Tackling Organized Fraud in Japan: What Indirect Facts Help Prove an Accomplice's (e.g., "Ukeko") Criminal Intent in Special Fraud Schemes?

Japan has been grappling with a persistent and evolving form of organized crime known as "special fraud" (tokushu sagi, 特殊詐欺). These schemes, often targeting the elderly and vulnerable, involve sophisticated social engineering and a complex division of labor among perpetrators. While masterminds remain elusive, law enforcement frequently apprehends lower-level operatives who perform specific tasks, such as receiving cash or cards (ukeko, 受け子) or withdrawing illicit funds from ATMs (dashiko, 出し子). A significant challenge in prosecuting these accomplices is proving their criminal intent, as they often claim ignorance of the overarching fraudulent scheme, asserting they were merely performing a seemingly innocuous part-time job.

This article explores how Japanese investigators work to establish the necessary criminal intent (mens rea) in such accomplices by meticulously gathering and presenting a compelling array of indirect, circumstantial evidence that belies claims of unwitting participation.

Understanding "Special Fraud" and the Roles of Accomplices

"Special fraud" encompasses a variety of scams, including the notorious "ore-ore sagi" ("it's me" scam where perpetrators impersonate relatives in urgent need of money), refund scams (offering fake rebates for taxes or insurance), and fictitious billing for services never rendered. These operations are typically run by organized criminal groups that employ a hierarchical structure with a clear division of tasks:

• Kakeko (掛け子): The callers who make initial contact with victims, using deceptive scripts to trick them.
• Ukeko (受け子): Individuals who physically meet victims to receive cash or ATM cards.
• Dashiko (出し子): Those who use the fraudulently obtained ATM cards to withdraw cash.
• Kanshūyaku (監視役) or Mihariyaku (見張り役): Lookouts who monitor the actions of ukeko or dashiko and watch for law enforcement.
• Recruiters and Instructors: Individuals responsible for finding and managing these low-level operatives.

Under Japanese law (Articles 60-62 of the Penal Code concerning complicity, including co-principals, instigators, and accessories/abettors), individuals who knowingly participate in and facilitate a criminal enterprise can be held liable as accomplices. Proving this "knowledge" or intent is where the investigative challenge lies, especially when operatives are recruited online for "easy, high-paying jobs" and are deliberately kept in the dark about the full extent of the operation.

The "Plausible Deniability" Obstacle: "I Didn't Know It Was Fraud"

A common defense strategy for apprehended ukeko, dashiko, or other low-level participants is to claim ignorance of the fraudulent nature of their tasks. They might admit to the physical act – receiving a package, withdrawing cash from an ATM using a provided card and PIN, or acting as a lookout – but deny knowing that these actions were part of a criminal scheme designed to defraud vulnerable people.

Alternative, less culpable explanations are often offered:

• "I thought it was a legitimate delivery or errand job."
• "I was told it was for handling money related to tax evasion or some other 'grey' business, but not that people were being directly scammed."
• "I believed I was transporting something illicit, like counterfeit goods or even drugs, but I didn't realize it was fraud targeting individuals."

These claims aim to negate the specific intent required for a fraud conviction or to paint themselves as involved in a different, perhaps less serious, form of illegality.

The Investigator's Strategy: Circumstantial Evidence as the Cornerstone

Since direct admissions of knowing participation in fraud are rare from these operatives, Japanese investigators build cases by painstakingly accumulating a mosaic of indirect, circumstantial facts. The collective weight of these facts aims to demonstrate that the suspect's claim of ignorance is untenable and that they were, at the very least, willfully blind to the high probability that they were involved in a fraudulent enterprise. This concept aligns with establishing mittsui no koi (未必の故意) or dolus eventualis, where the suspect foresees the possibility of their actions contributing to a crime and nevertheless accepts that outcome.

