Japanese Court Order Fulfilling Terrorist’s Wish

Japan’s Family Federation dissolution order risks rewarding terror: Religious liberty loses when courts govern by emotion and cross into religious judgment

On 19^th May 2026, Bitter Winter, the world’s leading online magazine on religious liberty and human rights, published an op-ed titled “Terrorism, Constitution, or Judicial Overreach?”.

See also Supreme Court Justice with Hostile Views

See also Was the Appointment of Hostile Judge Deliberate?

See also Believers’ Last Hope for Fair Trial Crushed

See also Settlements Used as Evidence of Wrongdoing

In this article, Japanese attorney Tatsuki Nakayama (中山達樹) argues that the Japanese government and courts by issuing a dissolution order against the the religious organization known as the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, effectively fulfilled the terrorist’s wish to destroy a religion he according to media reports despised. Nakayama believes the case raises serious constitutional and human rights concerns.

The Bitter Winter article connects two major events. First was the assassination of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (安倍晋三) in 2022 by Tetsuya Yamagami (山上徹也). Second was the later court decision ordering the dissolution of the Family Federation.

Attorney Nakayama’s central argument is this: although Yamagami was punished for murder, the later dissolution of the Family Federation effectively achieved the political and personal goal that motivated the assassination. Nakayama warns that courts should not weaken constitutional guarantees of the right to a fair trial because of public anger or political pressure.

The assassination and Yamagami’s sentence

Nakayama begins by discussing the January 2026 sentencing of Yamagami. The court gave him life imprisonment for killing Abe during a public speech.

According to Nakayama, this outcome was expected. In Japan, the death penalty is usually reserved for cases involving multiple murders. Since Yamagami killed one person, even though the victim was a former prime minister, execution would probably have been considered excessive. At the same time, a shorter prison sentence would have appeared too lenient because the murder was politically motivated and carefully planned.

Nakayama also notes that the court refused to excuse or justify the crime by blaming the Family Federation. Some media reports had suggested that the group’s fundraising practices or political connections partly explained Yamagami’s actions. However, the court did not accept this argument. It ruled that Abe’s limited contact with the religious organization was not improper and that Yamagami remained fully responsible for the assassination.

In Nakayama’s view, this was legally correct. Courts should not treat hatred toward a religion as a justification for murder.

The dissolution of the Family Federation

The more controversial issue, according to Nakayama, was the March 2026 decision by the Tokyo High Court ordering the dissolution of the Family Federation.

This ruling removed the religious organization’s legal status and severely limited its ability to function. Nakayama argues that this decision raises multiple constitutional problems.

He believes the court relied on weak evidence, speculative reasoning, and an overly broad interpretation of the law. He also argues that the ruling violates religious freedom and due process protections guaranteed by the Japanese Constitution.

Concerns about evidence and fairness

One of Nakayama’s main criticisms is that the court treated accusations as if they were proven facts.

He explains that in 2009, the Family Federation introduced what it called a “Compliance Declaration” [See editor’s note below] to reduce controversial fundraising activities. According to the article, complaints and financial damages connected to the organization dropped dramatically afterward.

Yet the court still relied heavily on cases from after 2009. Nakayama says that in many of those cases, it was never clearly proven that unlawful conduct had actually occurred. In fact, the ruling itself reportedly admitted that wrongdoing “could not be ruled out,” rather than conclusively established.

Despite this uncertainty, the court still described the organization as continuously engaging in unlawful conduct.

Nakayama argues that this is a dangerous legal leap. In his view, courts should not impose severe punishments unless wrongdoing has been clearly proven with evidence. Otherwise, the constitutional right to a fair trial is weakened.

Claims based on speculation

Nakayama also criticizes the court for relying on assumptions about what the organization might do in the future.

The court reportedly suggested that senior leaders of the Family Federation might continue “improper” fundraising because they defended statements made by founders Sun Myung Moon (1920-2012) and Hak Ja Han, who has led the global movement since her husband’s death.

