In the bid-rigging case involving the arrest of the former deputy director of the organizing committee of the Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics and the former executives of Dentsu Inc., the method of ordering work by bidding was not "for each sport" as originally envisioned. According to interviews with people involved, there is a suspicion that the former deputy director and others were coordinating orders by subcontracting contractors who could not expect to receive orders at venues where multiple competitions were held. I was.

Yasuo Mori, 55, former deputy director of the Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Organizing Committee, and Koji Hemi, 55, a former executive of Dentsu and managing director of the Sports Business Bureau, were among four suspects. , Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office for suspected violation of the Anti-Monopoly Act, accusing it of illegally coordinating orders for projects totaling 40 billion yen, including bidding for planning work for test competitions for each sport and operation work for the main competition. was arrested by



According to people involved, there is a suspicion that Deputy Director Morimoto and others have created a list of companies that will receive orders with the cooperation of Dentsu regarding the bidding for planning work for the test tournament held in 2018. is.



At first, the former deputy director considered allocating contractors for each competition, but in the end, the ordering method for work was changed from "for each competition" to "for each venue", and venues where multiple competitions were held So, it means that only one vendor can win the bid.



For this reason, there is a suspicion that Deputy Director Morimoto and former executives Hemi and others were coordinating orders by subcontracting some of the companies that could not receive orders to the companies that won the bid for the same venue. I learned something new from the interview.



The Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office's Special Investigation Department is believed to be investigating the details of why the former deputy director and others repeatedly made fraudulent order adjustments so that contractors could undertake work according to the initial allocation.