Ueno 400 Million Yen Robbery Case: “Rinru Is Lying”—Mastermind Clashes Head-on with Driver Defendant in Court, Plunging Case into a Quagmire
“The reward is 300,000 yen”
The trial of defendant Tsuneji Koike (47 at the time of arrest), who is charged with theft for snatching a suitcase containing a total of approximately 423 million yen in cash on a street in Ueno, Tokyo, began on September 30 at the Tokyo District Court.
According to the indictment and other documents, Koike conspired with Jiru Kano (21 at the time of arrest), a senior member of a Yamaguchi-gumi-affiliated organized crime group, and others to snatch a suitcase containing a total of approximately 423 million yen in cash on a street in Ueno around 9:30 p.m. on January 29, after which they fled.Koike is believed to have served as both the mastermind and the driver, while Kano is believed to have acted as the driver; a total of seven people, including the perpetrators, have been arrested.
“Defendant Kano’s father is the head of a yakuza group. Defendant Koike is a junior associate of Kano’s father in his hometown and has known Defendant Kano since childhood.At the trial held on September 14, Defendant Kano testified that on the day of the incident, Defendant Koike “asked me to provide a car, and I merely served as the driver; I did not receive a single yen in compensation.” He also denied being a gang member and declared that he had severed ties with his father, the gang leader,” said a judicial reporter for a national newspaper.
The trial of defendant Jinru Kano was held at the Tokyo District Court on September 14. For those who wish to know more details about this trial, please refer to the report published in Friday Digital on September 25, ’26.
During the defendant’s questioning held that day, defendant Koike stated,
“Isn’t Jinru (Defendant Kano) lying?”
and other remarks, revealing discrepancies between the two men’s testimonies.
Defendant Koike, a tall man who appeared to be around 180 centimeters, appeared in court wearing a tight-fitting blue suit. His hairstyle—a ponytail tied high on the back of his head—suggested a keen sense of style, and his appearance resembled that of a rock musician.
In response to his attorney’s questions, Defendant Koike began recounting the sequence of events leading up to the incident.
Around the end of last year, at a drinking party where Defendant Kano was also present, a man he had met there (Editor’s note: a person believed to still be on the run) asked him,
“There’s a job coming up soon to transport money. It’s very safe. Is there anyone who’d be willing to do it?”
Defendant Koike replied, “I’ll see what I can do, ” and they exchanged Telegram accounts. The man’s account name was “GS”; he was “in his 30s or 40s.dressed flashily and didn’t look like a typical office worker.” Three days before the incident, GS asked him , “We don’t have a driver, so could you just drive?” and offered a payment of 300,000 yen. Defendant Kano expressed his willingness to participate, saying, “It looks like we’re going ahead with that job I heard about before. I’ll do it if I can provide support.”
During his own trial, defendant Kano testified, “On the day of the incident, defendant Koike asked me to provide a car, ” revealing a discrepancy between the two men’s testimonies. When this point was brought up, defendant Koike stated,
“The Alphard (that Defendant Kano used) belongs to his father. I couldn’t ask him to do it myself in case something went wrong,”
, arguing that Defendant Kano’s statement was not true. When the defense attorney asked, “How does the 300,000 yen fee compare to the going rate? ”
“After talking to various people, I think it’s on the high side. The going rate is around 50,000 to 100,000 yen,”
—a response that raised suspicions of habitual criminal behavior.
“The fact that I didn’t think it was dangerous was a major factor.”
The request from GS was to “load the stolen suitcase into the prepared car (an Alto) and leave the car, along with the suitcase, at a Gusto restaurant in Ibaraki Prefecture.” On the day of the incident, Defendant Koike met up with Defendant Kano, and they set off in an Alphard driven by Defendant Kano.Along the way, they picked up the three operatives and headed to the location where the prepared Alto was parked. They parted ways with Defendant Kano, switched to the Alto with the three operatives, and Defendant Koike took the wheel.
After their arrest, one of the perpetrators stated during questioning , “In the car, Defendant Koike showed me a photo of the target’s black car,” but Defendant Koike replied, “I know nothing about that.” Regarding another perpetrator’s statement that “Defendant Koike told us, ‘They won’t resist, so just threaten them a little and it’ll be fine,’”
“On the contrary, I was the one listening to the three of them talk,”
.
They arrived at their destination and succeeded in stealing the suitcase, but the victim’s car began pursuing the Alto. After causing a fender-bender along the way, they abandoned the Alto and switched to Defendant Kano’s Alphard—which had been waiting at a nearby convenience store—to flee. On the way, they dropped off the accomplices, and the two of them headed toward Ibaraki. Regarding the payment,
“I didn’t receive any. I lost contact with (GS), and the account itself had disappeared. Since the incident was reported in the news, I also disposed of my cell phone,”
he said. This marks Koike’s arrest just six months after his release from prison. When his attorney asked, “Why did you take such a risk?”
“A big part of it was that I didn’t think it was dangerous,”
he said, as if it were someone else’s problem, suggesting he had little sense of the criminal nature of his actions. Regarding his future,
“When I meet up with friends from back home, this is what happens. After I’ve paid for my crimes, I want to live in a quiet place. (As for Kano’s father,) I’d like to cut all ties with him,”
declaring, like Defendant Kano, that he would sever ties.
The prosecution fired off tough questions casting doubt on the credibility of Defendant Koike’s testimony. The following is the exchange between the prosecution and Defendant Koike.
“(Defendant Kano) is lying.”
Prosecutor: “Did you know the person who carried out the crime?”
Defendant Koike: “No.”
Prosecutor: “Didn’t you think to ask what kind of person he was?”
Defendant Koike: “Was there a need to ask? I thought it was better not to know.”
Prosecutor: “Why did you think it was better not to know?”
Defendant Koike: “There’s no need to know, and I’m not interested.”
Prosecutor: “The perpetrator testified that you, Ms. Koike, instructed him, ‘A black car is coming. The target is Chinese. Since he’s a part-timer, he won’t put up a fight.’”
Defendant Koike: “I didn’t do that!”
Defendant Koike openly expressed his frustration at the rapid-fire questioning. Defendant Kano testified that on the day of the incident, Defendant Koike asked him to be the driver. However, Defendant Koike claims that Defendant Kano was the one who communicated with GS, and the two men’s testimonies contradict each other.
Prosecutor: “Why do your accounts differ?”
Defendant Koike: “Isn’t Jiru (Defendant Kano) lying?”
Prosecutor: “What is your relationship with defendant Jinru (Kano)? Is there a senior-junior relationship?”
Defendant Koike: “He’s the son of a senior member. There’s no particular hierarchical relationship.”
Following GS’s instructions, the stolen suitcase was left at an underpass in Saitama Prefecture. After Defendant Koike left the scene, another car arrived and loaded the suitcase onto it.Defendant Koike observed the scene from a distance. He gave vivid testimony that he later received a message from GS saying, “We’ve received it.” This exchange further suggested that the incident was the work of a criminal organization and was premeditated.
During the trial, Defendant Koike claimed , “I was told it was a job to transport goods, and I didn’t know what was inside.” In response, the judge pointed out the contradiction, asking , “But from the interrogation stage onward, you’ve been saying it was a ‘job to transport money,’ haven’t you?” Defendant Koike then replied,
“During the interrogation, I asked them to change it to ‘a job transporting goods,’ but (the police) seemed to want to write ‘money,’”
offering a flimsy excuse. Koike’s implausible defense and defiant attitude left nothing but an extremely negative impression on the court. Attention is now focused on the prosecution’s closing arguments and sentencing recommendation at the next hearing.
PHOTO： Kyodo News