Evidence No.58

Subject: Submission of a Specific Instance Regarding Violations of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (Infroneer Holdings Group)

Date: September 15, 2025 – 08:00 JST

From: Shunsuke Kimura shukku9998@gmail.com

To: jpn-ncp@mofa.go.jp

Dear Japan NCP,

As a whistleblower, I hereby formally submit a Specific Instance regarding serious non-compliance by Infroneer Holdings Corporation and its subsidiary, Maeda Corporation.

1. Divergence from International Standards

In accordance with Chapter II (General Policies), Chapter III (Disclosure), Chapter IV (Human Rights), Chapter XI (Compliance), and Article 33 of the UNCAC, enterprises are obligated to maintain effective internal whistleblowing systems and ensure protection from retaliation.

However, Japan’s revised Whistleblower Protection Act (enforced on June 11, 2025) limits its mandate to mere confirmation of the existence of such systems and removes any obligation to evaluate their effectiveness.

As a result, the domestic legal framework does not meet international standards and structurally prevents the realization of meaningful remedies for whistleblowers.

2. Response of Domestic Administrative Agencies

Despite submitting whistleblower reports to the Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA), Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW), Financial Services Agency (FSA), Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), and Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT), all agencies refused to take responsibility, citing “lack of jurisdiction.”

• CAA: Only confirmed system existence; cannot intervene in cases of retaliation or dismissal.
• MHLW: Transferred labor accident and dismissal issues to CAA.
• FSA, METI, MLIT: Abandoned their governance and oversight duties without action.

As a whole, the Japanese administrative system structurally lacks effective mechanisms to protect whistleblowers.

3. Confirmed Corporate Non-Compliance

Infroneer Holdings Group has left official records confirming the following:

• Concealment of 52 industrial accidents
• Three consecutive years of accounting fraud
• Falsely labeling the whistleblower's action as a "¥20 billion demand"
• Issuance of a dismissal notice as retaliation for whistleblowing

These are clear and self-authenticating records proving that the company has denied the very meaning of whistleblower systems.

4. Ineffectiveness of the Judicial System

Japan’s judicial system, relying on the current Whistleblower Protection Act, is structurally ineffective because:

• The effectiveness evaluation requirement has been deleted from the statute.
• There are no legal mechanisms for redress after retaliation (such as compensation, reinstatement, or corrective orders).
• Domestic law fails to incorporate obligations imposed under OECD Guidelines and UNCAC.

Therefore, pursuing litigation within Japan is structurally meaningless and serves only to further prove the country’s breach of international obligations.

5. Requests to the Japan NCP

In light of the above, I respectfully request the Japan NCP to:

1. Recognize this case as an international instance of non-compliance with the OECD Guidelines, rather than dismissing it as “outside the scope of domestic law.”
2. Initiate mediation and corrective measures in accordance with the OECD Guidelines.
3. If necessary, proceed to joint examination and mediation with other NCPs.

6. Response Deadline

Please respond by Wednesday, October 15, 2025, 17:00 JST, with a clear statement on whether the case has been accepted and how it will be addressed.

Please note that any response limited to procedural confirmation, review, or corporate inquiry will not satisfy the effectiveness requirement under the OECD Guidelines and will instead be interpreted as a definitive case of institutional non-compliance.

This matter constitutes a confirmed case of international structural non-compliance beyond the limits of Japan’s domestic legal framework, and if the Japan NCP fails to address it appropriately, a transition to joint evaluation with other NCPs will be inevitable.

🔗 Evidence Materials

Evidence List (Evidence No.00–No.57):

🔗 https://www.whistleblower-protection.org/evidence-timeline

Attachments:

• 000204226 (docx/pdf) – Specific Instance Submission Form (Detailed Version)
• 100799831 (xlsx/pdf) – Partial List of Submitted Evidence

Sincerely,

Shunsuke Kimura

📎 The original Japanese evidence document (PDF) is attached below for reference.