It is no secret amongst criminal antitrust practitioners that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has had difficulty extraditing foreign nationals indicted for Sherman Act violations. Indeed, the extradition process is complex and uncertain given the multitude of hurdles the DOJ faces when attempting to extradite a citizen of a sovereign country. Japanese nationals are no exception. The reality is that Japanese law and extradition proceedings afford the Japanese government a huge amount of discretion as to whether or not to comply with an extradition request made by the United States government. Interestingly, despite the nearly insurmountable challenges faced by the DOJ in extradition proceedings, a surprising number of Japanese executives and employees have acquiesced to the U.S. justice system, the result of which is inevitably time spent in federal prison. This begs the question: why, given the challenges the DOJ faces, would indicted Japanese citizens essentially give themselves up? Over the past five years, the DOJ has come down hard on the auto parts industry, in particular, Japanese auto parts manufacturers. Indeed, the DOJ’s ongoing investigation has been a success. More than 30 companies have pleaded guilty to antitrust violations and paid approximately $2.4 billion in criminal fines. In addition to companies, the DOJ has made it policy to prosecute individuals deemed responsible for facilitating or condoning conspiratorial conduct, abandoning its “no-jail” recommendation common in the 1990s. To date, more than 50 foreign nationals have been indicted for antitrust violations. Of those, at least 22 have pleaded guilty and subjected themselves to U.S. jurisdiction. The others appear to have taken the gamble that the DOJ will not be able to extradite them. In truth, it may not be such a bad gamble in light of the fact that the DOJ has yet to extradite a Japanese national for crimes committed under the Sherman Act. And who’s to say the Japanese government would not sympathize with its citizens facing hard time in a U.S. prison given the rarity of criminal proceedings for antitrust activities in Japan? In fact, a former commissioner for the Japanese Fair Trade Commission (the agency tasked with enforcing Japan’s Antimonopoly Act) has expressed concerns about the DOJ’s prosecutorial decisions with respect to the DOJ’s ongoing auto parts investigations.[1] Extradition is governed by two laws in Japan: the Japanese Act of Extradition and the Extradition Treaty entered into by Japan and the United States. The Act of Extradition, in tandem with the Extradition Treaty, requires certain conditions to be met before the Japanese government will comply with an extradition request. Such requirements include: (i) the underlying offense must be illegal in both Japan and the U.S. (“double criminality”), (ii) the offense must be punishable by more than one year, and (iii) the requesting country must prove probable cause, to name only a few. More burdensome for the DOJ are the procedural hurdles it faces in extraditing Japanese nationals and the amount of discretion afforded various Japanese agencies and courts. The Act of Extradition requires an extradition request to be made through diplomatic channels. In other words, the DOJ must first submit its request to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Japan. The Minister of Foreign Affairs then passes the request on to the Minister of Justice of Japan. The Minister of Justice then conducts a review to make sure all of the requirements under the Act of Extradition and Extradition Treaty are met. After verifying that no statutory exceptions apply, the Minister of Justice will submit the extradition request to the Superintending Prosecutor of the Tokyo High Public Prosecutors Office. The Superintending Prosecutor then orders an application to be submitted to the Tokyo High Court. The Tokyo High Court will then decide whether the Japanese national should be extradited. The High Court has broad discretion to grant or deny an extradition request, and its decision is final and cannot be appealed. Furthermore, the Ministry of Justice also has broad discretion and is not obligated to abide by the High Court’s decision. The level of discretion afforded the High Court and Ministry of Justice is important when one considers that antitrust violations are punished very differently in Japan than in the United States. Relatively speaking, punishments handed down by the Japanese Fair Trade Commission are mild in comparison to the hard jail time and criminal fines a defendant faces in the United States. As noted earlier, many in Japan feel as if the DOJ is overzealous in its pursuit of violators of the Sherman Act. These considerations may be weighed heavily by the Ministry of Justice or the High Court in determining whether to extradite a Japanese national. In light of the legal hurdles and procedural risks, it is understandable that many indicted Japanese nationals are taking their chances, especially considering the DOJ has yet to successfully extradite a Japanese citizen for antitrust crimes. Yet, despite the DOJ’s challenges, many Japanese executives have voluntarily come to the United States to plead guilty and serve jail time. You may wonder why. Yoshya Usami, former Research Fellow of the American Antitrust Institute, provide three compelling possibilities in his paper Why did they cross the Pacific? Extradition: A Real Threat to Cartellists?. First, there is no certainty that an indicted Japanese citizen will not be extradited. Although the odds are stacked in the indicted individual’s favor, there is still a possibility