible things in this exchange and I appreciate your input. You're probably right about Murakami's motives. But you need to remember there's a lot we don't know about this, and I'm sure we'll be hearing a little more every day until the trial.

BTW, I'm not accusing the prosecutors of doing anything other than their job, but you should know that their actions have put the fear of God into people who are involved in this Hanshin/Hankyu deal. I know somebody who often does legal work for Hankyu and normally he's very open about what the company is doing - you know, sales, profitability, management/structural changes, etc. Nothing that's not in the public domain, mind you. Anyway, in a conversation we had the other day, it was obvious that he wasn't giving anything away - even fairly benign stuff. It's obvious these two arrests have already had an effect, and may even encourage more secrecy in business, not more openness - surely the opposite of what they wanted to achieve. So to return to one of my original points: make the law clearer, then crack down - not the other way round.

Anyway, it's good once in a while to question one's assumptions, and not to always rely on preconceived ideas. I'm going to enjoy watching this case unfold.

You are of course right about police and prosecutors rushing to obtain a conviction by any means possible, and of course it is very prevalent in Japan. However, this more likely applies to murder cases and the like. White collar cases, especially this high profile, will be handled very carefully - in the UK it proved difficult to get convictions (it's easier in America) because of the old boy network, so evidence had to be clear and watertight. A similar situation exists in Japan.

As for corporate conduct in a scandal, if there is no guilt you do not resign. That way when you are vindicated you can do so in a blaze of glory. If you resign and then slide back later you are still tainted (as is Martha Stewart) and are seen as such. A resignation is an admission that there are some grounds to the accusation. Of course if you hang on and you are guilty things are even worse.

Watching Murakami and listening to him I could hear the spin in every word. The Osaka angle wasn't really relevant here - he was defensive and as he is a little man (in size) compensated for this by being aggressive. I must confess to feeling some sympathy for him when he is harrassed by the press.

You are right about clarity, but not necessarily about the law. This very much depends on how judges interpret the law. Clarity here may well take second place. For Murakami it was a clear case of not following a fundemental provision which brought him down. The timing of his arrest is the only thing I really think is suspicious about this affair - it was perfect for Hankyu's takeover.

The New York Times has an article today which quotes a number of Japanese media and financial experts which makes interesting reading: "Japan Turns Against a Corporate Raider of Its Own."

Some excerpts:

Legal specialists say a guilty verdict is far from certain. While Japanese insider trading law is based on securities codes in the United States, it has rarely been enforced, and prosecutors will have the difficult task of proving that Mr. Murakami knew as much about Livedoor's intentions as they say he did.

. . .

"He went further than Japan could accept, and the prosecutors made an example of him. It's not even clear yet that he's guilty." [- Keiichi Omura, professor of finance at Waseda University]

. . .

"Mr. Murakami has been singled out not only because of what he did, but because of what he represented." [- Tatsuo Inamasu, professor of media studies at Hosei University]

Anyway, it's clear from the above that my views are shared by many people who should know what they're talking about. So I think I'll leave it at that.

... Except to say that I'm not quite sure I understand the logic of your point about Martha Stewart. Of course I could go into that subject in detail, with more quotes and analyses and charts and graphs and everything, but I fear that this might be construed as going off topic by our tolerant moderator, who has probably let this discussion drag on too long anyway.

The problem is that Murakami has already admitted to the offence. Any comment in the New York Times therefore becomes irrelevant (and it is hardly a reliable source anymore). The prosecutors caught Murakami because it was easy and clearcut. They have the insider who spilled the beans. What is significant is the timing, which I do believe was intended to help Hanshin/Hankyu.

I appreciate your argument, but this is not a case where they were out to get him. Furthermore, we cannot consider the quotes to be those of experts. These are academics not practical business people. I would have given them more crecedence if they had been from securities company employees. Perhaps we should agree to differ here, but if you follow a few more of these cases I think you will begin to understand my arguments.

I also noticed that there were mostly opinions of university professors (referred to as experts) in that New York Times article [the article now appears to require registration], and thought that that was odd. It looked to me like Fackler-san could only rely on academia to provide him with the spin he wanted. It reminded me of many interviews I've had with U.S. "journalists" who couldn't get me to say what they wanted to back up their ideas, so after lengthy phone interviews, they went with quotes from the Japan Times or Daily Yomiuri. All of the press applies spin, and one of the points Christopher is making is that you learn to spot it after a while.