Nakayama says this reasoning is flawed. Religious leaders often defend the teachings or statements of their founders. That alone does not prove that faith leaders are incapable of following the law or controlling donations responsibly.

He argues that the court made an unjustified jump from “leaders defend the founder’s ideas” to “leaders will inevitably commit harmful acts.”

Religious freedom concerns

A major theme of the article is religious freedom.

The court claimed that dissolving the religious organization did not directly prohibit believers from practicing their religion. Nakayama strongly disagrees.

He points out that believers can no longer freely use church buildings for worship services, funerals, or religious gatherings. In practical terms, he says, this clearly restricts religious activity.

He uses a comparison: claiming religious freedom is unaffected after dissolving a church organization is like claiming academic freedom still exists after destroying a university campus. Even if beliefs remain legal in theory, removing the physical institutions makes practicing those beliefs much harder.

Nakayama also argues that governments should use the least restrictive solution possible when limiting freedoms. He notes that Japan already passed laws aimed at preventing improper fundraising and donation solicitation. According to him, these measures could address concerns without completely dismantling the religious organization.

Problems with balancing rights

Another criticism involves how the court balanced competing interests.

The court reportedly argued that dissolving the Family Federation was justified to prevent possible future financial harm to members and donors.

Nakayama says this analysis is backwards because it sacrifices an existing and concrete freedom – religious practice – in order to prevent uncertain future economic harm.

In constitutional law, spiritual and religious freedoms are usually considered among the highest protected rights. Economic concerns, while important, normally carry less constitutional weight.

Nakayama believes the court reversed this priority and accepted hypothetical risks as sufficient reason to limit fundamental freedoms.

Judicial interference in religion

The article also argues that the court improperly entered into theological questions.

According to Nakayama, the ruling criticized internal doctrines and concepts within the Family Federation, including ideas related to fundraising and religious mission.

He says courts should avoid deciding whether religious teachings are proper, reasonable, or morally acceptable. Under long-established legal principles, judges are supposed to remain neutral toward religious doctrine.

Otherwise, courts risk deciding which beliefs are acceptable and which are not – something Nakayama sees as incompatible with religious liberty.

Closed-door proceedings

Nakayama further objects to the fact that the dissolution process occurred without public access.

The court argued that these proceedings were not ordinary disputes between opposing parties and therefore did not require open hearings. Nakayama rejects this reasoning.

He points out that the government and the Family Federation spent years arguing against each other in court. Because the state was attempting to strip a religious organization of legal status and freedoms, he believes transparency was essential.

Proceedings held behind closed doors in secrecy, he argues, undermine public trust and constitutional guarantees of due process.

Broader legal and international concerns

Toward the end of the article, Nakayama warns that the court expanded legal definitions in troubling ways.

Specifically, he argues that the court treated civil lawsuits and allegations of harmful conduct as equivalent to violations of criminal law, even though the religious organization itself had not been convicted of criminal offenses during its long history.

He says this weakens the principle that laws must clearly define prohibited conduct before severe penalties can be imposed.

Nakayama also notes that United Nations experts criticized Japan’s handling of the case and warned that vague references to “public welfare” could threaten religious freedom under international human rights standards. Nakayama writes,

“The United Nations has repeatedly warned Japan that such vagueness violates international law. On October 1, 2025, UN experts issued a press release stating that the District Court’s decision violated international law. The Miki [Tokyo High Court presiding judge Motoko Miki (三木素子)] decision disregarded these concerns and issued a ruling inconsistent with Article 18(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which requires that restrictions on religious freedom be clearly defined, and with Article 98(2) of the Constitution, which mandates compliance with international law.”

Conclusion

Nakayama concludes that the case is not only about one religious organization. In his view, it is about whether constitutional protections remain strong when public emotions are intense.

He argues that democracies must be especially careful not to weaken legal principles after shocking acts of violence or terrorism. Otherwise, courts may unintentionally reward political violence by allowing assassins or extremists to achieve their broader goals indirectly.

