TOKYO, Feb. 18, 2013 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- We hereby detail our position on reports related to our Company made by Reuters between November 16, 2012 and the present, and by Asahi Shimbun from December 30, 2012 until the present.
Firstly, Reuters has reported the following in their article on November 16, 2012: 1) There is suspicion that illegal funds have been provided to the aide to the leaders of the Filipino Casino Regulatory Authorities; 2) According to the remittance and accounting documents from Universal Entertainment Corp., the total amount of funds that are believed to have transferred from Universal Entertainment Corp. to the Philippines is US$40 million (approx. ¥ 3.2 billion); 3) The year 2010 when the funds were transferred coincides with the period in which Universal Entertainment Corp. had been approaching the regulating authority to gain permission for the foreign investment in the project as well as resolving issues related to the acquisition of the site.
However, it became clear from ex-post reports by Reuters themselves that the above points 1 to 3, the major parts of the article from the same date, are all inaccurate and are contrary to the truth.In other words, there has been no corroborating evidence given to this date establishing Soriano, who was mentioned as a person who was an "aide to the leaders of the Filipino Casino Regulatory Authorities," was in such a position. Not only has it become clear that the report lacked any basis, there has been no specification to this date on how this "illegal provision of funds" was illegal based on what sort of legal grounds, clarifying that the report lacks any basis. Next, the ex-post report from Reuters dated January 4, 2013 admits that there has been no incident of US$40 million being transferred from our corporate group to the Philippines to begin with. The report also admits that of the amount mentioned, US$10 million was immediately flowed back to our company. Therefore, this resulted in Reuters admitting themselves from their own article that the abovementioned reporting by Reuters was erroneous.