A major scandal involving Japan's retirement proxy service industry has exposed significant regulatory gaps affecting workers seeking to leave their jobs, raising concerns for foreign residents navigating the country's complex labor landscape. According to NHK, Tokyo Metropolitan Police arrested two executives from "Momuri," a retirement proxy service company, on suspicion of violating the Attorney Act by illegally receiving compensation for referring clients to lawyers. The case has now expanded, with authorities preparing to file charges against two lawyers who allegedly accepted these referrals, marking the first time legal professionals have faced prosecution in connection with Japan's growing retirement proxy industry. Retirement proxy services, known as taishoku daikō, have proliferated in Japan as workers increasingly seek help escaping toxic work environments. These services negotiate resignations on behalf of employees who feel unable to quit directly—a common situation in Japan's hierarchical workplace culture. For foreign workers, who may face additional language barriers and unfamiliarity with Japanese labor law, such services can appear particularly attractive. The Momuri case reveals how the industry operates in a legal gray zone. According to NHK reports, the company's executives allegedly entered into written agreements with lawyers to receive referral fees for directing clients to legal services. Six clients were referred under this arrangement, generating illegal compensation for the company. Under Japanese law, only licensed attorneys can provide legal advice and negotiate employment terms for compensation, and paying or receiving referrals for legal services violates the Attorney Act. One victim's experience highlights the risks facing consumers. According to NHK, after paying Momuri for retirement assistance, the client received no actual service and was simply referred to a lawyer instead. This pattern suggests some companies may be collecting fees while outsourcing the actual work, leaving clients paying twice—once to the proxy service and again to the lawyer. The investigation uncovered that Momuri had formalized its referral arrangement through memoranda with the lawyers involved, indicating a systematic rather than isolated practice. This organizational approach suggests the regulatory violations were deliberate business operations rather than inadvertent mistakes. For foreign residents in Japan, this scandal carries important implications. First, it demonstrates that the retirement proxy industry remains largely unregulated, with significant variation in service quality and legal compliance. Unlike licensed legal professionals who face professional oversight and disciplinary procedures, many proxy services operate without meaningful regulatory supervision. Second, the case illustrates how language barriers and cultural unfamiliarity can make foreign workers particularly vulnerable to exploitation. Services marketed as simplifying complex processes may actually complicate situations or provide no real value while collecting fees. Experts recommend that workers—both Japanese and foreign—considering retirement proxy services should verify whether the company employs licensed attorneys or certified labor and social security consultants (shakai hoken rōmushi), who are legally permitted to handle certain employment matters. Services offered by unlicensed operators may constitute unauthorized legal practice, potentially invalidating any negotiations conducted on the worker's behalf. Foreign residents facing workplace difficulties should consider consulting directly with English-speaking labor lawyers, local labor standards offices (rōdō kijun kantokusho), or organizations like the General Union that specifically support foreign workers. These alternatives provide legitimate legal protections without the risks associated with unregulated proxy services. As Japan's gig economy continues expanding and non-traditional work arrangements proliferate, this case underscores the urgent need for clearer regulations governing employment services. Until comprehensive reforms are implemented, workers must exercise caution when selecting assistance with employment matters, ensuring they work with properly licensed professionals who can provide legitimate legal protections.