This has been one of the most interesting border-line off-topic threads. You two have both managed to bring the Hankyu/Hanshin connection up enough to keep it going. But it looks like we've come to a stalemate again.

For those of you who don't get how this is semi on-topic, there's a complicated web of people who Murakami-san and Horie-san disturbed with their playing games with the stock market, powerful people who also happen to run Pro Yakyu. Searches concentrating on the summer of 2004 for Horie (or Horiemon) is a good starting point. Also look for Horie in 2005 in connection with stock in TBS (BayStars' owner), Fuji Sankei (Swallows' stake holder), and Rakuten (Golden Eagles) to give you an idea of how much he poked a hornet's nest. For Murakami, search for him in October to November of 2005, along with keywords like Orix, Hanshin, and Hankyu (predicessor to Daiei then Softbank Hawks).

With even a moderate understanding of the background above, you can get an idea about why many people (academia or not) think that Murakami may be the target of getting "hammered down."

And that brings us back to the stalemate. It seems to me that this is the crux of where Mijow-san and Christopher-san disagree, the motivation behind the crackdown on Murakami-san. Why I think that the Times article is nothing but spin is because they went out and got "experts" to give their opinions on the motivation of the prosecutors. The article's author, Fackler-san, seems to be arguing that Murakami must be vindicated because he's just doing what any capitalist should do, maximize profit, but the entrenched Old Boys Club appears to want to stop him.

Hey, I think that the Old Boys Club in Pro Yakyu needs to go. But playing this card as a reason for making Murakami-san out to be a martyr makes me think less of the New York Times and professional journalists than I already do. Ironically, I do think that messing with the Pro Yakyu establishment put cross-hairs on Murakami's forehead. If someone wants to write about that as background to the case, fine, but not as a ploy to move peoples' emotions, which is what the Times and others seem to be doing. And arguing that Murakami does what many others do, but he was singled out because of such and such, does not excuse him or the rest of them. (I've never understood why doing what you know is wrong because others do it somehow makes it right. It makes as much sense as the girl in my freshman algebra class complaining "That's no fair, he studies" as a reason to throw my test grades out when calculating the curve. I've never been able to understand those two aspects of my peers.)

Alright already! Why is it that you each have to have the last word in every discussion you disagree on? I'm as frustrated with you two as I am with my kids sometimes. There is no winner or loser in this debate. Murakami is either guilty of the charges or he's not, and a court will decide that.

Mijow-san, you presented links to primary sources to back up your arguements. That's always a good thing to do as it allows people to read the primary sources and come to their own conclusions. I'm sorry that one of those sources seemed to miss the point for me, but it was good to be able to read it and come to my own conclusions.

However, you specifically asked Christopher for his opinion, siting his credentials. You setup the idea at the top of the thread that Christopher his a reliable source of opinion in this matter.

Christopher, despite your obvious expertise in this field, you have done nothing but state opinion based on a feeling you get watching Murakami. You disregard what Mijow says without explaining why. This hasn't been a debate, it's been more of a lecture from your end. A sermon trying to enlighten us that Murakami knew what he was doing was illegal all along. True or not, that's for the courts to decide.

I fail to see why what the two of you are saying has to be mutually exclusive. All appearances are that Murakami was involved with some backroom deals from which he profitted, making him guilty as charged. And messing with Hanshin put him on the radar of some powerful men who want to preserve the status quo. Can't we just leave it at that until more evidence is presented? Don't answer that. I don't want to hear anything more on the matter until there is.

I learned back in junior high school that trying to mediate a fight between my brother and sister tended to have the effect of both of them turning on me. If you both want to vilify me, fine. Just please stop the bickering.

This is just a comment from a rube in the cheap seats who doesn't know anything at all, really, about securities laws in any country. So I'm going to skip that part of it, except to note that I find it interesting that the western press really does seem to be making Horie and Murakami out to be martyrs.

