Beautiful Investor Moe Fukuda Astonished by Innovation Party’s Yasushi Adachi’s Idiot and Terrible Rumor Remarks Despite Lack of Acquaintance

<Adachi of Ishin ordered to compensate, “Defamation against women” is “not exempt” – Tokyo District Court>

On April 23 this year, such headlines leapt into various newspapers. It reports that Yasushi Adachi (58), a member of the Japan Innovation Party, was ordered to pay compensation for defamation against a woman, but what catches attention along with the content is the phrase “not exempt.”

According to the article, a female IT commentator sued Representative Adachi, seeking 16.5 million yen in damages, claiming her honor was damaged when Adachi streamed a video of his parliamentary questioning on platforms like YouTube. Tokyo District Court Judge Wakana Suzuki recognized defamation and ordered Adachi to pay 330,000 yen.

While parliamentary remarks are exempt under the constitution, Judge Suzuki ruled that by editing and streaming the questioning rather than directly broadcasting it from parliament, Adachi fell outside the scope of exemption.

“The ‘IT commentator’ woman mentioned in the article is actually me.”

After the verdict, Moe Fukuda (46), an IT commentator and investor, declared to Friday Digital. Fukuda graduated from a junior college, initially worked locally, but then took up language studies on a whim and self-taught herself knowledge of stocks and asset management. She later successfully passed the entrance exam for Waseda University’s School of Political Science and Economics. With her beauty and a style reminiscent of a gravure idol, she gained popularity during her studies, actively participating as a college student trader and stock idol. She hosted segments on information programs as “Professor Moe” and appeared in magazine gravure shoots, showcasing her unique talent.

Given such a distinctive background, one might think Fukuda incurred the ire of Representative Adachi during appearances on information programs. However, Fukuda expressed disbelief, saying, “Actually, I’ve never even met him.” (Note: Comments in parentheses are Fukuda’s words.)

Despite displaying my photograph, they claim, “The individual has not been identified.”

“I’ve never met him, nor have we exchanged direct words, but comments like ‘fool’ have been posted on my SNS. The catalyst for Representative Adachi’s attention links to this trial. It’s likely linked to my X (former Twitter) post from ’18.”

That post concerned the family registry of a former Waseda University classmate, A, with whom I once started a company.

“It was a company where I was the CEO and A-kun was the vice president. A-kun, a half-Japanese with a Chinese father and Japanese mother, was a talented engineer. However, around autumn of ’13, about two years after founding the company, we had business-related complications and ended up parting ways. After he took data that could be used for military purposes (subject to export controls) to China and then sued me to cover it up, I had no choice but to countersue to clarify things in court. As part of the legal proceedings, my lawyer obtained A-kun’s family registry, and something strange came to light. Despite claiming he was from Hofu City, Yamaguchi Prefecture, his birthplace was in Hunan Province, China. What was even more surprising was that his birth registration was filed when A-kun was 10 years old.”

Something was definitely wrong. Fukuda and her lawyer decided to obtain A-kun’s father’s family registry. Then, a shocking fact came to light: A-kun’s father had his birth registration filed when he was 40 years old.

“I immediately went to the police and argued that this was a case of registry hijacking—what’s known as ‘backdoor transfer’ in Japan. The detective said, ‘If you bring us the Chinese registry, we’ll investigate.’ Believing those words, it took about three years and a lot of money. I traveled multiple times to China to obtain A-kun and his father’s Chinese family registries. Both were complete Chinese nationals.

The registries had Chinese names, indicating they were living in Japan as Chinese nationals. Upon searching, A-kun’s father turned out to be a university professor and a scientific elite in China. Recalling how the Japanese registry of A-kun’s father was submitted under the title of ‘Chinese Ambassador,’ I shuddered, thinking, ‘Could this be industrial espionage for the nation?’ I immediately brought these registries to the police, but they completely ignored me. They must have thought I wouldn’t actually go through the trouble of obtaining Chinese registries. They gave me some excuses and clearly had no intention of investigating from the start. Realizing this, anger welled up within me, and that’s when I exposed the suspicion of registry hijacking by A and his father on X.”

