Financial Services Agency Enforcement Actions in Japan

Decision to order payment of surcharge for false statements in the change report related to Sakai Holdings Co., Ltd. stocks

The Financial Services Agency, based on the inspection results regarding the dissemination of rumors related to Human Metabolome Technologies Inc. from the Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission, issued a recommendation for a surcharge payment order. On August 2, 2024, a decision was made to initiate adjudication proceedings (Reiwa 6 Year (Han) No. 15 Financial Instruments and Exchange Act violation case). The respondent submitted a statement acknowledging the facts listed in Article 178, Paragraph 1, Item 12 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Financial Instruments and Exchange Act') and the amount of surcharge payable. Following this, the adjudicator submitted a draft decision to order the payment of the surcharge based on the provisions of Article 185-6 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act. Accordingly, a decision was made as follows.

On June 21, 2024, a decision was made to commence a trial procedure (Case No. 10 of the 2024 fiscal year, violation of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act) following a recommendation from the Financial Instruments and Exchange Commission to impose a surcharge based on the results of an inspection of an employee involved in contract negotiations with Stream Media Corporation. The respondent submitted a statement acknowledging the facts listed in Article 178, Paragraph 1, Item 17 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Financial Instruments and Exchange Act') and the amount of surcharge payable. Based on this, a draft decision to order the payment of the surcharge was submitted by the trial judge pursuant to Article 185-6 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, leading to the following decision.

Regarding the order to pay the surcharge, a correction decision was made on October 9, 2024, for the surcharge payment order decided on August 27, 2024 (PDF: 88KB).

Based on the results of an inspection regarding false accounting related to five investment units of Nomura Real Estate Master Fund Investment Corporation, a recommendation was made for a surcharge payment order. A decision was made to initiate a trial procedure. The respondent submitted a statement acknowledging the facts listed in Article 178, Paragraph 1, Item 12 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act and the amount of surcharge to be paid. Accordingly, a draft decision to order the payment of the surcharge was submitted based on the provisions of Article 185-6 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act. Therefore, it was ordered that the surcharge be paid into the national treasury.

Decision to order payment of administrative monetary penalty for false statements in quarterly reports at Ardepro Co., Ltd.

Order to pay the surcharge to the national treasury as specified for the respondent.

Decision to order payment of surcharge for false statements in securities reports by Sakai Holdings Co., Ltd.

Order to Sincia Komuten Co., Ltd. to pay surcharge to the national treasury.

Decision to order payment of surcharge for failure to submit large shareholding reports related to Mitsuboshi Kabushiki Co., Ltd.

Order the defendant to pay the surcharge to the national treasury as follows.

Order the respondent to pay the surcharge to the national treasury as described below.

Decision to order payment of surcharge for false statements in securities reports, etc.

Decision to order payment of surcharge for false certification of financial documents by Taiyo Limited Liability Audit Corporation

Based on the results of an investigation into insider trading by an employee who received information from a negotiator involved in contract negotiations with Stream Media Corporation, the Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission recommended a surcharge payment order. On June 21, 2024, a decision was made to initiate a trial procedure (Reiwa 6 Year (Han) No. 9 Financial Instruments and Exchange Act Violation Trial Case). Subsequently, a draft decision was submitted by the judge to order the payment of the surcharge pursuant to Article 185-6 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act. The decision was made as described below.

Decision to modify the order for payment of surcharge related to false statements in securities reports concerning Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

Order to pay the surcharge to the national treasury as specified to the respondent.

The Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission recommended a payment order for a surcharge based on the results of an inspection related to stabilization operations concerning Oomori Kogyo Co., Ltd. After initiating the adjudication process, the respondent submitted a statement acknowledging the facts listed in Article 178-1, Item 15 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act and the amount of surcharge to be paid. In response, the presiding judge submitted a draft decision to order the payment of the surcharge pursuant to Article 185-6 of the same Act. Consequently, a decision was made to impose the surcharge.