Okay, all the paperwork will go through and then, presumably, it will all be hashed out in a trial before a panel of judges. Now given the often arbitrary nature of judges' rulings in Japan, especially in criminal cases, no matter how weak or strong the case may be, Japanese politicians, businessman, bureaucrats, and judges all have relationships with each other on some level and Japanese society is based on, basically, a never ending series of mutual exchange of favors. It is also an inherently cartel society. So that the Todai grads who appointed these judges, also likely from the same Gakubatsu and other connections, are the convictions already a done deal?

Look, Japanese don't do anything without making sure that whatever step is to be taken will be a fait accompli. That is to save face. So it is hard to believe that prosecutors would bring this case with the expectation that their chances of a conviction are iffy. If these cases get thrown out, prosecutors and Japanese business leaders will be criticized heavily in Japan and really, really vilified around the world. This is not like a minor league pot bust.

As for the "poking the hornet's nest" idea, I think that has more validity than perhaps a lot of people might want to believe. The average person doesn't give two cents about what goes on in the M&A area. Too dry and boring for most. But you mess with the local beloved ballteam, well, any ambitious politican might make some phone calls to somebody he knows in the Justice Ministry who he went to school with or who owed him a favor and ask them to see if there was anything they could shake Murakami's tree with. The politician then becomes a white knight, yada yada yada.

People have a visceral connection with their team and the kind of tinkering that Murakami has been doing upset folks on the grassroots level. That was Murakami's big mistake. That enabled the business people who are out for Murakami's head to have an excuse that the average person can understand for getting him and cheer on the vendetta. This is just a kind of murahachibu. So the conviction is in the bag. Trust me.

But then again, I make Kevin Millar look like a Phd candidate, so what do I know?

I must still confess to sceptisism about the Murakami conspiracy theory. Yes the timing is significant but it is highly unlikely that he was arrested because he stood out. Industry professionals I have spoken to are surprised such a prominent person was arrested and consider this a positive move. Mainichi Shimbun reported recently, his fund moved records relating to the Livedoor dealings to Singapore immediatley after Horie was arrested. However, Livedoor executives were more than happy to talk (it rather seems they felt that Murakami had stabbed them in the back and wanted revenge) and this is what gave the regulators their impetus.

The stellar businessman who turns out to have gotten there illegally is quite common (in the UK, Maxwell, Saunders, Ronsen, Nadir; in the U.S. Boesky, Milkin, Salmon Brothers - the list is endless). For some reason these crimes do attract the attention of authorities whilst not being understood by ordinary people. In fact some English insider dealing trials were so complex the jury couldn't understand the evidence and the accused were set free.

If I can just weigh in here again, I'm sure Christopher is correct when he says there's no conspiracy (it's such a loaded word anyway), and that Murakami probably has broken the law in some way. He has confessed after all (although that could have been more to avoid the fate of his erstwile associate Mr. Horie, who spent three months in Tokyo Detention House because he tried to fight his charges). But it is clear that the prosecutors are targeting him mainly because of his high profile and sharp business practices, both of which have ruffled quite a few feathers in the business community here. It's essentially a shot over the bows for people who may be thinking of emulating him. At least this is the view from people in legal circles I've been speaking to.

That's not to say that the authorities don't have a case, of course. But we need to bear in mind that all this information about what Murakami supposedly did or didn't do is being leaked by the authorities to essentially erode any public sympathy the guy might still have. As we don't have jury trials in Japan, there's no chance of a potential jury pool being tainted. And indeed, I'd posit that the actual conviction is not all that important - Murakami may well receive a suspended sentence because he appears to be cooperating (unlike Horie) - what they're trying to do is make sure that nobody will ever trust (or do business with) him again. And from all appearances their strategy appears to be working. In the public mind he's guilty, whether they understand the issues or not. So Gary may be on to something there. It is important to bear in mind that we are not hearing Murakami's side of the story, which will hopefully be revealed at the trial. (My own view is that this is the proper place for all the evidence to be aired. What the prosecutors are doing is quite frankly, insidious, and doesn't serve justice in the slightest. But that's the way they run things around here.)

And so I'm not misunderstood, let me say that I have every respect for Christopher's position. My argument has always been a rather narrow one and on on many points I do agree with him.

- But we need to bear in mind that all this information about what Murakami supposedly did or didn't do is being leaked by the authorities to essentially erode any public sympathy the guy might still have.