that the extradition will succeed. Thus, for those who are risk averse, it may be better to cooperate fully to avoid harsher punishment in the event they are extradited. Second, if indicted Japanese nationals refuse to submit to U.S. jurisdiction, they will essentially be prisoners within their own country. With the advent of international agencies such as INTERPOL, an indicted individual would forever wonder if his or her next international trip will lead them to a federal prison in the United States. Lastly, many Japanese companies have assured their indicted executives that their jobs will be waiting for them upon serving their time in the United States. Therefore, there is comfort in the likelihood that once their time is served, life will return to relative normality. In sum, the DOJ faces many challenges when attempting to extradite Japanese nationals, both legally and procedurally. But the uncertainty of success cuts both directions. Many indicted Japanese citizens have assessed the risk of extradition and made a calculated decision to give themselves up. Others have decided to take the gamble. A practitioner of criminal antirust with Japanese clients should keep these considerations in mind and weigh carefully the options their clients may have in the event of an indictment by the DOJ. [1] Akio Yamada, Hot/Cool Player: Questions to the Extraterritorial Application of the Antitrust Law, 1001 NBL 1 (May 15, 2013) (Japan).
RELATED ARTICLES
Analyzing Price Gouging Under the Federal Defense Production Act
September 8, 2020 | The GEE Blog, Department of Justice
DOJ’s First FCPA Opinion Release in Six Years Highlights Long-Standing Principles
August 21, 2020 | The GEE Blog, FCPA
Don’t Overthink It! Advocate for Easy to Understand Jury Instructions to Effectively Communicate Your Case
May 17, 2018 | Government Investigations, Jury Instructions, The GEE Blog
Don't Let DOJ Defections Fool You: Corporate Conduct Still in the Crosshairs
September 6, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
The Yates Memo – DOJ Issues Questions and Answers: Question 7
May 1, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
Analyzing Price Gouging Under the Federal Defense Production Act
September 8, 2020 | The GEE Blog, Department of Justice
DOJ’s First FCPA Opinion Release in Six Years Highlights Long-Standing Principles
August 21, 2020 | The GEE Blog, FCPA
Don’t Overthink It! Advocate for Easy to Understand Jury Instructions to Effectively Communicate Your Case
May 17, 2018 | Government Investigations, Jury Instructions, The GEE Blog
Don't Let DOJ Defections Fool You: Corporate Conduct Still in the Crosshairs
September 6, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
The Yates Memo – DOJ Issues Questions and Answers: Question 7
May 1, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
The Yates Memo – DOJ Issues Questions and Answers: Question 6
April 27, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
The Yates Memo – DOJ Issues Questions and Answers: Question 5
April 25, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
The Yates Memo – DOJ Issues Questions and Answers: Question 4 (Part 2)
April 7, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
The Yates Memo – DOJ Issues Questions and Answers: Question 4 (Part 1)
April 4, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
DOJ’s Corporate Compliance Program Guidance Provides Succinct Resource for Companies
March 31, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
The Yates Memo – DOJ Issues Questions and Answers: Question 3
March 31, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
Recently Announced: DOJ Will Extend the FCPA Pilot Program
March 28, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
The Yates Memo – DOJ Issues Questions and Answers: Question 2
March 21, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
The Yates Memo – DOJ Issues Questions and Answers: Question No. 1
March 17, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
The Yates Memo – DOJ Issues Questions and Answers
March 15, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
Department of Justice Rolls Out FCPA Enforcement Pilot Program
April 8, 2016 | Department of Justice, FCPA, The GEE Blog
DOJ Launches Targeted Elder Justice Task Forces
April 1, 2016 | Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
A New Approach: DOJ Antitrust Division in Wake of Yates Memo
March 23, 2016 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
DOJ Leaves Much Unsaid After Announcing Need for Corporate Certifications to Finalize Settlements
March 8, 2016 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
The “Other Yates Memo:” DOJ to Enhance Workplace Safety Violation Prosecutions by Tacking On More Severe Charges Where Possible
February 8, 2016 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
“Hide No Harm Act Of 2015” Targets Employers, Directors and Officers
November 5, 2015 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICY CHANGE TARGETS CORPORATE EXECUTIVES
September 11, 2015 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
What the DOJ Expects of 'Effective' Compliance Programs
August 12, 2015 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
U.S. v. Sigelman: Another FCPA Enforcement Setback for the DOJ
June 25, 2015 | FCPA, The GEE Blog
Justice Department Guidelines Seek to Focus Enforcement of Structuring Law on Most Serious Cases
June 8, 2015 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
THE BENEFITS OF COOPERATION – HYPERDYNAMICS AVOIDS INDICTMENT
May 29, 2015 | FCPA, The GEE Blog
RENEWED GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN ATTORNEY FEE ARRANGEMENTS?