Decision on payment order of surcharge for false statements in securities reports, etc.

Decision to order payment of surcharge for false statements in securities reports by Kyokutou Co., Ltd.

Decision to order payment of surcharge for false statements in securities reports by Yamauura Co., Ltd.

Based on the results of an investigation into insider trading involving an employee of Nagoya Denki Kogyo Co., Ltd., a recommendation was made for a surcharge payment order. Subsequently, a decision was made to initiate an administrative hearing procedure. The respondent submitted a statement acknowledging the facts listed in Article 178, Paragraph 1, Item 16 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act and the amount of surcharge payable. In response, the presiding officer proposed a draft decision to order the payment of the surcharge pursuant to Article 185-6 of the Act. Accordingly, a final decision was made.

Order to pay the surcharge to the national treasury as specified for the respondent.

Order to pay the surcharge to the national treasury as specified for the respondent.

The Financial Services Agency decided to impose a surcharge payment order regarding insider trading by an overseas resident communicated by ZOZO Inc. employees. The Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission recommended the surcharge payment order based on inspection results received from ZOZO Inc. employees. On October 13, 2023, a decision was made to initiate a trial procedure under the Act on Regulation of Conduct in Financial Instruments Transactions (Reiwa 5, No. 8), and the trial has been conducted by three judges. Recently, a draft decision to order the payment of the surcharge was submitted by the judges based on Article 185-6 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act. The decision was made as follows.

Decision to impose a surcharge payment order for false statements in securities reports, etc.

Order to pay the surcharge to the national treasury as specified to the respondent.

Decision to order payment of surcharge regarding recommended acts by negotiators of AlphaX Food System Co., Ltd.

The Financial Services Agency decided to order Yamaha Corporation to pay a surcharge related to market manipulation of its stock. The decision followed a recommendation from the Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission based on inspection results. On November 11, 2021, a hearing process was initiated (Case No. 5 of 2021, violation of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act). The respondent submitted a statement acknowledging the facts listed in Article 178, Paragraph 1, Item 14 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act and the amount of surcharge to be paid. Based on this, a draft decision to order payment of the surcharge was submitted by the adjudicator pursuant to Article 185-6 of the Act. The decision was made as described below. For details, see the summary of the decision (PDF: 217KB).

Decision to order payment of surcharge for false statements in securities reports, etc.

Order the respondent to pay the surcharge to the national treasury as specified below.

Decision to order payment of surcharge for false statements in securities reports by GALA Corporation

Decision to impose a surcharge payment order for insider trading by an information recipient from MINKABU THE INFONOID Co., Ltd. officers

Based on the results of an investigation into market manipulation related to long-term government bond futures, a recommendation was made for a surcharge payment order. After initiating the adjudication process, the respondent submitted a statement acknowledging the facts listed in Article 178, Paragraph 1, Item 14 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act and the amount of surcharge to be paid. In response, the presiding judge submitted a draft decision to order the payment of the surcharge pursuant to Article 185-6 of the same Act. Consequently, a decision was made to impose the surcharge.

Decision to order payment of surcharge for failure to submit large shareholding reports related to Sakai Holdings Co., Ltd.

Decision to order payment of surcharge regarding specific involvement in false disclosure documents submitted by D.D.S. Corporation.

Based on the results of an inspection revealing false statements in securities reports filed by Amana Corporation, a recommendation was made for a surcharge payment order. A decision was made to initiate a trial procedure. The respondent submitted a statement acknowledging the facts listed in Article 178, Paragraph 1, Item 4 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act and the amount of surcharge payable. In response, the presiding judge submitted a draft decision to order the payment of the surcharge pursuant to Article 185-6 of the same Act. Consequently, a final decision was made to impose the surcharge.

Decision on payment order of surcharge for false statements in securities reports, etc.

Ordered the defendant to pay a surcharge of 270,000 yen to the national treasury as specified.

Order to pay the surcharge to the national treasury as specified for the respondent.

