43-Year-Old Man Arrested for “Dousing Sushi with Detergent” at Hama Sushi: He Tried to Hide from Cameras During Transfer to Prosecutors, but… Serious Consequences Await

He looked shaken inside the police van

Another incident of disruptive behavior by a video streamer at a restaurant has occurred.

A 43-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of filming disruptive videos inside a branch of the major conveyor-belt sushi chain “Hama Sushi” and posting them on social media.

“The suspect arrested on June 3 is Yuta Shinnishi, an unemployed resident of Moroyama Town, Saitama Prefecture.According to the Saitama Prefectural Police, Shinishi visited a ‘Hama Sushi’ location in Saitama Prefecture alone on May 27. He filmed himself pouring dishwashing detergent he had brought with him onto two pieces of sushi on a plate.Afterward, he posted the video on social media, which led to a flood of complaints to the restaurant’s operator. He is suspected of obstruction of business by forcing the operator to handle the complaints.” (Social Affairs Reporter, National Newspaper)

During questioning, Shinishi stated , “There is no doubt that I poured liquid onto the tuna I ordered and posted the video.” However, regarding the liquid, he claimed it was “water in a dishwashing detergent bottle, ” and as for his motive, he reportedly stated , “I wanted to increase my views on social media.”

“It has been reported that Shin-Nishi has approximately 10,000 followers on his social media accounts, including TikTok. He has previously posted videos of himself pouring cup noodles or natto over his head and stomping on egg cartons, and each time, the comments sections on social media became chaotic.”This time, the day after he posted the dish soap video, an influencer with over 1 million followers featured the video on X, causing a huge uproar and prompting police action,” said the reporter mentioned earlier.

Although Shin-Nishi, the suspect, had repeatedly committed brazen acts of public nuisance in his quest for followers, when he was sent for prosecution by the Saitama Prefectural Police’s Nishi-Iruma Station on June 4, he leaned forward in the police van, desperately trying to hide from the cameras of the press.Suspect Shin-Nishi’s profile, as captured by the cameras, appeared shaken.

“Corporate terrorism” perpetrated by nuisance streamers shows no signs of abating and continues to cause public uproar on a regular basis. In 2023, a male high school student (at the time) posted a video on social media showing him drinking soy sauce directly from the container at a “Sushiro” conveyor-belt sushi chain in Gifu Prefecture.The boy was referred to the Gifu District Court on charges of property damage, and “Sushiro”’s operating company, “Akindo Sushiro,” filed a lawsuit against him seeking 67 million yen in damages.

If the company that operates “Hama Sushi” were to file a lawsuit against suspect Shin-Nishi, how much would they seek in damages? We spoke with Koichiro Matsui, an attorney at Atom Law Office.

“It doesn’t matter whether the contents are water or not.”

“The Sushiro incident resulted in significant damage in the form of a sharp drop in stock prices, but at this point, we have not confirmed damage on that scale. The approximately 67 million yen claimed in the Sushiro case was based on the damage caused by a temporary sharp decline in market capitalization.While this case may not reach that scale, I still believe claims ranging from several hundred thousand to several million yen are entirely possible. The final amount will depend on how much damage the operating company can prove.

The individual appears to be claiming that ‘it was water in a detergent bottle,’ but even if that is true, given that they used a detergent bottle to film and share the video, it is only natural to expect that it would be interpreted as ‘pouring detergent.’ I do not believe whether the contents were water or not will significantly affect the determination of liability for damages.”

What would the sentence be if charges are filed?

“The statutory penalty for obstruction of business by intimidation is imprisonment for up to three years or a fine of up to 500,000 yen. If the individual has no prior criminal record and, for example, has already compensated the victimized store, I believe it is highly likely that, even if indicted, the sentence would be limited to a fine or a suspended sentence. If a criminal complaint is filed seeking punishment, a prison term of around one year would serve as a general guideline for the prosecution’s sentencing request.

However, this is based solely on a standard case. The sentence will vary depending on the malicious nature of the motive—such as seeking social media views—the extent of the damage caused by the spread of the content, the degree of remorse shown by the individual, and whether compensation has been paid.”

Disruptive behavior toward restaurants aimed at boosting social media views, which shows no sign of abating. Regarding this incident, Attorney Matsui offered the following perspective:

“The fact that the operating company in the Sushiro incident decided to pursue a large claim for damages, which was widely reported, strongly impressed upon society as a whole the message that ‘this cannot be dismissed as a mere prank.’ Companies are now taking firm action, such as filing criminal complaints or civil lawsuits, against acts that in the past might have been resolved with an apology.

Acts committed with the flippant motive of ‘wanting to go viral’ can lead not only to criminal liability but also to substantial compensation and even social sanctions resulting from the dissemination of personal information. I believe this is a case that should serve as a stark reminder of the serious consequences involved.”

I only hope this message reaches the video creators who continue to post disruptive videos—