Questioning Victims in Japan When Strong Evidence Exists: How to Handle Key Deceptive Statements in Fraud Cases (e.g., Cryptocurrency Scams)?

Japanese Attorney at Law - Bengoshi L.L.

• 8 min read

Victim testimony is a cornerstone of any criminal justice system, providing crucial insights into the nature of an offense, its impact, and the actions of the perpetrator. In Japan, the process of interviewing victims, known as higai-sha shirabe (被害者調べ), is conducted with care, aiming to gather a comprehensive and accurate account. However, the approach to questioning can be nuanced, particularly when significant objective evidence already exists that corroborates key aspects of the victim's narrative, such as documented deceptive communications in fraud cases.

This article explores effective and sensitive techniques for Japanese investigators when questioning victims in scenarios where strong evidence, often provided by the victim themselves, substantiates crucial elements of the crime. It focuses on how to efficiently confirm established facts while still thoroughly exploring the subjective impact of the offense and aspects not covered by existing documentation, using a cryptocurrency investment fraud as an illustrative example.

The Purpose and Nature of Victim Interviews in Japan

Victim interviews in the Japanese criminal justice system serve several vital functions:

  1. Fact-Gathering: To obtain a detailed factual account of the crime from the victim's perspective, including the sequence of events, actions of the suspect, and any surrounding circumstances.
  2. Understanding Harm: To assess the full extent of the harm suffered by the victim – financial, physical, emotional, and psychological.
  3. Ascertaining Victim's Wishes: To understand the victim's feelings regarding the incident and their wishes concerning the potential punishment of the offender, which can be considered by prosecutors and courts.
  4. Preparing for Potential Testimony: To document the victim's account formally, which may form the basis for their potential testimony if the case proceeds to trial.

The written statement produced from this interview, the higai-sha kyōjutsu chosho (被害者供述調書), becomes an official part of the investigative file and can be presented as evidence in court.

The "Evidence-Led" Confirmation Approach: A Contrast to Suspect Interrogation

A key distinction often arises between interviewing suspects and interviewing victims, especially when robust objective evidence is already in hand. In suspect interrogations, investigators frequently employ open-ended questioning before revealing incriminating evidence. This strategy is designed to test the suspect's veracity, assess their willingness to cooperate, and potentially elicit "secret details" (himitsu no bakuro) that only the perpetrator would know.

However, when interviewing a victim about facts that are already clearly established by objective evidence—particularly evidence the victim themselves has provided (like text messages or emails) or that directly pertains to their own documented actions (like financial transaction records)—a different approach is often more efficient and considerate. Instead of requiring the victim to recall every minute detail from memory as if it were unknown to the investigator, it can be more appropriate to:

  1. Present the Objective Evidence: Show the victim the relevant document, message log, or record.
  2. Ask for Confirmation and Context: Request the victim to confirm the authenticity and accuracy of the evidence and then provide context or elaborate on its significance from their perspective.

Rationale for this Evidence-Led Approach with Victims:

  • Efficiency and Accuracy: Directly referring to documented facts (e.g., the exact wording of a series of deceptive messages, specific dates and amounts of financial transactions) ensures precision and saves time, avoiding the potential for memory lapses on minor details.
  • Reducing Victim Burden: Recalling traumatic events can be distressing. Being asked to recount every detail of numerous communications or transactions from memory can add unnecessary stress. Using documented evidence as a prompt can make the process smoother and less taxing for the victim.
  • Focusing on Subjective Impact and Undocumented Elements: By quickly confirming documented facts, the interview can more effectively focus on aspects that objective evidence alone cannot capture: the victim's subjective experience, their emotional reactions, the reasons they relied on the deceptive statements, and any elements of the crime not covered by existing documentation.

This approach, however, is highly dependent on the investigator having thoroughly reviewed, understood, and verified the objective evidence before the victim interview.

