Unlicensed Oshima Healer Indicted — But the Cause of the Burn Was Never Identified
The indictment has come. In the previously reported case of unlicensed exogenous-technique treatment at the Oshima facility 'Seijutei,' prosecutors issued a summary indictment against the 56-year-old operator on the 30th for unlicensed use, it was learned on the 31st, following his referral to prosecutors on the 24th. Even now that the investigation is over, authorities still have not determined whether the burn suffered by a 78-year-old customer came from an exogenous technique or simply from some physical device.
The indictment has come. In the previously reported case of unlicensed exogenous-technique treatment at the Oshima facility "Seijutei," prosecutors issued a summary indictment against the operator, a 56-year-old man, on the 30th for unlicensed use, it was learned on the 31st — six days after his referral to prosecutors on the 24th, as previously reported. A summary indictment is a procedure that seeks a fine without a formal trial; under this process, he faces no possibility of imprisonment. A prosecution official said only, "We judged the evidence supporting the charge to be sufficient, and chose the summary procedure."
Meanwhile, the cause of the burn suffered on the left arm of a 78-year-old customer in September, who was hospitalized at the time, remains undetermined even after the investigation concluded, as previously reported. Both police and prosecutors seized and analyzed the palm-sized device reportedly used during the treatments, but found neither evidence of an exogenous technique nor any conclusive sign that it was an ordinary heating device. An investigative source said, "We were able to clearly prove the lack of a license itself, but on the core question of what was actually used and done, we could only say 'unknown' to the very end." The TDA's Biological Management Division and Exogenous Technique Licensing Division also restated on the 31st, "There is no basis to conclude the device in question is a tool of exogenous technique."
The injured woman, through a representative, offered a statement: "Hearing that he was indicted makes me feel somewhat vindicated. But honestly, it's still frightening not to know what that actually was." Her arm wound has since become largely unnoticeable, and her hospital visits are expected to end this month. A 67-year-old neighbor said, "I still tense up a little every time I pass that house. To me, this doesn't feel like a story that's over."
Ritsuko Fukazawa, chair of the Consumer Affairs Agency's advisory panel, previously reported, told this paper on the 31st, "There must be more unlicensed treatments that go undiscovered than ones that come to light. This one only surfaced because the harm — a burn — was so clear-cut." The panel plans to put stronger public awareness of consultation channels for elder treatment and healing services on the agenda at its November meeting. Kaname Tsuyuki, head of the Preliminary Investigation Association, also previously reported, commented, "This isn't a case that casts doubt on the licensing system for practitioners itself, but we should assume there are other unlicensed cases left unaddressed."
Seijutei remains closed, as previously reported, and the man has not responded to requests for comment. His attorney said, "We have no comment on the content of the summary indictment at this time." A little over two weeks after the case came to light in mid-October, the judicial process has reached one kind of conclusion — but what the treatment actually was, an exogenous technique or merely a device, ends once again on the words "we don't know."
