Third-party Investigation Committee's Report on the Nakai Masahiro sexual violence case & FujiTV's role in it - Part 4: Immediate actions taken by Nakai

In this part, the focus will be on what Nakai Masahiro did from the time after the incident to when the victim A was hospitalised:

12 July 2023

B and J (Director of Planning and Strategy, Programming Department, Programming Strategy Center, Programming Bureau, Programming Directorate) received phone calls from Nakai who said that he had an urgent matter to discuss and wanted them to come to his office. 

• Due to scheduling conflicts, B was unable to make it. 
• Nakai then gave a brief outline of what happened between him and A over the phone. 
• He described it as "the two of them having an opportunity to meet alone after the BBQ gathering at the apartment where the BBQ gathering had taken place but a dispute happened between him and A".

After the phone call, B and Nakai communicated via SMS as follows:

11.55am - Nakai: I contacted J. Let's meet from 5pm tomorrow at my agency's office. Sorry about this. I am counting on your assistance.

12.10pm: B: I understand! I will go together with J. I will do my best to help you.

13 July 2023

B and J visited Nakai's agency around 5pm. This was what B said that Nakai had told them:

• There was an opportunity to meet A after the BBQ gathering on 31 May at the apartment where that gathering had taken place.
• Nakai had asked A if she was OK with just the two of them meeting up. A had agreed and came to his apartment.
• After what happened, he realised that A was in a worsening condition.

- Nakai asked for help in getting A to recover. B and J said that they would contact him if there was anything that came up.

- Nakai told them that this matter was to be confidential and not revealed to others.

- B said during the hearing with the committee that he was surprised to know that Nakai and A had exchanged contact details, met on their own and what Nakai did to A. However, from the way he heard things from Nakai, B came to the conclusion that this was a private dispute between a man and a woman.

- J also had a similar understanding and assumption as B based on past instances of celebrities and athletes who dated and married female announcers.

Later at night, B and Nakai had the following exchange via SMS:

Nakai: B, I heard from her again. She was hospitalized for contact disorder (her mother believes that it was an eating disorder) and depression. She couldn't do the work she wanted, her salary was reduced, she had no money, and she kept having regrets about that day. Please delete this after reading.

What should I do?

B: That sounds quite serious. How about I try to send a LINE message innocently? (i.e. pretending that he has no knowledge of what happened)

Nakai expressed his wish of discussing more with B on how to deal with A and made plans to do so after a programme recording on 17 July.

The interactions between A and Nakai

• After the incident, Nakai continued to send SMS messages to A which she testified to the committee "had been unbearable and destroyed her heart".
• A replied to Nakai on 6 June that she couldn't accept what had happened. 
• On 15 June, she told him that she had to rest from work due to the shock of what happened to her on 2 June. 
• On 11 July, she replied that she couldn't eat because of the 2 June incident and had to be hospitalised due to an eating disorder and depression. She also shared how she faced the loss of income due to her long hospitalisation period.
• Although B followed Nakai's instruction to delete the SMS messages he received on A, the data was still present in his phone so the forensic investigators managed to restore that.

• A told Nakai on 14 July about how her doctors had suggested suing Nakai for what he did to her on 2 June in view of the severe physical and psychological damage she suffered. She also wanted Nakai to foot her hospitalisation bill which was growing since her income was getting lesser and she couldn't afford the bills.
• In response to this, Nakai told A that he would be giving her solatium money within taxation limits and that this would be done through their common acquaintance B. A said that she needed time to discuss this with her doctors so she did not accept his suggestion.
• Nakai continued to send messages saying that the money could be seen as a congratulatory gift after she was discharged from hospital. A said that she did not understand what Nakai meant by solatium or congratulatory money and replied on 22 July that she would get a third party such as lawyers to deal with this in a precise and honest manner.
• Nakai expressed concern about them being put into conflicting camps, legal fees will be incurred and how important it was to resolve this amicably. He suggested that A should focus on her recovery and if they needed a mediator, someone from CX would be ideal.
• A rejected Nakai's proposal because she didn't think that her being a fairly new employee of CX would have her interests prioritised by the company as compared to Nakai who had contributed to CX greatly over many years. She firmly believed that Nakai would be at an advantageous position if his suggestion was adopted.
• Nakai testified at the committee's hearing that he didn't think that A's sickness and hospitalisation was due to the incident and felt that it could have been due to her work or family relations.

• Nakai asked B to bring JPY 1 million to A despite her saying that she needed time to talk to legal experts and her doctors about this. 
• B agreed to help Nakai and sent a LINE message to A on 26 July saying that Nakai passed him something to give to A. As she had no intention of accepting anything from Nakai at this stage, she replied to B if it was OK for her doctors to inspect the contents first before passing it to her. B said that Nakai was OK with this after he spoke to the latter.
• In view of the fact that A still wanted to return to work, she was in a situation where she couldn't bear the risk of antagonising B by being too insistent on this matter. 
• B then asked J to pass a bag containing various items and an envelope containing JPY 1m cash to the hospital where A was at.
• Based on the judgement of her doctors, A did not get to see the contents but was told by them that they believed money was inside the bag. As such, A refused to accept it and replied to B on this.
• Since A's condition was getting worse, her doctors decided that having to deal with Nakai was putting a huge toll on her and that she should cut off contact with him. As such, A sent a SMS to Nakai on 1 August that he should not contact her anymore as she wanted to concentrate on her treatment.
• However, Nakai continued to send messages at the rate of at least once a week until mid September despite A not replying to him at all.
• At the hearing with the committee, B explained his action as a show of consideration to a junior at work who was concerned about her increasing hospital bills but the committee said that his action was in blatant disrespect of A's circumstances and medical condition. 
• A testified that she believed B would have known what happened given his close relationship with Nakai even though B pretended not to know in front of her.

• A also told F on 31 July on what transpired between her, Nakai and B but F was initially skeptical about how close B and Nakai were since F did not know about the suite room and BBQ gatherings. 
• Nonetheless, F still sent an email to E and G on the same day about what A said but nobody responded to F on this matter.

• Nakai continued to ask B to find out how A was through his connections in CX and that B should report this to him. B initially agreed to help Nakai with this matter.
• However, when A posted a photo of her being hospitalised on Instagram in late October 2023, B was concerned that since all contact with A had to go through F now, he rejected Nakai somewhat indirectly and even told Nakai that it would be best for them to cut down on their contact frequency for the time being.