Court Applies Unique Criteria for Dissolution

When “tort” doesn’t mean tort – Tokyo District Court applies unique criteria and its own interpretive standards in ruling against Family Federation’s donation practices

Tokyo, 18th September 2025 – Published as an article in the Japanese newspaper Sekai Nippo. Republished with permission. Translated from Japanese. Original article.

[Series] Order to Dissolve the Family Federation: Examining the District Court’s Decision (Part 4) 

Vague Standards for Determining What Counts as a Tort

by the Religious Freedom Investigative Team of the editorial department of Sekai Nippo

See part 1: Dissolution Case: Inflated Damages, Forced Logic

See part 2: MEXT’s Legal Spin and “Dissolution at All Costs”

See part 3: Court Ignored Awkward Facts in Dissolution Case

See also UN Expert: “Japan’s Illegal Dissolution Request”

See also Breakthrough: High Court to Hear Active Members

See also Japan: Establishing A New Compensation Committee

In its written decision, the Tokyo District Court (hereafter “the court”) inferred, based on the claims of plaintiffs or complainants, that the solicitation of donations and related acts by the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (Family Federation, formerly the Unification Church) and its followers “constituted torts” in connection with judicial settlements or out-of-court agreements that had been reached and executed prior to the religious organization’s 2009 Compliance Declaration [See editor’s note 1 below]. How exactly did the court arrive at such an inference?

First, the court stated that its finding of “torts” was made “under the criteria of this case”. [Editor’s note: The key nuance is that “tort” (不法行為) here is not being used in its strict legal sense (as in Civil Code Article 709, etc.), but in a broader or case-specific sense defined by the court’s own criteria.]

In other words, the “tort” here does not mean a violation of established laws such as the Penal Code or Civil Code. Instead, it is based on the standards established by the District Court in order to determine whether an act constitutes a violation of laws and regulations under Article 81, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Religious Corporations Act [See editor’s note 2 below], which sets forth the requirements for dissolution.

So, what are these standards? Various explanations have been given, but the explanation on page 65 of the ruling is particularly clear:

“If, as a result of circumstances that impede a donor’s ability to make an appropriate decision regarding whether to donate, or circumstances that impair the ability of the donor or their spouse, etc., to maintain their livelihood, among other factors, it is found that the method of solicitation has deviated from the socially acceptable range, the act will be deemed unlawful under tort law.”

This is something we’ve seen before. Amid the storm of criticism against the religious organization that erupted after the assassination of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (安倍晋三), the “Act on the Prevention of Improper Solicitation of Donations by Corporations, etc.” [See editor’s note 3 below] was advanced in an extraordinary Diet session in the autumn of 2022.

Article 3 of that law sets out three obligations for corporations when soliciting donations, and the court’s criteria essentially replicate them:

1. Ensure that donors are not coerced into a state where they cannot make free and appropriate decisions.
2. Ensure that donations do not make it difficult for donors, their spouses, or relatives to maintain their livelihood.
3. Clearly identify the soliciting organization and prevent misunderstandings about the use of donated assets.

Even here, the court omitted detailed discussion of item ③ – the so-called “concealed solicitation” – essentially keeping it hidden. A bigger issue, however, is that if the court were to explicitly apply this law, it would violate the principle of non-retroactivity [See editor’s note 4 below]. Thus, instead of citing the law or its provisions directly, the court appears to have adopted the vague concept of “the criteria of this case”, emphasizing whether solicitation deviated from “socially acceptable limits”. Such vagueness expands the scope of the court’s discretion while also shielding it from criticism – killing two birds with one stone.

Although the law was, in part, drafted with the Family Federation in mind [See editor’s note 3 below], it was created with input from legal experts and therefore contains universal principles. Accordingly, it is possible to evaluate the 32 civil judgments that recognized tortious acts by the religious organization and its members as constituting torts even under “the criteria of this case”.

However, applying “the criteria of this case” to donation solicitations by the religious organization or its followers in pre-compliance declaration [See editor’s note 1 below] settlements or agreements is not possible. This is because such settlements or agreements did not confirm specific factual acts that could be judged as violations of law; they merely recorded one-sided allegations by plaintiffs or complainants in complaints or notices.

Civil lawsuits are less strict than criminal trials, but in damages suits the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff (the alleged victim) to establish the defendant’s tort. If even one element of the tort cannot be proven, the claim is dismissed. If courts were to recognize torts solely on the basis of one-sided allegations in settlements or agreements, one might say there would be no need for courts at all.

