A story about a tattooed DJ who flew into a rage after a mechanic at a Toyota-affiliated dealership asked him to confirm he wasn’t a member of an “antisocial force” (a euphemism for organized crime/yakuza) has become a hot topic on 5channel. At many companies, contracts include an “anti-organized-crime clause” mandated by local yakuza exclusion ordinances, and confirming that a business partner isn’t connected to organized crime is considered standard compliance practice. In the thread, most commenters argued the check was simply routine business procedure, while others pushed back that it’s unfair for people with tattoos to be singled out for suspicion — sparking a debate over the rights and wrongs of this compliance practice.
Guess the closer you are to something, the more you want to draw a line between yourself and it.
Every time this kind of story blows up, it just proves that famous tattoo artist (who warns people about this) was right again.
They have to confirm you're not currently connected to organized crime right now —
because if you lie about it, they can cancel the contract.
It's like checking someone's age.
The bigger problem for the company is that the previous rep's checks seem to have gotten lax.
Replacing every old contract that didn't have the anti-organized-crime clause was such a pain.
They need to get it on record.
It's about confirming whether the person lied to do business with them.
What matters is that if it comes out later, lying about who you are makes the penalty heavier.
The important part is building the alibi: 'Our company had no idea they were connected to organized crime — and of course, we did confirm they weren't.'
Nothing here but reasons to not want to deal with the guy.
Putting the anti-organized-crime clause in contracts is standard practice to begin with, so you'd get asked at contract time regardless of whether you have tattoos or not.
A society that's tougher on organized crime is a good thing, so there's no need to overreact.
The fact that he can't even think this through is the real problem.
It's on the same level as getting furious at someone for properly stopping at a stop sign.
That's Toyota for you.
Standard reminder: dealerships aren't actually Toyota-owned.
There must be cases where you can't tell just by looking, and it's not like they're confirming with literally everyone.
It's a required check at the time of contract, so basically there's no case where you wouldn't be asked.
No idea what happens to a contract where the check gets skipped, though.
Background and Key Points of This Story
The “anti-organized-crime clause,” which excludes dealings with organized crime, is common boilerplate language required in many contracts under local yakuza exclusion ordinances, and confirming this at the time of contract is standard practice regardless of whether someone has tattoos. As mentioned in the thread, if a business partner later turns out to be connected to organized crime, the contract can be voided and penalties may apply — so this confirmation step is largely a way for companies to manage their own risk. Opinions split over whether to view this check as “a routine part of doing business” or “a response rooted in prejudice against tattoos.” Note that this article excludes posts that generalize or mock the appearance or character of tattooed people, focusing instead on the exchange about compliance practices.
*This article is excerpted and summarized from the 5channel (Live Newsflash G) thread “[Sad News] Tattooed DJ Asked by Toyota Mechanic ‘You’re Not Yakuza, Right?’ — Goes Absolutely Berserk lol”.