Order to pay the surcharge to the national treasury as specified for the respondent.

Based on the results of an inspection related to the transmission from the Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission concerning the facts related to the implementation of a public tender offer by employees of N-Field Co., Ltd., a recommendation was made for a surcharge payment order. A decision was made to initiate a trial procedure. The respondent submitted a statement acknowledging the facts listed in Article 178, Paragraph 1, Item 17 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act and the amount of surcharge to be paid. In response, the presiding judge submitted a draft decision to order the payment of the surcharge based on Article 185-6 of the Act. Accordingly, a decision was made.

Decision to order payment of surcharge for false statements in securities reports, etc.

Order to pay the surcharge to the national treasury as specified for the respondent.

Order to pay the surcharge to the national treasury as specified to the respondent.

Order the respondent to pay the surcharge to the national treasury as follows.

Decision to impose a surcharge payment order for false statements in securities reports, etc.

The Financial Services Agency, based on the results of an inspection by the Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission regarding recommendation actions related to a public tender offer by Taisei Corporation employees, received a recommendation for a payment order of surcharge. On September 16, 2022, a decision was made to initiate a trial procedure (Reiwa 4 (Han) No. 13 Financial Instruments and Exchange Act violation trial case). The respondent submitted a statement acknowledging the facts listed in Article 178, Paragraph 1, Item 17 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (hereinafter referred to as the

Order to pay the surcharge to the national treasury as follows to the respondent.

Based on the results of an inspection related to market manipulation involving Nippon Sheet Glass Co., Ltd. and one other stock, a recommendation was made to pay a surcharge. A decision was made to initiate a trial procedure (Reiwa 4th year (Han) No. 12 Financial Instruments and Exchange Act violation trial case). During the process, the respondent submitted a statement acknowledging the facts listed in Article 178, Paragraph 1, Item 14 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Financial Instruments and Exchange Act') and the amount of surcharge to be paid. Based on this, the presiding judge submitted a draft decision to order the payment of the surcharge pursuant to Article 185-6 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, which led to the final decision to impose the surcharge.

Based on the results of an investigation into market manipulation related to long-term government bond futures, a recommendation was made for a surcharge payment order. Subsequently, a decision was made to initiate a trial procedure. The respondent submitted a statement acknowledging the facts listed in Article 178, Paragraph 1, Item 14 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act and the amount of surcharge payable. In response, the presiding judge submitted a draft decision to order the payment of the surcharge pursuant to Article 185-6 of the same Act. Accordingly, a decision was made as follows.

Decision to order payment of surcharge for false statements in securities reports, etc.

On December 24, 2019, a decision was made to initiate a trial procedure following a recommendation from the Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission for a surcharge payment order based on an investigation into insider trading by an executive involved in contract negotiations with Inotech Co., Ltd. The respondent submitted a statement acknowledging the facts listed in Article 178, Paragraph 1, Item 16 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (hereafter

The Fair Trade Commission received a recommendation to pay a surcharge based on inspection results related to market manipulation involving Kabushiki Kaisha Kyosha. A decision was made to initiate adjudication proceedings. The respondent submitted a statement acknowledging the facts listed in Article 178-1, Item 14 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act and the amount of surcharge payable. Based on this, the presiding judge submitted a draft decision to order the payment of the surcharge under Article 185-6 of the same Act. Consequently, a decision was made to impose the surcharge.

Decision to order payment of surcharge for false statements in securities reports by Asia Development Capital Co., Ltd.

Based on the results of an inspection regarding false statements in quarterly reports by MTG Co., Ltd., a recommendation was made to impose a surcharge payment order. A decision was made to initiate a trial procedure. The respondent submitted a statement acknowledging the facts listed in Article 178, Paragraph 1, Item 4 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act and the amount of surcharge to be paid. In response, the presiding judge submitted a draft decision to order the payment of the surcharge pursuant to Article 185-6 of the same Act. Accordingly, a decision was made.