Effective Techniques for Interviewing Victims with Strong Corroborating Evidence

When objective evidence strongly supports key parts of a victim's account, the interview process can be structured as follows:

1. Careful Introduction, Explanation of Process, and Guidance on Testimony

  • Purpose and Recording: Clearly explain the purpose of the interview and inform the victim if the session is being audio-visually recorded (a practice becoming more common to ensure transparency and accuracy).
  • Guidance on Memory: Advise the victim on the importance of differentiating between what they remember clearly, what is a vague recollection, and what they do not remember at all. This is crucial for maintaining the overall credibility of their testimony, as any perceived inaccuracies or speculation could be challenged later. Investigators might explain that it's natural not to recall every detail perfectly and that honesty about memory limitations is valued.

2. Presenting and Confirming Documented Key Facts

This is where the evidence-led approach comes into play for elements like deceptive statements or financial transactions that are already documented.

  • For Deceptive Communications (e.g., SNS logs, emails):
    • Investigator: "Thank you for providing us with the records of your [SNS/email] conversations with the suspect. I'd like to review some specific messages with you now. Looking at this message dated [Date], sent at [Time], the suspect wrote, [Quote key deceptive phrase, e.g., 'If you invest ¥1 million with me, I guarantee it will become ¥3 million within one month, and your principal is completely safe.']. Do you recall receiving this message, and does this accurately reflect what was written?"
    • The victim can then confirm its authenticity and the context. This method directly establishes the deceptive statement without relying on the victim's unaided recall of precise wording over potentially numerous exchanges.
  • For Financial Transactions (e.g., loan documents, bank transfer records):
    • Investigator: "We have also reviewed the financial documents you provided/obtained through inquiry. These records indicate that on [Date], you took out a loan for [Amount] from [Financial Institution X], and then on [Date], you transferred [Amount] to the account number provided by the suspect. Do these records accurately reflect your actions?"

3. Confirming the Authenticity of Victim-Provided Evidence

A standard but important step is to confirm the integrity of any evidence the victim has supplied.

  • Investigator: "The printouts or digital copies of the [SNS/email] messages you provided to the police – have these been altered, edited, or are any messages missing from the sequence you provided, to your knowledge?"

4. Employing Open-Ended Questions for Subjective Experiences and Undocumented Details

While documented facts can be confirmed efficiently, open-ended questions remain indispensable for exploring aspects that objective evidence cannot capture:

  • The Impact of Deception (Establishing the Victim's Mistake): "When the suspect made these promises to you – for example, the guarantee of a threefold return and no risk to your principal – what was your understanding? How did these statements influence your decision-making?"
  • Reliance (Establishing the Causal Link in Fraud): "Was it specifically because of these assurances from the suspect that you decided to [e.g., take out loans, invest your savings, send them money]?"
  • Undocumented Actions or Communications: "The records show you transferred the money on [Date]. Can you describe how you made that transfer? Were there any conversations with the suspect around that time that are not in these written messages, perhaps a phone call, regarding the transfer?"
  • Emotional and Broader Financial Impact: "Beyond the direct financial loss, can you describe the emotional impact this incident has had on you and your family? Has it affected your ability to trust others, your daily life, or your future financial security?"
  • Background and Relationship with the Suspect: "How did you initially come to know the suspect? What was the nature of your relationship or trust in them before this investment was proposed?"
  • Circumstances of Victimization: Exploring the context that made the victim vulnerable or susceptible to this particular fraud.

5. Clarifying Ambiguities or Gaps in Objective Evidence

Even with documents, there might be ambiguities or missing pieces of information that only the victim can clarify. For instance, if a message log is incomplete, the victim might be able to explain why or recount the substance of missing parts.

Illustrative Case: Cryptocurrency Investment Fraud

Let's apply these principles to a cryptocurrency investment fraud scenario, where a victim was defrauded by a former classmate who made false promises of extraordinarily high, guaranteed returns. Key deceptive statements are preserved in SNS chat logs, and the victim's actions of taking out consumer loans to fund the "investment" are documented.

