<aside> 📘

Table of Contents

</aside>

<aside>

🟦 Final Summary for NCP Reviewers (January 2026 Version)

— Updated for OECD Secretariat, NCP Reviewers, and Institutional Observers —

This case documents the first internationally recognized instance of dual institutional non-performance under the OECD Guidelines, involving both the Japanese and U.S. National Contact Points (NCPs).

Despite the submission of a legally and procedurally complete Specific Instance — including 60 verified evidence files (Evidence No.00–60) and legal annexes — neither NCP fulfilled its core procedural mandate.

🔷 Japan NCP (Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

• A Specific Instance was formally submitted on September 15, 2025.
• The Japan NCP failed to acknowledge or assess the case for over 100 days, breaching the 30-day standard under OECD Procedural Guidance II.C.3.
• It issued a formal acknowledgment only on December 25, 2025, after sustained pressure and OECD-level intervention.
• This inaction constitutes a verified case of institutional non-performance, in breach of:
  • OECD Guidelines Ch. I.4 / VIII.1
  • Procedural Guidance II.C.3
  • 2021 Council Recommendation ¶16 / ¶20

🔷 U.S. NCP (U.S. Department of State)

• A parallel submission was filed on October 15, 2025, citing the U.S. subsidiary Maeda America Inc. and cross-border implications.
• On December 10, 2025, the U.S. NCP issued a formal response declining jurisdiction, deferring to the Japanese NCP despite Japan's prolonged silence.
• This deferral — issued without engagement or assessment — is recorded as constructive non-performance, undermining access to remedy.

🔷 OECD Secretariat (Investment Division / RBC Team)

• On December 9–10, 2025, the whistleblower formally escalated the matter to the OECD Secretariat, citing systemic institutional failure across multiple NCPs.
• The Secretariat has acknowledged receipt but has not yet initiated an institutional review, despite its duty under:
  • Procedural Guidance I.C.2 / II.C.3–4
  • Council Recommendation ¶20 (2021)
• As of January 2026, the case remains under monitoring, with further escalation planned if OECD oversight fails to activate.

🛑 These failures jointly violate:

• OECD Procedural Guidance II.C.3

  (Obligation to assess within a reasonable time frame)

• OECD Council Recommendation (2021), Paragraphs 16 & 20

  (On institutional accessibility and remedy facilitation)

• UNCAC Article 33

  (State obligation to ensure effective whistleblower protection)

⚠️ Consequences and Current Escalation Status:

As of January 2026:

1. The Japanese NCP has been formally recorded as non-performing for over 100 days.
2. The U.S. NCP’s jurisdictional deferral is documented as a constructive failure to ensure remedy.
3. The OECD Secretariat has been notified and is expected to launch a formal institutional review.

✅ Request for Action (Under Chapter VIII):

• An institutional report under OECD Guidelines Chapter VIII is now formally requested, addressing:
  • Multi-jurisdictional NCP failure
  • Whistleblower retaliation and denial of remedy
  • Restoration of procedural integrity across OECD jurisdictions

This case no longer concerns only corporate misconduct — it now constitutes a test case for the credibility of the OECD grievance framework itself.

</aside>

<aside>

🟦 Case Target: Infroneer Holdings Corporation (Japan-based Multinational)

🔷 Key Violations

(in direct breach of OECD Guidelines Ch. II, III, IV, V, and VIII)

• 52 concealed workplace accidents, including misclassification and suppression of claims*(Violation of labor law and safety obligations)*
• 3 consecutive years of accounting fraud, concealing liability and compliance costs*(Financial misrepresentation across audited statements)*
• Retaliatory dismissal of a real-name whistleblower, without internal investigation or remedy*(Violation of whistleblower protection standards and procedural fairness)*

🔷 Evidence Base

• Real-name whistleblower submissions delivered across:
  • Corporate reporting channels
  • Government ministries and regulators
  • Financial and audit-related institutions
• Whistleblower status and victim legitimacy officially confirmed by police authorities
• 60 fully verified evidence files
  • (Evidence No.00–60)
  • Structured by timeline, stakeholder, and issue type
• Supplemented by 7 legal annexes
  • (Annex0–7)
  • Cross-referenced with obligations under:
    • OECD Guidelines
    • UNCAC Article 33
    • Whistleblower Protection Act (Japan, 2022 revision)

🔷 Procedural Escalation and Institutional Failure

• The case triggered NCP-level failures in:
  • Japan NCP: Over 100 days of silence before any acknowledgment
  • U.S. NCP: Jurisdictional deferral despite procedural violations by Japan
• Official escalation made to the OECD Secretariat (Investment Division) on 9–10 December 2025, invoking:
  • OECD Procedural Guidance I.C.2 / II.C.3–4
  • 2021 Council Recommendation ¶16 & ¶20

📌 Conclusion

This case constitutes a cross-border violation of international whistleblower protection standards.

</aside>

<aside>

</aside>

<aside>

</aside>

<aside>

</aside>

<aside>

</aside>

<aside>

</aside>

<aside>

</aside>