The Financial Services Agency, upon receiving a recommendation from the Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission to impose a surcharge based on the results of an investigation into market manipulation involving Kabushiki-gaisha Spankurīto Kōporēshon, initiated adjudication proceedings on May 11, 2022. The respondent submitted a statement acknowledging the facts listed in Article 178, Paragraph 1, Item 14 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (hereafter

Order the respondent to pay a surcharge to the national treasury as follows.

Order to pay a surcharge to the national treasury as follows to the respondent.

The Financial Services Agency's Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission recommended a payment of surcharge based on inspection results related to market manipulation of Kawada Technologies Inc. On March 30, 2022, a decision was made to initiate adjudication proceedings (Case No. 17 of FY 2021, violation of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act). The respondent submitted a statement acknowledging the facts and the amount of surcharge payable as specified in Article 178, Paragraph 1, Item 14 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (hereinafter referred to as

Based on the results of an investigation into insider trading related to FamilyMart Co., Ltd., a recommendation was made for a surcharge payment order following a decision to initiate a trial procedure. The respondent submitted a statement acknowledging the facts listed in Article 178, Paragraph 1, Item 16 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act and the amount of surcharge payable. In response, the presiding officer submitted a draft decision to order the payment of the surcharge pursuant to Article 185-6 of the same Act. Accordingly, a decision was made as described below.

Decision on payment order of surcharge for false statements in securities reports, etc.

Decision on payment order for penalties regarding false statements in securities reports, etc.

Order the defendant to pay the surcharge to the national treasury as follows.

Decision on payment order of surcharge for false statements in securities reports, etc.

Order the respondent to pay the surcharge to the national treasury as follows.

Based on the results of an investigation into insider trading by information recipients from Oncolys BioPharma Inc., the Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission received a recommendation to pay a surcharge. A draft decision was submitted by a judge to order the payment of the surcharge pursuant to Article 185-6 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act. Therefore, it was ordered that the surcharge be paid to the national treasury.

The Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission recommended a surcharge payment order based on inspection results related to fictitious trades in the shares of Sanshin Construction Industry Co., Ltd. A decision to initiate a trial procedure was made on April 24, 2020, under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act violation case No. 1 of 2020, and the trial has been conducted by three judges. Recently, a draft decision to order the payment of the surcharge was submitted by the judges based on Article 185-6 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act. The following decision was made accordingly.

The Financial Services Agency, based on the results of a market manipulation investigation into GNI Group Inc. and one other stock by the Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission, issued a recommendation for a surcharge payment order. On December 21, 2021, a decision was made to commence adjudication proceedings (Reiwa 3rd Year (Han) No. 8, Financial Instruments and Exchange Act violation case). The respondent submitted a statement acknowledging the facts listed in Article 178, Paragraph 1, Item 14 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (hereafter referred to as [Kinshoho]) and the amount of surcharge payable. Following this, the adjudicator received a draft decision to order the payment of the surcharge based on Article 185-6 of the Kinshoho. Accordingly, a decision was made as described below.

The Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission recommended a payment order for a surcharge based on the results of an inspection into market manipulation related to Gumi Inc. Following the decision to initiate a trial procedure, the respondent submitted a statement acknowledging the facts listed in Article 178, Paragraph 1, Item 14 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act and the amount of surcharge to be paid. Based on the provisions of Article 185-6 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, a draft decision ordering the payment of the surcharge was submitted, and a decision was made.

The Financial Services Agency, based on the results of an inspection of insider trading by employees of Leopalace 21 Corporation received from the Financial Instruments and Exchange Surveillance Commission, received a recommendation to impose a surcharge payment order. On February 4, 2022, a decision was made to commence adjudication procedures (Reiwa 3rd Year (Han) No. 12, Financial Instruments and Exchange Act violation case). The respondent submitted a statement admitting the facts listed in Article 178, Paragraph 1, Item 16 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (hereinafter referred to as the

The Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission recommended a payment order for a surcharge based on the results of an inspection related to stock price manipulation involving Mitsuba Corporation. A decision was made to initiate adjudication proceedings. The respondent submitted a statement acknowledging the facts listed in Article 178, Paragraph 1, Item 14 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act and the amount of surcharge to be paid. Based on this, the presiding judge submitted a draft decision to order the payment of the surcharge pursuant to Article 185-6 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, and a final decision was made.

