Recruit scandal
insider trading scandal in Japan
The Recruit scandal (リクルート事件, Rikurūto jiken) was an insider trading and corruption scandal that forced many prominent Japanese politicians to resign in 1988.
Recruit is a human resources and classifieds company based in Tokyo. Its chairman, Hiromasa Ezoe, offered a number of shares in a Recruit subsidiary, Cosmos, to business leaders and senior politicians shortly before Cosmos went public in 1986. Following the public offering, Cosmos's share price skyrocketed, and the individuals involved in the scheme saw average profits of ¥66 million each.
Although only seventeen members of the Diet were involved in the insider trading, another thirty were later found to have received special favors from Recruit.
Among the politicians involved in the scandal were Prime Minister Noboru Takeshita, former Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone, and Chief Cabinet Secretary Takao Fujinami. In addition to members of the LDP government, leaders of the Komeito, Democratic Party of Japan, and Japan Socialist Party were also found to be involved. As a result, Takeshita's cabinet was forced to resign, although some of its members returned to political prominence later (including future prime ministers Kiichi Miyazawa and Keizō Obuchi).
The chairmen of NTT, the Yomiuri Shimbun, and the Nihon Keizai Shimbun were also involved in the scandal.
Despite the breadth of the Recruit scandal across party lines, the LDP was hurt most significantly by the scandal.
“Recruit scandal” enters the record as insider trading scandal in Japan. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Recruit, scandal and insider can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Recruit scandal” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Recruit, scandal and insider provides the most credible route into that argument.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 12, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q372571. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1988 and 1986.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Recruit scandal”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Recruit scandal primary sources, Recruit scandal archive and Recruit research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Recruit scandal”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Recruit scandal” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.