Officials at the Philippines have allegedly dropped a perjury case which had been brought against the former Chairman of both Japanese pachinko, slot and arcade games manufacturer Universal Entertainment Corporation, Kazuo Okada (pictured), because of a lack of evidence.
According to Thursday reports from GGRAsia along with the Manila Standard paper, the four-count action had been filed in November after the 76-year-old casino magnate was alleged to have made conflicting statements at a Nevada court regarding his management of a firm known as Okada Holdings Limited.
Okada was allegedly eliminated as Chairman of Tokyo-headquartered Universal Entertainment Corporation and its own casino-operating Tiger Resort Leisure and Entertainment Incorporated subsidiary at 2017 amid accusations that he had transferred around $3 million in business funds and improperly awarded that a major machine supply contract to an enterprise he owned.
In attempting to clear his name in these matters, Okada was alleged to have erroneously informed a district court in Las Vegas that he still retained a 67.9% stake in Okada Holdings Limited, which in turn is a majority shareholder in Universal Entertainment Corporation in addition to the firm behind the Philippines’ giant Okada Manila integrated casino hotel, Tiger Resort Leisure and Entertainment Incorporated.
But the Manila Standard reported that the perjury lawsuit initiated by Kenji Sugiyama from Tiger Resort Leisure and Entertainment Incorporated had claimed that Okada had previously advised the Paranaque Regional Trial Court from the Philippines He had lost control of Hong Kong-registered Okada Holdings Limited.
GGRAsia reported that the twelve-page dismissal opinion was issued by Francisco Salomon, a senior assistant prosecutor with the Manila City Prosecutor’s Office, on March 5 and had cited a ‘lack of sufficient evidence and merit. ’ This decision was sanctioned from the acting city prosecutor for Manila, Joselito Obejas, and had moreover explained the alleged conflicting statements as being the fault of Okada’s lawful rather than the man himself.
Salomon’s conclusion read…
“A conviction of perjury can’t be sustained merely upon the conflicting sworn statements of the accused. The prosecution has to prove which of the two statements is false and must show the statement to be false by other evidence than the contradicting statement. ”