Invented Harm, Lawfare, and Dissolution Order

Invented harm and weaponization of courts: Experienced lawyer unmasking the strategy behind lawsuits designed to destroy

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

[Part 1 of interview with International Lawyer Tatsuki Nakayama]

Declaring “Continuity” Based on Speculation Is Outrageous

Objection to the Dissolution Order for the Family Federation

by the editorial department of Sekai Nippo

See part 2 of the interview: Lawyer Quests Open Hearings in Dissolution Case

See also: Alarm over Japan’s Treatment of Minority Faiths

We spoke with international lawyer Tatsuki Nakayama (中山達樹), who compiled the book Objection to the Dissolution Order Against the Family Federation (Good Time Publishing), which collects expert opinion papers criticizing request by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) to dissolve the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (formerly the Unification Church). (Interview by the Freedom of Religion Reporting Team)

– In your book, 35 experts voice their objections.

I’m grateful that they submitted their opinion papers. But it’s still far too few. I wish there were many more.

– On 25^th March, the Tokyo District Court issued a decision ordering the dissolution of the Family Federation. It held that the group’s actions fell under Article 81, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Religious Corporations Act – namely, that the organization committed acts that “violated laws and regulations and were clearly recognized as seriously harming public welfare.” What is your view of this decision?

It’s a terrible decision. The court claimed that after the Family Federation’s 2009 “Compliance Declaration” [See editor’s note below], there was still so-called “continuity” of harm at a scale that “cannot be overlooked”.

But since the Compliance Declaration [See editor’s note below], there has only been one lawsuit involving a person who joined the Federation after that declaration. Even if you include lawsuits filed by members who had joined before but sued after the declaration, there are only two cases involving three people in total.

Despite that, the court claimed there was harm on a “non-negligible” scale. How? By “speculating” based on settlements and out-of-court agreements, and by “assuming” there must be potential harm – a recognition that goes against the principle that judgments must be based on evidence.

“Non-negligible” literally means “cannot be overlooked”, but by itself those six characters (in Japanese) set no standard and are vague. It’s not even terminology usually used in judgments. It feels like wordplay – a way of presupposing the conclusion. This is the worst part.

– Is there any precedent for a court issuing a decision based on “assumptions” or “speculation”?

No. Because it violates the evidentiary principle in trials. To recognize a tort, you need concrete facts based on evidence. The court didn’t do that. This is an unprecedented and abnormal ruling.

Why did they force it this way? Because they already had the conclusion in mind: they wanted to say there was “continuity”, in other words, “non-negligible” harm. But there is almost no evidence of actual damage. In that way, cases where there was merely an out-of-court settlement, are against reason being treated as unlawful acts (torts).

– Most of the civil lawsuits used as evidence for the dissolution request involved harm from 30 years ago, yet the court concluded the same must still be happening today.

Exactly. The reasoning was: “There were problems in the past, so there must be problems now. The Compliance Declaration [See editor’s note below] was only a stopgap measure, not a fundamental reform, so the ‘problematic situation’ remains.” Even if I generously concede that much, they still claimed – without any basis – that the problems remained at a “non-negligible” scale. This vague and arbitrary “non-negligible” recognition comes from out of nowhere and is forced.

– Still, most major media supported the district court’s decision. But now some experts are beginning to voice dissent.

Yes, I feel like at last, more people are starting to speak up.

There are other strange points too. For example, on 3^rd March, the Supreme Court issued a penalty ruling regarding the Ministry’s right to question the Family Federation, and in that ruling it said that “civil torts under the Civil Code also count” as grounds for dissolution. That logic was terrible. They stretched “violation of legal norms” to mean “violation of laws and regulations”, going beyond the plain meaning of the statute. Yet the media didn’t make a fuss. Out of 47,000 lawyers, hardly anyone raised objections. As a lawyer, I find that very disheartening. The Tokyo District Court’s dissolution decision simply followed this Supreme Court precedent.

See part 2 of the interview: Lawyer Quests Open Hearings in Dissolution Case

See also: Alarm over Japan’s Treatment of Minority Faiths

Featured image above: Tatsuki Nakayama (中山達樹) – Born in Kanagawa Prefecture in 1974. Graduated from the University of Tokyo Faculty of Law. Registered as a lawyer in 2005. Completed the National University of Singapore Law School in 2010. Worked as an international lawyer at a Singapore law firm before opening Nakayama International Law Office in 2015. Certified Fraud Examiner (2016), and also completed the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. Major works include Global Governance Compliance, among others. Photo: Sekai Nippo

[Editor’s note: 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.]

Related to invented harm and lawfare: Lawfare: State Uses Legal System in War on Faith

Also related to invented harm and lawfare: UN Report: Japan’s Lawfare Against Faith Minority

And also related to invented harm and lawfare: Protesting No Transparency in Closed-Door Trial

More, related to invented harm and lawfare: Dangerous Flaws in Dissolution Order Decried

Also related to invented harm and lawfare: “Lawyers Lying and Shaming Japan” for 50 Years

And also related to invented harm and lawfare: Japan Following the Way of China

And also related to invented harm and lawfare: Japan’s Dissolution Case Echoes China’s Playbook

More, related to invented harm and lawfare: Media/Legal Expert: Communism Behind Persecution

And more, related to invented harm and lawfare: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

More, related to invented harm and lawfare: Collusion to Rob Minority of Its Rights

And more, related to invented harm and lawfare: State and Media Creating “Today’s Non-Citizens”

Still more, related to invented harm and lawfare: Japan Copying China: State Seizure of Churches

And still more, related to invented harm and lawfare: 12 Religious Freedom NGOs Denouncing Japan

More, related to invented harm and lawfare: 4300 Abductions and Forcible Detentions

And more, related to invented harm and lawfare: Japan: Families Fear for Graves of Loved Ones

Yet more, related to invented harm and lawfare: Lawyers Manipulating, Coercing, Lying

Also related to invented harm and lawfare: Kishida Follows Anti-Family Federation Minister

Also related to invented harm and lawfare: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

Still more, related to invented harm and lawfare: Malicious One-Sided Government Source Selection

Yet more, related to invented harm and lawfare: Kishida’s Self-Defeating Populist Decisions

And still more, related to invented harm and lawfare: Japan Urged to Make U-Turn

And yet more, related to invented harm and lawfare: Dangerous Precedent to Crush Religions

And even more, related to invented harm and lawfare: Tendentious Reporting by New York Times

Still more, related to invented harm and lawfare: Japan Criticized for Glaring Rights Violations

Even more, related to invented harm and lawfare: Japan Following the Way of China

Yet more, related to invented harm and lawfare: Japanese Communists’ Final War

Still more, related to invented harm and lawfare: Political and Social Activism behind Oppression