Key categories of indirect facts that investigators focus on include:

1. Suspicious Nature of Recruitment, Communication, and Instructions

• Anonymous Recruitment: Operatives are frequently recruited through online forums advertising "easy money," "high-paying part-time jobs" (kōgaku arubaito, 高額アルバイト), or "dark jobs" (yami baito, 闇バイト), often with no face-to-face interviews or legitimate employment contracts.
• Ephemeral and Anonymous Communication: Contact with handlers or instructors is almost exclusively through encrypted messaging apps (e.g., Telegram, Signal), using anonymous usernames. Direct phone numbers or real identities of superiors are rarely known.
• Instructions for Evasion: Directives to frequently change SIM cards, use burner phones, delete message histories, or avoid leaving any personal traces are strong indicators of illicit activity.
  • Investigative questions focus on: "How did you learn about this work opportunity?" "What were you told about the nature of the job and the employer?" "How did you communicate with your instructor? Were you ever asked to meet them in person?" "What instructions were you given regarding your phone or communication methods?"

2. Unusual and Disproportionate Nature of Tasks and Compensation

• Simple Tasks, High Rewards: The tasks themselves (e.g., waiting at a location to receive a card, going to an ATM to withdraw cash) are often menial, yet the promised compensation is typically very high, paid quickly in cash, and vastly disproportionate to the skill or effort involved. This economic anomaly is a significant red flag.
• Constant Variation and Lack of Legitimacy: Frequent changes in work locations (different apartments, various ATM branches), receiving items under false names, or dealing with individuals who also use aliases.
• Use of Disguises or Specific Attire: Instructions to wear particular clothing (e.g., a suit and tie to impersonate a bank official when meeting an elderly victim, or conversely, nondescript clothing with masks and glasses to avoid ATM camera identification, even when not contextually normal like during a health crisis).
  • Investigative questions focus on: "Please describe the exact tasks you were asked to perform." "How much were you paid for each specific action, like receiving one card or making one set of withdrawals?" "Did this amount of payment for what you were doing seem reasonable or unusually high to you? Why?" "Were you ever instructed to dress in a specific way for these tasks? What was that attire, and what reason, if any, were you given?"

3. Awareness of Risk, Evasive Measures, and Security Protocols

• Counter-Surveillance: Instructions to be wary of security cameras, to choose specific ATMs with less surveillance, or to take circuitous routes.
• Presence of Lookouts/Team Structure: Awareness, even if vague, of other individuals involved in the operation performing roles like monitoring or transport, indicating a coordinated effort.
• Contingency Plans: Instructions on what to say or do if stopped or questioned by police (e.g., feign ignorance, claim to be a victim themselves, or provide a cover story).
  • Investigative questions focus on: "Were you given any advice about how to avoid being noticed or caught?" "Did you observe anyone else who seemed to be involved or watching you while you performed your tasks?" "What were you told to do if you encountered the police?"

4. Nature of Items Handled and the Suspect's Understanding of Value/Illegality

• Handling Sensitive Items: Receiving ATM cards from elderly strangers, withdrawing large sums of cash, or picking up packages addressed to unknown individuals at vacant or temporary locations are all inherently suspicious activities.
• Suspect's Professed Understanding vs. Objective Reality: The core of many interrogations involves dissecting the suspect's claimed "innocent" understanding of these highly abnormal activities. For instance, a suspect receiving a package at an empty apartment under a false name for a high fee might claim they thought it was "a company president's secret money for his mistress." The investigator would then meticulously explore why such an elaborate, risky, and expensive method would be used for such a purpose, especially if it happened repeatedly at different random locations.
• The "Normal Flow" Discrepancy: A key technique is to highlight how drastically the assigned tasks deviate from any "normal flow" of legitimate business or personal transactions. Why would anyone send large amounts of cash via an unknown intermediary to an empty room, paying high fees, when legitimate banking channels exist?
• Implications of Shared Risk/Reward: In one example discussed in training materials, if a lookout is told by an instructor that they could, if they chose, coordinate with the package receiver to abscond with the package and share the contents (e.g., a 60/40 split), this strongly implies the contents are readily valuable and divisible, like cash. It's less likely to be the arrangement for something like drugs (which would require further illicit distribution networks) or mere documents.
  • Investigative questions focus on: "What did you believe was inside the ATM cards you received, or the packages you picked up?" "Why do you think your instructor would pay you [X amount] just for [performing simple task]?" "Does it make sense to you that a legitimate business would operate in this manner, using anonymous communication and paying strangers high fees for simple errands at constantly changing, empty locations?"

5. Inconsistent, Implausible, or Contradictory Explanations

Under detailed and persistent questioning, a suspect's fabricated innocent explanations often begin to unravel, revealing internal contradictions or a reliance on highly improbable scenarios.