This part is fairly standard everywhere - when a businessman is charged all the dirty linen is aired. Two cases spring to mind BCCI (Bank of Credit and Commerce International) and Polly Peck. All sorts of interesting information emerged. Sadly there are always people willing to kick someone while he is down.

I don't doubt that it is, but in many jurisdictions it's either illegal or the prosecutors run the risk of prejudicing the trial by tainting the potential jury pool.

In the Polly Peck case of course, the Serious Fraud Office came in for some severe criticism in the House of Commons for leaking information to the media, and as for BCCI, well I'm not sure the Murakami saga comes close to the scale of that massive fraud, meaning that the information was probably going to get out in any case. It wasn't a simple case of insider trading.

Of course you're right though - this does happen in other places too. But at least it's frowned upon. I haven't heard many people raise their voice against it in Japan.

One thing that's fairly unique to the Japanese justice system (and of particular relevance here) is the routine denial of bail to suspects who haven't yet confessed. I think you'd be hard pressed to find examples of that elsewhere in the free world.

- In the Polly Peck case of course, the Serious Fraud Office came in for some severe criticism in the House of Commons for leaking information to the media, ...

Do you mean Michael Mates? He was in the pay of Nadir and so his criticisms weren't exactly valid.

- One thing that's fairly unique to the Japanese justice system (and of particular relevance here) is the routine denial of bail to suspects who haven't yet confessed. I think you'd be hard pressed to find examples of that elsewhere in the free world.

Agreed - this is certainly pretty unique. I saw that Hankyu have acquired 67% of Hanshin shares. Now as long as they keep the Hanshin brand everything should be OK.

The matter was also raised by Sir Anthony Grant, David Trimble, Tony Marlow, John Fraser, Robert Maclennan and others.

But he did have a valid concern, did he not? Regardless of his connection with Nadir, he still had a right to criticise the SFO. I think the salient point here is that the SFO should not have leaked the information, and were quite rightly criticised for having done so (and not only by Mates). That's all I'm saying.

Actually no - Mates should have kept quiet. Sending someone a specially inscribed watch just before he flees arrest is a very dubious act to say the least.

My opinion is that any criticism of the SFO was misplaced. Given that Nadir fled justice and then conducted a campaign to clear his name through smears and innuendo, I believe the SFO had every right to leak information which gave a balanced story. Furthermore, the names you quote are not excellent examples of impartiallity and honesty - the whole Nadir business was wrapped up in standard palimentary [parliamentary?] sleaze. However, we are definitely drifting off topic (by a large margin).

On the vexed question of Murakami, both sides are using the press. This, I feel, is a good thing as it allows everyone to form their own judgement. Murakami also gives his version of events in press conferences and tries to get his spin into the media in an attempt to influence his case. If the authorities kept quiet you would have a one-sided view of an innocent victim of evil business leaders and Senichi Hoshino.

- My opinion is that any criticism of the SFO was misplaced.

I would agree that most of the criticism was misplaced. There's even doubt that that famous letter from Mates to the Attorney General was actually leaked by the SFO.

- I believe the SFO had every right to leak information which gave a balanced story.

Well the Attorney General, the director of the SFO, and the Director of Public Prosecutions all disagree with you. They all said that leaks from public officials were not to be condoned under any circumstances, which is really all I'm saying.

Regarding Murakami...

- If the authorities kept quiet you would have a one-sided view of an innocent victim of evil business leaders and Senichi Hoshino.

With all due respect, I think you misunderstand my position. There's nothing wrong in the authorities holding a press conference or whatever, placing clearly on the public record what they believe their case to be. After all, Murakamai put his side of the story at a press conference, and as you say, Hoshino gave his opinion.

What I don't like is the practice of doing all of this in secret. A tantalizing tidbit here, an innuendo there - all designed to undermine the accused. Much of this information is supposedly confidential, information that should properly be released only at the trial. But the authorities use their unique position to, in effect, try the accused in the media, without the usual safeguards provided by a court setting. It's an abuse of authority and undermines the system of justice.

It happens, to be sure - I have no illusions about that - but I don't feel it should be condoned. You seem to be taking the opposing view, saying it's OK in some situations. But I think you'll find that the vast majority of jurists and legal experts would disagree with you.