The Victim Interview Process:

  1. Introduction: The investigator would begin by explaining the purpose of the interview, that it will be recorded, and provide guidance on answering based on clear memory versus vague recollection.
  2. Relationship with Suspect (Open-Ended):
    • "Could you start by telling me how you know Mr./Ms. [Suspect's Name]? What was your relationship like before this investment opportunity arose?" (Victim explains they were former classmates, perhaps good friends, establishing a basis of trust).
  3. The Deceptive Promises (Evidence-Led Confirmation & Subjective Impact):
    • The investigator presents printed copies of the SNS chat log: "Here is a record of your SNS conversation with [Suspect's Name] from [Date range]. Please take a moment to review these pages."
    • "On page [X], in a message dated [Date], the suspect writes: 'Invest ¥1 million in this cryptocurrency through me, and I guarantee you'll see it triple in one month. The principal is 100% safe.' Do you confirm that this is an accurate record of the message you received?"
    • Victim: "Yes, that's what they said."
    • Investigator (Open-Ended for Subjective Impact): "When you read this specific promise of a guaranteed tripling of your money with no risk to the principal, what was your immediate reaction? What did you believe to be true at that point?" (This is crucial for establishing the element of being deceived and relying on the false statement).
  4. Securing the "Investment" Funds (Evidence-Led for Loans, Open-Ended for Context):
    • Investigator: "Financial records indicate that on [Date], you obtained a loan of ¥500,000 from [Consumer Loan Company A], and on [Date], another ¥500,000 from [Consumer Loan Company B]. Are these records correct?"
    • Victim: "Yes."
    • Investigator (Open-Ended): "What prompted you to take out these loans? Had you ever used consumer finance companies before this incident?" (This highlights the significance of the suspect's influence if the victim had no prior such borrowing history).
    • Investigator: "After you secured these funds, totaling ¥1 million, how did you then give this money to [Suspect's Name]? Please describe that process – where did it happen, when, and how was the money handed over?" (This part, the actual transfer, might not be as clearly documented by objective evidence as the loans or chats, thus requiring more detailed recall from the victim).
  5. Post-Transfer Realization and Impact (Open-Ended):
    • Questions would follow about subsequent communications, when the victim began to suspect fraud, any attempts to recover the money, and the overall financial and emotional toll.
  6. Victim's Wishes Regarding Punishment (Open-Ended but Guided):
    • The investigator would inquire about the victim's desired outcome for the suspect, often explaining the range of potential penalties to help the victim frame their response. As seen in some Japanese investigative guides, the prosecutor might also inform the victim of the suspect's current stance (e.g., denial, lack of remorse) to gauge the victim's informed reaction for sentencing considerations.

Distinguishing Victim Interviews from Suspect Interrogations

It's important to reiterate that this evidence-led approach to confirming already documented facts with the victim differs from how a suspect would typically be questioned about the same incriminating messages. In a suspect interrogation, the investigator would likely first ask the suspect open-endedly, "What promises or guarantees, if any, did you make to Mr./Ms. [Victim's Name] regarding this investment?" This is done before confronting them with the SNS logs, to assess the suspect's honesty, memory, and willingness to admit their actions.

With a victim whose account of specific communications or transactions is already strongly supported by objective evidence they themselves provided or that directly relates to their actions, this indirect method of testing recall for those specific documented points is often less necessary and can be perceived as inefficient or even mildly distrusting. The focus shifts to confirming the evidence and understanding its impact and context from the victim's viewpoint.

However, this distinction is not absolute. If there are legitimate reasons to question a victim's credibility, or if their account of certain events lacks objective support, a more probing, open-ended questioning style, similar to that used with suspects, might be entirely appropriate and necessary. The chosen method always depends on the specific evidence structure of the case.

Conclusion: A Balanced Approach to Victim Testimony

Interviewing victims in Japan, particularly in fraud cases fortified by strong objective evidence of deceptive communications or actions, calls for a judicious balance. Efficiently confirming documented facts by presenting the evidence can reduce the burden on the victim and ensure the factual accuracy of their statement concerning those points. Simultaneously, empathetic and open-ended questioning remains indispensable for capturing the subjective experience of victimization—the reliance on false promises, the emotional and financial aftermath, and any details of the crime not immortalized in documents or data logs. This tailored, evidence-aware approach to victim interviews is vital for constructing a comprehensive and credible account that effectively serves the pursuit of justice.