• An investigator might ask, "If you truly believed this was just a delivery job for [innocent item], why were you instructed to immediately dispose of your SIM card after completing the task?"
• "You say you thought this was about helping someone avoid taxes by moving cash. Why then were you asked to wear a bank employee's uniform when meeting the person providing the cash card?"

The accumulation of many such suspicious elements, for which the suspect can offer no credible innocent explanation, builds the circumstantial case for, at minimum, willful blindness amounting to criminal intent.

Illustrative Scenarios: Degrees of Suspicion

The ease of proving intent varies based on the specific actions of the accomplice:

• Scenario 1: The Classic Ukeko/Dashiko
  An operative dressed in a suit, using a fake name like "Mr. Sato from the National Banking Association," receives an ATM card from an elderly victim, is given the PIN by an instructor, quickly changes into casual clothes with a mask and glasses, withdraws a large sum (e.g., ¥1 million) from an ATM, and receives a high commission (e.g., 10% or ¥100,000). Here, the multiple layers of deception (impersonation, fake affiliation), handling of a stranger's financial instrument with a supplied PIN, and the unusually high reward for a brief task make claims of ignorance almost impossible to sustain. The investigator would focus on having the suspect admit their awareness of each of these inherently suspicious elements.
• Scenario 2: The Package Recipient at an Empty Apartment
  An operative is instructed to go to an empty apartment, receive a package addressed to a false name (which they sign for), and then hand it to another unknown individual waiting outside. They are paid a significant sum (e.g., ¥20,000) per package and have done this multiple times at different empty locations. While they don't directly interact with a victim or handle cash/cards initially, the repeated use of empty locations, false identities for receipt, high pay for a simple task, and the multi-layered handover process are all highly irregular. If the suspect claims, for instance, they thought it was "a rich man's way of discreetly sending gifts to a mistress," the investigator would probe the implausibility: "Why multiple mistresses in different empty apartments every few days? Why such high courier fees? Why the need for secrecy from the delivery company itself if the contents were merely gifts?"
• Scenario 3: The Lookout for the Package Recipient
  This operative's role is merely to watch the transaction described in Scenario 2 from a distance and report any issues (like police presence) to an instructor. Their direct involvement is more removed. Proving intent here is more challenging. However, if, as in some training examples, communication logs show the instructor suggesting to this lookout that the package is valuable and that they could even conspire with the receiver to steal it and split the (presumably cash) contents, this becomes powerful evidence. It indicates the lookout was made aware that the operation involved something sufficiently valuable and illicit to warrant such security and to tempt internal theft. The investigator would meticulously question the lookout about their understanding of the entire operation's purpose, the reasons for their specific role, and the meaning of any such incriminating communications.

The Role of Recorded Interrogations and Mittsui no Koi

Audio-visual recording of these interrogations is vital. It captures the suspect's demeanor as they attempt to explain away these numerous suspicious circumstances. Hesitations, contradictions, and increasingly implausible explanations become part_and_parcel of the evidence presented to the court to assess their claimed naivety.

Ultimately, the prosecution often argues for mittsui no koi (dolus eventualis). Even if the operative did not have direct, confirmed knowledge (kakutei-teki koi) of every detail of the fraud (e.g., the specific lies told to the victim by the kakeko), the overwhelming accumulation of these indirect facts can establish that they clearly recognized a high probability that their actions were part of a serious criminal, likely fraudulent, scheme. By choosing to continue their participation in the face of these glaring red flags to obtain the promised financial reward, they are deemed to have accepted the risk that their actions would contribute to the commission of fraud, satisfying the mental element required for accomplice liability.

Conclusion: Weaving a Tapestry of Intent from Indirect Threads

Securing convictions against low-level operatives in Japan's pervasive "special fraud" networks requires investigators to look beyond direct admissions of guilt, which are seldom forthcoming. Instead, they must skillfully weave together a tapestry of circumstantial evidence. By focusing on the inherently suspicious nature of the recruitment methods, the assigned tasks, the modes of communication, the disproportionate compensation, the evasive measures employed, and the ultimate implausibility of any proffered innocent explanations, investigators can effectively demonstrate that the accomplice acted with, at the very least, a reckless disregard for the criminal nature of their participation. This methodical construction of a case based on indirect facts is crucial for holding all culpable parties accountable and combating these insidious organized crimes.