See part 1: Dissolution Case: Inflated Damages, Forced Logic

See part 2: MEXT’s Legal Spin and “Dissolution at All Costs”

See part 3: Court Ignored Awkward Facts in Dissolution Case

See also UN Expert: “Japan’s Illegal Dissolution Request”

See also Breakthrough: High Court to Hear Active Members

See also Japan: Establishing A New Compensation Committee

See also The Marxist Transformation of Higher Education

Featured image above: Japanese judges. Illustration: Microsoft Designer Image Creator.

[Editor’s note 1: The 2009 compliance declaration of the Unification Church of Japan (now the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification) was a formal commitment by the organization to reform its practices in response to longstanding public criticism and legal challenges.

The Unification Church in Japan had faced numerous allegations related to recruitment tactics and donation solicitation, termed “spiritual sales” (霊感商法) by a hostile network of activist lawyers who had declared the religious organization an enemy. These issues led to multiple lawsuits orchestrated by the activist lawyers and significant media backlash. This prompted the organization to take measures to restore its reputation and demonstrate compliance with legal and ethical standards.

The religious organization pledged to stop possibly unethical donation practices, including what the hostile network of lawyers claimed amounted to “pressuring members into making large financial contributions under spiritual pretexts.”

This was in response to accusations from the same activist lawyers that followers “were being manipulated into giving away substantial amounts of money or property.”

The Unification Church stated it would enhance internal oversight to ensure compliance with ethical and legal standards. Measures included better training for leaders and stricter guidelines for evangelization and solicitation of donations.

After this compliance declaration, there was a significant decrease in the number of lawsuits against the Unification Church – since 2015 called the Family Federation. The religious organization has used this as evidence that it has improved its practices and should not be subject to dissolution.]

[Editor’s note 2: Article 81, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Religious Corporations Act (宗教法人法) says that a religious corporation may be dissolved by court order if it engages in “acts in violation of laws and regulations that are clearly detrimental to the public welfare” (法令に違反し、著しく公共の福祉を害すると明らかに認められる行為).

This provision is the main legal hook the Japanese government has used when asking courts to dissolve the Family Federation as a religious juridical person.

The quoted sentence explains that the court needed a way to decide whether the Family Federation’s fundraising/donation practices actually count as “violations of laws and regulations” under Article 81.

But here’s the complication: Most of the Unification Church’s donation practices were never prosecuted criminally. Instead, victims won civil lawsuits where courts recognized tort liability (不法行為, unlawful acts under the Civil Code). Civil torts are not always straightforwardly treated as “violations of law” for the purposes of Article 81, which is meant to be a serious standard (dissolution is a drastic step).

So the Tokyo District Court set its own interpretive standards (基準) to decide what counts as a “law violation” in this context.

Critics argue that the court blurred the line by relying not directly on the Act on the Prevention of Improper Solicitation of Donations (2022 law) – since that can’t apply retroactively – but instead by creating a vague “criteria” derived from it.

This allowed the court to treat past civil cases (where plaintiffs won damages) as proof of “violations of law”, even though those cases were not criminal convictions.

Supporters of dissolution say this was necessary to protect victims and reflect the accumulated judicial record of harm.

Opponents (including some legal scholars and the Family Federation itself) say this stretched the meaning of “法令に違反” (violation of laws) beyond what the statute really permits, effectively bending the law to make dissolution possible.]

[Editor’s note 3: There are several reasons to believe “Act on the Prevention of Improper Solicitation of Donations by Corporations, etc.” was intended to help dissolve or constrain the Family Federation. The new law addresses precisely the domain – donation solicitation tactics – that critics have long accused the Family Federation (Unification Church) of abusing. Its passage just after Abe’s assassination and during intense public scrutiny gives the appearance of legislative reaction to that pressure.

The law was passed quickly – in an “extraordinary Diet session” in autumn 2022. A fast-track process, in a charged political climate, invites suspicion that the law was intended in part to respond to a specific target. Supporters of the law might argue the urgency was to prevent further harm to victims.

At the time of drafting/proposal, voices in the nonprofit sector warned that the law could chill legitimate donations to ordinary NGOs and religious groups, since “malicious solicitation” could be broadly construed. For example, JNPOC (Japan Non-Profit Organization Center) expressed concern that though the law was said to target frauds (e.g. fortune-telling fraud), its formulation could endanger good-faith organizations.

