Dissolution Case: Attorney Reveals Inside Story

Rare behind-the-scenes insight from attorney into legal process tainted by political pressure, media narratives, and judicial decision-making threatening fundamental legal principles

Bitter Winter, the world’s leading online magazine on religious liberty and human rights, published on 10^th July an article with rare behind-the-scenes insight into the legal campaign to dissolve Japan’s Family Federation for World Peace and Unification – formerly known as the Unification Church. The report was headlined “How Japan’s Unification Church Case Went Off the Rails: Attorney Nakayama’s Inside Account”.

See also When Giving Becomes Grounds for Dissolution

See also How Media Narrative Was Changed to Attack Faith

See also: The Anatomy of Japan’s Hostile Media Campaign

See also Buddhist Priest Warns Japan ‘Cult’ Ban Risks All

See also Police Trust Shattered After Forced Confinement

In this article, Italian sociologist of religion Dr. Massimo Introvigne summarizes a lengthy conversation between literary critic Eitaro Ogawa (小川榮太郎) and attorney Tatsuki Nakayama (中山達樹), one of the lawyers representing the Family Federation. Rather than presenting a general defense of the religious organization‘s theology or practices, Nakayama focuses on what he considers serious procedural and legal shortcomings in the dissolution proceedings. His account argues that the case illustrates how political pressure, media narratives, and judicial decision-making can become intertwined in ways that threaten fundamental legal principles.

Nakayama explains that he became involved shortly after the assassination of former prime minister Shinzo Abe (安倍晋三) in July 2022, when another lawyer informed him that dozens of law firms had declined to represent the Family Federation. Although he had no personal connection to the religious movement and was not a believer, he found it disturbing that so many attorneys were unwilling to accept the case. To him, this suggested an atmosphere in which professional and reputational concerns discouraged legal representation of an unpopular client. Believing that every party deserves competent legal counsel regardless of public opinion, he agreed to take the case despite anticipating criticism.

One of Nakayama’s principal arguments concerns the government’s sudden change in legal position. He notes that Japanese officials had initially concluded that dissolution was not legally justified because the Family Federation had not been convicted of criminal offenses comparable to those committed by Aum Shinrikyo (オウム真理教) [See editor’s note 1 below], whose dissolution followed acts of terrorism. According to Nakayama, this position changed abruptly after political pressure emerged within the Diet, the national legislature of Japan. He argues that the government reversed course without presenting significant new evidence or a convincing legal rationale, raising concerns that political considerations had begun to outweigh established legal standards. Introvigne writes,

“Then, in Diet testimony, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida reversed the position overnight, without providing a legal or factual explanation.

Nakayama was stunned. He recalls how embarrassing it was to report this internationally, because Japan is supposed to be governed by law, not by the whims of individuals. Later, he learned what had triggered the reversal. According to Nakayama, Constitutional Democratic Party lawmaker Konishi warned Kishida that if he did not move toward dissolution, he would be labeled ‘a billboard for the Unification Church’. Nakayama calls it a form of political intimidation. Kishida, he argues, flipped instantly. Ogawa notes that a Cabinet decision overturned in a single night, without new evidence, means the dissolution process began without legal foundation.”

The article also examines the evidence collected during the government’s investigation. Nakayama questions the reliability of witness testimony submitted in support of dissolution. He points to the extensive use of anonymous statements, arguing that anonymity limited opportunities for meaningful cross-examination or independent verification. He further claims that many written affidavits contained remarkably similar wording, suggesting that they may have been prepared using standardized templates rather than reflecting entirely independent personal accounts. Even more seriously, he alleges that some individuals later disputed statements attributed to them. If such claims were substantiated, they would raise important questions about the integrity of the evidentiary process.

Another central issue is the legal standard required for dissolving a religious corporation. Japanese law generally requires that dissolution be justified by conduct that clearly and seriously harms the public welfare. Nakayama contends that the courts applied this standard far more broadly than intended. He argues that after the Family Federation announced compliance reforms in 2009 [See editor’s note 2 below], relatively few civil judgments were entered against the religious organization. In his view, describing the remaining incidents as sufficiently serious to justify dissolution represented a significant expansion of previous judicial interpretation.

Nakayama is especially critical of later court decisions, which he believes relied on speculative reasoning rather than clearly established misconduct. He argues that treating settlements as evidence of wrongdoing, or suggesting that unlawful conduct might have occurred without making definitive findings, weakens the traditional presumption that legal conclusions should rest upon proven facts rather than possibility or inference. Introvigne points out,

“The Tokyo High Court went further. Presiding Judge Motoko Miki treated settlements as evidence of civil torts and relied on the unprecedented reasoning that “the possibility of unlawful conduct cannot be ruled out.” Nakayama believes this was dishonest and unjust. In his entire career, he had never seen anything so extraordinary. Ogawa compares it to sentencing someone to death for shoplifting. He notes that if courts use extreme language without evidence, public opinion will assume extreme wrongdoing even when none exists.”

Throughout the conversation, both Nakayama and Ogawa argue that the legal proceedings cannot be understood apart from the broader social climate that developed after Abe’s 2022-assassination. They suggest that sustained media coverage, intense political debate, and widespread public hostility created an environment in which objective legal assessment became increasingly difficult. In their view, once the Family Federation became widely associated with national tragedy and political scandal, legal institutions faced enormous pressure to respond in ways that reflected prevailing public sentiment.