Attorney Nakayama sums it up,

“These five constitutional concerns form a troubling pattern. The Family Federation has filed a special appeal with the Supreme Court. To avoid being remembered as a court that bent constitutional principles to fulfill the wishes of a terrorist, the Supreme Court must render a judgment that withstands scrutiny from future generations.”

The Family Federation has appealed to the Supreme Court of Japan, and the outcome there will, according to Nakayama, shape how posterity evaluates Japan’s commitment to constitutional rights, religious liberty, and judicial fairness.

See also Supreme Court Justice with Hostile Views

See also Was the Appointment of Hostile Judge Deliberate?

See also Believers’ Last Hope for Fair Trial Crushed

See also Settlements Used as Evidence of Wrongdoing

Text: Knut Holdhus, editor

Featured image above: Tatsuki Nakayama graduated from the Faculty of Law at the University of Tokyo in 1998. He was admitted as a lawyer in 2005 and graduated from the National University of Singapore Law School in 2010. After working as an international lawyer at a Singapore law firm, he opened Nakayama & Partners in 2015. After studying as a certified fraud examiner in 2016, at Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, and Singularity University, he became a business ethics expert in 2022.

He has held executive positions and other important positions in the Inter-Pacific Bar Association, which includes 1,500 lawyers worldwide. His major works are “Global Governance and Compliance” and “Integrity” (both published by Chuokeizaisha), and his recent books include “English Negotiation Techniques” (Heisei Publishing). Photo: Tsuyoshi Toyoda / 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 dissolution order rewarding terror: Lawfare: State Uses Legal System in War on Faith

More, related to dissolution order rewarding terror: Scholar Questions Secrecy in Dissolution Case

And more, related to dissolution order rewarding terror: Shocked Author: “Japan Ignores Basics of Justice”

Still more, related to dissolution order rewarding terror: Legal Inconsistencies A Blow to Democracy

Even more, related to dissolution order rewarding terror: Japan: Court Accused of Using Speculation

Also related to dissolution order rewarding terror: MEXT’s Legal Spin and “Dissolution at All Costs”

Also related to dissolution order rewarding terror: UN Report: Japan’s Lawfare Against Faith Minority

And also related to dissolution order rewarding terror: Protesting No Transparency in Closed-Door Trial

More, related to dissolution order rewarding terror: Dangerous Flaws in Dissolution Order Decried

Also related to dissolution order rewarding terror: “Lawyers Lying and Shaming Japan” for 50 Years

And also related to dissolution order rewarding terror: Japan Following the Way of China

And also related to dissolution order rewarding terror: Japan’s Dissolution Case Echoes China’s Playbook

More, related to dissolution order rewarding terror: Media/Legal Expert: Communism Behind Persecution

And more, related to dissolution order rewarding terror: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

More, related to dissolution order rewarding terror: Collusion to Rob Minority of Its Rights

And more, related to dissolution order rewarding terror: State and Media Creating “Today’s Non-Citizens”

Still more, related to dissolution order rewarding terror: Japan Copying China: State Seizure of Churches

And still more, related to dissolution order rewarding terror: 12 Religious Freedom NGOs Denouncing Japan

More, related to dissolution order rewarding terror: 4300 Abductions and Forcible Detentions

And more, related to dissolution order rewarding terror: Japan: Families Fear for Graves of Loved Ones

Yet more, related to dissolution order rewarding terror: Lawyers Manipulating, Coercing, Lying

Also related to dissolution order rewarding terror: Kishida Follows Anti-Family Federation Minister

Also related to dissolution order rewarding terror: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

Still more, related to dissolution order rewarding terror: Malicious One-Sided Government Source Selection

And still more, related to dissolution order rewarding terror: Japan Urged to Make U-Turn

And yet more, related to dissolution order rewarding terror: Dangerous Precedent to Crush Religions

Even more, related to dissolution order rewarding terror: Japan Following the Way of China

Yet more, related to dissolution order rewarding terror: Japanese Communists’ Final War

Still more, related to dissolution order rewarding terror: Political and Social Activism behind Oppression

Still more, related to dissolution order rewarding terror: Dissolution Case: Rule of Law on Trial 4th March