That implies the drafters were aware of potential side effects and suggests the targeting of those practices (i.e. spiritually or religiously framed solicitations) was part of the design.

In the dissolution request and court proceedings, the government and courts appear to draw on the conceptual terrain of “improper solicitation” and “coercion” that overlapped with the new law’s standards, even where the law might not directly apply retroactively. This suggests the law helps create a legal and rhetorical framework for arguing that certain solicitations are “beyond the socially acceptable limit.” And as Sekai Nippo points out, courts are adopting “criteria of this case” akin to the law’s obligations.

Opponents of the dissolution (e.g. legal scholars critical of the move) have explicitly argued that the law is being used as a de facto instrument to dismantle the Family Federation’s status without needing criminal convictions. For instance, Patricia Duval – in a legal commentary – notes that because the existing tort-based court judgments lacked clear statutory law violations under pre-existing law, the government pushed a new “unjust solicitation” statute to help justify dissolution claims.

Some critics argue that the law’s vague elements, broad discretion, and retroactive interpretive use open the door to controlling or sanctioning religious organizations in a way that undermines religious freedom.

The law is certainly a powerful tool that can – and arguably does – facilitate pressure on certain religious groups.

Several legal scholars, observers, and defenders of the Family Federation or critics of the dissolution process have explicitly made claims along these lines. Some examples:

Patricia Duval (in a CESNUR / academic commentary) critiques that the government effectively passed a “new law” to supply a statutory basis for future dissolution requests, noting that pre-2022 tort judgments lacked a statutory “improper solicitation” violation.

The organization Freedom of Belief (FOB) and affiliated commentators have warned that the dissolution effort, aided by the new law and its interpretive use, risks undermining religious liberty and equating unpopular religious practices with criminality.

Critics of the court decision and defenders of the Family Federation have framed the dissolution order as a “turning point” in Japan’s treatment of religious organizations – arguing that the new law’s broad and vague criteria are being used to penalize a religious group without criminal conviction.

In the nonprofit/NPO community, when the law was being debated, JNPOC (Japan NPO Center) expressed concern that the law – though presented as targeting fraud or “fortune-telling fraud” – could also chill legitimate donation appeals and religious giving. That concern aligns with the hypothesis that the law’s scope might have been influenced by concern about religious solicitation practices.]

[Editor’s note 4: Non-retroactivity: One important legal constraint is that “Act on the Prevention of Improper Solicitation of Donations by Corporations, etc.” generally cannot be applied retroactively to past acts (especially criminalizing them) without violating legal principles. The above Sekai Nippo article itself raises this point: courts are reluctant to cite the law for past acts, instead adopting vaguer “criteria of this case” doctrines. So the law is less suited to retroactively dissolve or punish past solicitations, which reduces its utility as a tool for dissolving long-standing institutions purely on historical conduct.]

Related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: Lawfare: State Uses Legal System in War on Faith

Also related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: UN Report: Japan’s Lawfare Against Faith Minority

And also related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: Protesting No Transparency in Closed-Door Trial

More, related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: Dangerous Flaws in Dissolution Order Decried

Also related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: “Lawyers Lying and Shaming Japan” for 50 Years

And also related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: Japan Following the Way of China

And also related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: Japan’s Dissolution Case Echoes China’s Playbook

More, related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: Media/Legal Expert: Communism Behind Persecution

And more, related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

More, related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: Collusion to Rob Minority of Its Rights

And more, related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: State and Media Creating “Today’s Non-Citizens”

Still more, related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: Japan Copying China: State Seizure of Churches

And still more, related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: 12 Religious Freedom NGOs Denouncing Japan

More, related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: 4300 Abductions and Forcible Detentions

And more, related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: Japan: Families Fear for Graves of Loved Ones

Yet more, related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: Lawyers Manipulating, Coercing, Lying

Also related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: Kishida Follows Anti-Family Federation Minister

Also related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

Still more, related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: Malicious One-Sided Government Source Selection

Yet more, related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: Kishida’s Self-Defeating Populist Decisions

And still more, related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: Japan Urged to Make U-Turn

And yet more, related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: Dangerous Precedent to Crush Religions

And even more, related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: Tendentious Reporting by New York Times

Still more, related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: Japan Criticized for Glaring Rights Violations

Even more, related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: Japan Following the Way of China

Yet more, related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: Japanese Communists’ Final War

Still more, related to applying unique criteria for dissolution: Political and Social Activism behind Oppression