May 28, 2015 | Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
Self-Reporting: A Wise Strategy or Chasing Unicorns?
April 28, 2015 | SEC, The GEE Blog
Top 10 Takeaways from ABA White Collar Crime Conference 2015 (Part 2)
March 18, 2015 | The GEE Blog
Top 10 Takeaways from ABA White Collar Crime Conference 2015 (Part 1)
March 17, 2015 | The GEE Blog
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL URGES COMPANIES TO COOPERATE AND CONDUCT THOROUGH INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS OF FCPA VIOLATIONS
November 21, 2014 | FCPA, The GEE Blog
Bio-Rad Settlement Reinforces FCPA Trends
November 7, 2014 | FCPA, SEC, The GEE Blog
A Cozy Relationship: The DOJ and JFTC, and the Potential Risks of Taking Advantage of JFTC’s Leniency Program
October 31, 2014 | Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
Supreme Court Passes on Esquenazi, Makes Instrumentality Test Settled Law
October 6, 2014 | FCPA, The GEE Blog
IS A NON-UNITED STATES CITIZEN WHO REFUSES TO LEAVE HIS HOME COUNTRY TO FACE FCPA CHARGES A FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE?
September 30, 2014 | FCPA, The GEE Blog
REDUCING THE COST OF FCPA MONITORING
June 11, 2014 | Bank Securities Fraud, The GEE Blog
Honest Services Fraud, Ray Nagin & "Big Easy" Money
March 28, 2014 | Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
My Partner Left Me for the Government! DOJ’s First Opinion Procedure Release of 2014 Approves Buyout of Minority Shareholder-Turned-Government Official
March 25, 2014 | FCPA, The GEE Blog
D.C. District Court Order Provides a Warning About Attorney-Client Privilege Protection for Internal Investigations
March 20, 2014 | Internal Investigations, The GEE Blog
Heightened SEC/DOJ FCPA Standards Offer Risks and Opportunities to Companies and Their Lawyers
March 18, 2014 | Financial Regulation, The GEE Blog
Top 10 Takeaways from ABA White Collar Crime Conference 2014 (Part 2 of 2)
March 13, 2014 | Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
Top 10 Takeaways from ABA White Collar Crime Conference 2014 (Part 1 of 2)
March 12, 2014 | Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
The Department of Justice Continues to Bring the "HEAT" in Pursuing Health Care Fraud
March 5, 2014 | Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
The Position Of Assistant Attorney General For The Criminal Division May Be Filled In The Near Future
February 19, 2014 | The GEE Blog
DOJ Wins Big Insider Trading Case: Martoma Conviction; Bad News for Cohen and SAC
February 8, 2014 | Insider Trading, The GEE Blog
Going South: What U.S. Companies Need to Know About the FCPA and Doing Business in Latin America
January 30, 2014 | Criminal Procedure, Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
RELATED PRACTICE AREAS
Subscribe
Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.
View Subscription Center