The respondent is ordered to pay the surcharge to the national treasury as specified.

Decision to impose a surcharge payment order for false statements in securities reports

The Financial Services Agency, based on a recommendation from the Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission regarding a penalty payment order related to Sakaeya Co., Ltd., initiated adjudication procedures on September 18, 2020, under the case number Heisei 2-nen (Han) No. 9, for violations of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act. Since then, three adjudicators have conducted proceedings. Recently, a draft decision to order the payment of the penalty was submitted by the adjudicators based on Article 185-6 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act. The decision was made as described below.

Order to pay the surcharge to the national treasury as specified for the respondent.

Decision on payment order of surcharge for false statements in securities reports, etc.

Decision to order payment of surcharge for false statements in securities report at Daiichi Shōhin Kabushiki Kaisha

Order the respondent to pay the surcharge to the national treasury as follows.

Decision on payment order for penalties related to false statements in securities reports, etc.

Order the defendant to pay a surcharge of 150,000 yen to the national treasury as described below.

Decision to order payment of surcharge for false statements in securities reports by J Holdings Co., Ltd.

Decision to partially cancel the surcharge payment order against Nice Corporation for false statements in securities reports, etc.

The Financial Services Agency's Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission recommended a payment of surcharge based on the results of an inspection regarding market manipulation involving Jordan Co., Ltd. After initiating adjudication proceedings, the respondent submitted a statement acknowledging the facts listed in Article 178, Paragraph 1, Item 14 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act and the amount of surcharge payable. In response, the presiding judge submitted a draft decision to order the payment of the surcharge based on Article 185-6 of the same Act. The decision was made accordingly.

The Financial Services Agency, based on a recommendation from the Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission for a surcharge payment order related to false statements in securities reports by U.M.C. Electronics Co., Ltd., initiated adjudication procedures on February 2, 2021 (Reiwa 2nd year, case number 18, violation of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act). The respondent submitted a statement acknowledging the facts listed in Article 178, Paragraph 1, Items 2 and 4 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act and the amount of surcharge payable. Following this, the adjudicator submitted a draft decision to order the payment of the surcharge based on Article 185-6 of the same Act. Accordingly, a decision was made as follows.

Order to pay the surcharge to the national treasury as specified to the respondent.

The Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission recommended a payment of surcharge based on the results of an inspection into market manipulation related to Jordan Co., Ltd. A decision was made to initiate a trial procedure. The respondent submitted a statement acknowledging the facts listed in Article 178, Paragraph 1, Item 14 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act and the amount of surcharge to be paid. Based on this, the presiding judge submitted a draft decision to order the payment of the surcharge pursuant to Article 185-6 of the same Act. The decision was made accordingly.

On December 20, 2018, a surcharge payment order was issued (details below). However, on January 26, 2021, a court ruling canceled this order in a case challenging the surcharge payment order. On November 24, 2021, the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment was finalized on December 9, 2021. As a result, the order was canceled.

On December 20, 2018, a surcharge payment order was issued (details below). However, on January 21, 2022, a court ruling canceled the surcharge payment order in a case challenging the order. The court decision was finalized on February 5, 2022. As a result, the order was canceled.

On April 11, 2017, a surcharge payment order was issued (details below). However, on December 9, 2021, a court ruling canceled this surcharge payment order in a case challenging its cancellation. On October 13, 2022, an appeal was dismissed, and the judgment became final on October 28, 2022. As a result, the order was canceled.

Order the respondent to pay a surcharge of 12,280,000 yen to the national treasury as specified below.