In response to Fukuda’s accusation post, Representative Adachi lashed out, criticizing it as falsehoods based solely on Chinese side information such as registry hijacking, and accused it of damaging A-san’s honor.

“In this case, Representative Adachi’s parliamentary questioning (June 4, ’21) contested the issue of registry hijacking. Normally, such questions should be addressed in the Welfare and Labor Committee or the Judiciary Committee, but Adachi oddly chose the Cabinet Committee. A-san and others were labeled as ‘Chinese descendants who hijacked the identity of Japanese who fought for the country,’ questioning, ‘Are these allegations limited only to those in Manchuria?’

During this, Representative Adachi repeatedly made statements damaging my honor, such as objectively speaking, quite a terrible falsehood and clearly false. However, the response from the Support Office for Chinese Descendants Support Division of the Social and Welfare Bureau at the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare completely overturned Adachi’s assertions. The office not only had no record of supporting A-san but also affirmed that A-san’s parents were not Japanese, thus stating that they do not qualify as Chinese descendants who remained in Japan. While A-san’s grandfather qualifies as such based on registry, the office responded that there are no records confirming any family relationship between the grandfather and A-san.”

Representative Adachi argued in court that the statement did not specifically identify the individual, Ms. Fukuda. Furthermore, even if the statement could potentially harm an individual’s honor, Adachi asserted that it would fall under immunity privileges. Therefore, Adachi contended that the statement did not constitute unlawful conduct.

“Firstly, I find it questionable to bring personal grievances into a parliament that is funded by billions in taxpayers’ money—granting a concession, if it were an outburst during parliamentary questioning, it would indeed be exempt. What’s hard to grasp is the editing of parliamentary questioning videos and deliberately uploading them to my own YouTube channel ‘Ada Channel.’ They were meticulously edited, featuring my photo, annotations on the flip chart I created, and even added captions, making it clear to identify the individual. Moreover, the video was titled ‘Questioning Moe Fukuda’s Claims to the Japanese Government.’

I announced the video upload on X beforehand, and the day after posting, along with the caption ‘Representative Yasushi Adachi corrects Moe Fukuda’s falsehoods about Chinese descendants in parliament,’ the message continued that questioning and response should have been an overkill, but it’s like playing dead with a zombie play. I posted it again on X. I can’t believe they could say that it did not specifically identify the individual. I’m shocked beyond words.”

In the trial, Representative Adachi’s statement on the YouTube channel ‘Hodo Tokubetsu,’ “Shall we invite Moe Fukuda-chan here and give her a good scolding?” also became a point of contention, but “The statute of limitations had expired, so it was not acknowledged.” (According to Ms. Fukuda)

 

According to Ms. Fukuda, Representative Adachi did not contest the truthfulness of the statement that registry hijacking is a falsehood in the first instance but appealed. When interviewed by this magazine, Representative Adachi responded as follows:

“The first-instance judgment had significant issues, including neglecting considerations for freedom of expression and misconstruing interpretations related to immunity privileges, so we immediately filed an appeal. We determined there was no need to dispute the truthfulness or substantial truthfulness in the first instance, but in the appeal, we will actively assert our position.”

However, the views of Ms. Fukuda’s legal representative, Lawyer Yukio Yasuda, differs significantly.

“The first-instance judgment, while recognizing parliamentary immunity, criticized the view that using immunity as a shield to violate others’ human rights, as Adachi did, is not permissible under constitutional law and is a sensible judgment. Furthermore, despite repeated explanations from the plaintiff in the first instance, we responded that we would not contest the truthfulness. This decision was made because we judged there was no chance of winning by contesting it now.”

Betrayed by a former classmate with whom she started a business and slandered by a legislator she has never met, Ms. Fukuda finds herself in a tough spot. However, she sees that “These two tragedies are linked.”

“Mr. A once worked in the former Democratic Party and expanded his network to the Japan Innovation Party from there. Why is Representative Adachi attacking me, someone he doesn’t even know? I wonder if there’s a bigger issue lurking behind this. With that in mind, my fighting spirit is renewed.”

As the trial progresses, all eyes are on whether the massive shadow looming between Japan and China will be uncovered.