Surcharge Payment Order Records in Japan

The Consumer Affairs Agency issued an order to pay a surcharge to Excom Global Corporation regarding the display related to their mobile router rental service called 'Imoto no WiFi', based on Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.

Based on the measure order issued by Saitama Prefecture on March 14, 2023, under Article 7, Paragraph 1 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations, a surcharge payment order was issued regarding the representations related to the service called "Beauty Pelvic Correction + Selectable Latest 5 Types of Slimming Diet" supplied at the store operated by Kumano Co., Ltd., called "Premium Body Balance."

On March 28, 2023, Tokyo issued a surcharge payment order based on Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations concerning the display related to the quasi-drug called 'Anlinkur' supplied by M&M Corporation, following a measure order issued under Article 7, Paragraph 1 of the same Act.

A surcharge payment order was issued to Hahaha Lab Co., Ltd. regarding the labeling of the functional food product called 'Meratt' supplied by the company, based on Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.

Order for payment of surcharge against Forest Well Corporation under the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations

The Consumer Affairs Agency and the Fair Trade Commission (Kyushu Office) issued a surcharge payment order to Shin Nihon Enex Co., Ltd. based on their investigation into the representations related to solar power generation system equipment, including storage batteries supplied by the company, and the construction involved in their installation, in accordance with Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.

The Saitama Prefecture issued a surcharge payment order to Yum Group Co., Ltd. based on the measures ordered under Article 7, Paragraph 1 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations on June 11, 2020. This pertains to the display related to the product called '3D Mask 30-Count Set' supplied by the company.

A surcharge payment order was issued based on Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations regarding the display of functional foods called 'Kinari Takumi' and 'Kinari Goku' supplied by the company.

A surcharge payment order was issued to Toa Sangyo Co., Ltd. regarding the display related to the product called 'Virus Shut Out' supplied by the company, based on Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.

The Consumer Affairs Agency issued a surcharge payment order to Ad Power Solutions Corporation regarding displays related to products that claim to improve fuel efficiency of four-wheeled vehicles, based on Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.

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

The Consumer Affairs Agency and the Fair Trade Commission issued a surcharge payment order to Hokkaido Electric Power Co., Inc. regarding representations related to retail supply transactions of household electricity and city gas supplied by the company, based on the results of their investigation and in accordance with Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.

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.

The Consumer Affairs Agency issued a surcharge payment order to Fujitsu Client Computing Limited regarding the display related to their supplied notebook computers, based on Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.

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.

The Consumer Affairs Agency and the Fair Trade Commission issued a surcharge payment order to Chugoku Electric Power Co., Inc. based on their investigation into the display of services related to retail supply of household electricity applying the 'Gutto Zutto. Plan Smart Course' and 'Gutto Zutto. Plan Simple Course' electricity rates.

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 Yamauura Co., Ltd.

Decision to order payment of surcharge for false statements in securities reports by Kyokutou 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 company Baumkuchen was ordered to pay a surcharge based on the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations regarding the labeling of the pet supplement called 'Eyes One' supplied by the company, following investigations by the Consumer Affairs Agency and the Fair Trade Commission (Kyushu Office).

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.

A surcharge payment order was issued based on Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations concerning the display related to the ordinary automobiles supplied by the company and the package option called 'AMG Line'.

The Consumer Affairs Agency issued a surcharge payment order to T-Life Corporation based on the results of an investigation into the labeling of the food product called 'Metabo Mecha' supplied by the company, pursuant to Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.

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.

A surcharge payment order was issued to Tokyo Marui Co., Ltd. regarding the display related to BB bullets for air guns supplied by the company, based on Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.

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

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

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).

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

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

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

The Consumer Affairs Agency issued a surcharge payment order to Leck Corporation today regarding the display related to the product called 'Noro-Will Valsan' supplied by the company, based on Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.

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.

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

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

The Consumer Affairs Agency issued a surcharge payment order to Marukyu Co., Ltd. regarding the representations related to four fishing lure products supplied by the company, based on Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.

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.

Banzan Co., Ltd. was issued a surcharge payment order regarding the representations related to the services called 'Megasta High School Student', 'Megasta Junior High School Student', and 'Megasta Private', which are online individual instruction services supplied by the company, based on Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.

The Consumer Affairs Agency issued a surcharge payment order to Okinawa Tokusan Hanbai Corporation regarding the labeling of a food product called 'Yoryoku Keiso' based on investigation results and in accordance with Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.

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 to the respondent.

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

A surcharge payment order was issued to W-ENDLESS Corporation regarding the labeling of the food product called 'Dr. Miso Soup' supplied by the company, based on Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.

The Consumer Affairs Agency issued a surcharge payment order to Daiki Seiyaku Co., Ltd. regarding the labeling of products supplied by the company, including 'Willoff Strap Type,' 'Willoff Magnet Type,' and 'Willoff Hanging Type,' based on Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.

The Consumer Affairs Agency issued a surcharge payment order to Daiko Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. regarding the labeling of products including 'Kureberein Stationary 60g', 'Kureberein Stationary 150g', 'Kureberein Stick Pen Type', 'Kureberein Stick Hook Type', 'Kureberein Spray', and 'Kureberein Mini Spray', based on Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.

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

Order to pay a surcharge based on the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations to Excom Global Corporation

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.