THE Manila City Prosecutors Office has dismissed the perjury case filed by the Okada Manila operator against Japanese casino magnate Kazuo Okada for lack of sufficient evidence and merit.
The 12-page resolution of Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Francisco Salomon junked the four counts of perjury charges against Okada filed by Tiger Resort Leisure and Entertainment Inc., represented by Kenji Sugiyama.
The perjury case was filed in October 2018. The Prosecutor’s Office only decided on it early this month.
The case stemmed from Sugiyama’s accusation that Okada committed perjury when he allegedly made two contrasting claims in his complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court in Parañaque and before the District Court, Clark County in Nevada, United States.
In his complaint before the Parañaque RTC, Okada said he officially regained and never lost the majority ownership and control of Okada Holdings Ltd., Universal Entertainment Corp. (UEC), Tiger Resort Asia Ltd. and TRLEI.
OHL is the holding firm of the family, which controls listed firm Universal Entertainment, owner of Tiger Resort.
In his decision, Salomon said in prosecutions for perjury, the statement must be a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood.
“Settled is the rule that mere inaccurate statement under oath without malice does not amount to perjury,” Salomon said in the decision, adding Okada explained that his statement in the intra-corporate complaint was made in good faith.
“It is his belief that he never lost ownership and control of his shares in OHL, UEC, TRAL and TRLEI because he owns and retains almost 100 percent of his shares in OHL,” Salomon said.
Salomon said Okada merely caused the registration without transferring ownership, of certain shares to his children, Tomohiro and Hiromi. The conditions for his intent to transfer his OHL shares to his children were not fulfilled.
Salomon did not consider the Nevada complaint because aside from TRLEI’s failure to prove its authenticity, it was neither subscribed to by Okada or his lawyer. There is no proof of Okada’s knowledge of the contents of the Nevada complaint.