To illustrate this concern, Nakayama compares the situation to earlier episodes in Japanese history in which public fear and social prejudice contributed to unfair treatment of marginalized groups. Introvigne writes,

“Nakayama cites physician Tetsu Nakamura, who once described the hysteria surrounding Hansen’s disease [See editor’s note 3 below] as ‘faceless cruelty’. He warns that Japan may now be entering a similar cycle: a tragic game of Old Maid, where no one knows who will be targeted next.”

The attorney’s point is not that the cases are identical, but rather that societies sometimes allow collective emotions to influence legal institutions in ways that become regrettable in hindsight. He warns that when legal decisions appear to follow public opinion rather than established legal standards, the consequences may extend far beyond a single religious organization.

Ultimately, Introvigne presents this interview not simply as a discussion about the Family Federation but as a broader reflection on the health of democratic institutions. Regardless of one’s opinion of the religious organization itself, Nakayama argues that the essential question is whether unpopular groups continue to receive equal protection under the law. If governments, courts, and the media become mutually reinforcing forces that shape outcomes before legal processes have run their course, he believes the rule of law itself is placed at risk.

The article therefore invites readers to consider a larger constitutional question: how should democratic societies balance accountability for alleged misconduct with procedural fairness, judicial independence, and religious freedom? Nakayama’s account raises important issues about the relationship between politics, public opinion, and the administration of justice – issues that extend well beyond Japan and resonate in many democratic societies today.

See also When Giving Becomes Grounds for Dissolution

See also How Media Narrative Was Changed to Attack Faith

See also: The Anatomy of Japan’s Hostile Media Campaign

See also Buddhist Priest Warns Japan ‘Cult’ Ban Risks All

See also When Religious Intolerance Turns Violent

See also Police Trust Shattered After Forced Confinement

Text: Knut Holdhus, editor

Featured image above: Attorney Tatsuki Nakayama (中山達樹) and literary critic Eitaro Ogawa (小川榮太郎). Photo: Bitter Winter  

[Editor’s note 1: Aum Shinrikyo (オウム真理教), a Buddhist new religious movement founded in 1984 by Shoko Asahara, preaching apocalyptic prophecies. It was dissolved in 1996 due to its leaders’ criminal acts, including the Tokyo subway sarin gas attack in 1995 and the Matsumoto sarin incident in 1994. “Aum” (オウム – alternatively anglicized as Ōmu) is the phonetic spelling of the Sanskrit syllable “Aum” (or Om). “Shinrikyo” means literally “religion of truth”.

[Editor’s note 2: 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 3:  Hansen’s disease is the medical term for what was historically called leprosy. It’s a chronic infectious disease caused by the bacterium Mycobacterium leprae (and in some cases M. lepromatosis).

The term “Hansen’s disease” comes from Gerhard Armauer Hansen, the Norwegian scientist who identified the causative bacterium in 1873. The modern name is preferred to reduce the stigma historically associated with “leprosy.”

In the above article, Tatsuki Nakayama (中山達樹) references Hansen’s disease because of its social and historical impact, especially in countries like Japan, where patients were once isolated in sanatoria due to fear and misunderstanding, even after effective treatments existed.]

Related to attorney revealing inside story: Lawfare: State Uses Legal System in War on Faith

More, related to attorney revealing inside story: Scholar Questions Secrecy in Dissolution Case

And more, related to attorney revealing inside story: Shocked Author: “Japan Ignores Basics of Justice”

 Still more, related to attorney revealing inside story: Legal Inconsistencies A Blow to Democracy

Even more, related to attorney revealing inside story: Court Accused of Using Speculation

Also related to attorney revealing inside story: MEXT’s Legal Spin and “Dissolution at All Costs”

Also related to attorney revealing inside story: UN Report: Japan’s Lawfare Against Faith Minority

And also related to attorney revealing inside story: Protesting No Transparency in Closed-Door Trial

More, related to attorney revealing inside story: Dangerous Flaws in Dissolution Order Decried

Also related to attorney revealing inside story: “Lawyers Lying and Shaming Japan” for 50 Years

And also related to attorney revealing inside story: Japan Following the Way of China

And also related to attorney revealing inside story: Japan’s Dissolution Case Echoes China’s Playbook

More, related to attorney revealing inside story: Media/Legal Expert: Communism Behind Persecution

And more, related to attorney revealing inside story: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

More, related to attorney revealing inside story: Collusion to Rob Minority of Its Rights

And more, related to attorney revealing inside story: State and Media Creating “Today’s Non-Citizens”

Still more, related to attorney revealing inside story: Japan Copying China: State Seizure of Churches

And still more, related to attorney revealing inside story: 12 Religious Freedom NGOs Denouncing Japan

More, related to attorney revealing inside story: 4300 Abductions and Forcible Detentions

And more, related to attorney revealing inside story: Japan: Families Fear for Graves of Loved Ones

Yet more, related to attorney revealing inside story: Lawyers Manipulating, Coercing, Lying

Also related to attorney revealing inside story: Kishida Follows Anti-Family Federation Minister

Also related to attorney revealing inside story: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

Still more, related to attorney revealing inside story: Malicious One-Sided Government Source Selection

And still more, related to attorney revealing inside story: Japan Urged to Make U-Turn

And yet more, related to attorney revealing inside story: Dangerous Precedent to Crush Religions

Even more, related to attorney revealing inside story: Japan Following the Way of China

Yet more, related to attorney revealing inside story: Japanese Communists’ Final War

Still more, related to attorney revealing inside story: Political and Social Activism behind Oppression

Still more, related to attorney revealing inside story: Dissolution Case: Rule of Law on Trial 4th March