Lawyer Quests Open Hearings in Dissolution Case

In country not known to have independent judiciary, experienced attorney calls for open hearings, arguing that transparency best ensures neutrality and fairness in ongoing proceedings

Tokyo, 19th August 2025 – Published as an article in the Japanese newspaper Sekai Nippo. Republished with permission. Translated from Japanese. Original article.

[Part 2 of interview with International Lawyer Tatsuki Nakayama]

“Victim Compensation and Dissolution Mechanism Are Unrelated”

Call for Open Court Hearings in Dissolution Case

by the editorial department of Sekai Nippo

(Interview by the Freedom of Religion Reporting Team)

See part 1 of the interview: Invented Harm, Lawfare, and Dissolution Order

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

See also Japan: Ex-EU Envoy Warns of Religious Crackdown

– You issued a statement calling for “fair and impartial hearings on the dissolution of religious corporations” and launched a signature campaign. What impact do you expect?

Whatever the degree of impact, I am doing this with the view that it could influence the court.

The allegations of forged Ministry of Education (MEXT) statements have been reported by believer Hiroshi Ogasawara (小笠原裕) and attorney Shinichi Tokunaga (徳永信一). Ideally, this would be taken seriously and lead to a criminal investigation. The Ministry has submitted statements from about 200 alleged victims, but if the court does not regard the credibility of the Ministry’s evidence with caution, that will be problematic. It is also terrible that the court has ignored data from after the compliance declaration [See editor’s note 1 below] of the religious organization.

– The procedures of the Religious Affairs Council of Agency for Cultural Affairs and the exercise of the government’s questioning authority are not public. Why do you think the dissolution trial is being held behind closed doors?

Legally, the principle is that trials should be public. But under the pretext of the state’s supervisory role, dissolution proceedings are classified as non-contentious cases [See editor’s note 2 below] and therefore closed to the public. Even if answers to the government’s questions are withheld for privacy reasons, this is the age of information disclosure, whether for administrative procedures or anything else. Transparency is essential.

Even if administrative processes are kept private, in this case the state and a religious corporation are in an adversarial relationship. The court deciding such a case must be neutral. To ensure neutrality, the Constitution requires trials to be public in principle. Based on this constitutional principle, the hearings should be open. Constitutional scholar Setsu Kobayashi (小林節) has also argued for openness.

– How could the case be brought into open court?

There are paths. Recently, at a press conference, attorney Tokunaga and Nozomi Kojima (小嶌希晶) of the “Association to Protect the Human Rights of Second-Generation Believers” argued for the participation of interested parties in the dissolution trial. Since the principle is openness, it is only natural that believers and staff with strong interests be allowed to participate. Other methods are also under consideration.

– Do you see the recent group lawsuit filed by second-generation believers seeking damages from the religious organization as a move aimed at influencing the appeal hearing in the High Court?

I don’t know the details, but if doctrine itself were the problem, they could have filed damage claims before the Abe incident. Doing so at this particular time is essentially an attempt to steer public opinion against the Family Federation and push the court toward ordering dissolution. Some second-generation believers are seeking compensation for family suicides that occurred after the Abe incident, but in many cases, this is due more to media coverage than doctrine itself.

– The Agency for Cultural Affairs has also announced a draft outline of guidelines from its study panel on the liquidation of designated religious corporations. It already addresses the issue of residual assets (remaining property after liquidation), proposing measures such as establishing a foundation to provide compensation for victims in place of the liquidated corporation after the completion of liquidation, suggesting that certain intentions (designs) may be at play regarding the religious organization’s funds.

For the Reikan Benren (National Network of Lawyers Against Spiritual Sales), the more damages that can be obtained, the greater their legal fees. No doubt they are pressuring the government to involve them in victim relief.

But most media outlets are not reporting this: victim relief and dissolution are separate issues. Back in 2012, the Reikan Benren sued the government for failing to file a dissolution request against the Family Federation, claiming it was an illegal inaction. After five years of litigation, they lost in 2017. That ruling clearly stated that “relief for individual victims is unrelated to the dissolution system.” In fact, one could argue that for the sake of victim relief, it is better not to dissolve the organization.

Dissolution is intended, as in the case of Aum Shinrikyo [See editor’s note 3 below] with the sarin attacks, to prevent irreparable harm to public safety in the future. I do not believe the present Family Federation poses such a danger if it continues to exist as a corporation.

See part 1 of the interview: Invented Harm, Lawfare, and Dissolution Order

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

See also Japan: Ex-EU Envoy Warns of Religious Crackdown

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 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: A non-contentious case refers to a legal matter where there is no dispute between parties. These cases typically involve administrative, procedural, or uncontested legal actions, such as probate (handling a deceased person’s estate), uncontested divorces, adoption, or registering a trademark. Since there are no opposing parties or legal conflicts, these cases usually proceed smoothly through the legal system without litigation.]

[Editor’s note 3: Aum Shinrikyo, 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.]

Related to call for open hearings: Lawfare: State Uses Legal System in War on Faith

Also related to call for open hearings: UN Report: Japan’s Lawfare Against Faith Minority

And also related to call for open hearings: Protesting No Transparency in Closed-Door Trial

More, related to call for open hearings: Dangerous Flaws in Dissolution Order Decried

Also related to call for open hearings: “Lawyers Lying and Shaming Japan” for 50 Years

And also related to call for open hearings: Japan Following the Way of China

And also related to call for open hearings: Japan’s Dissolution Case Echoes China’s Playbook

More, related to call for open hearings: Media/Legal Expert: Communism Behind Persecution

And more, related to call for open hearings: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

More, related to call for open hearings: Collusion to Rob Minority of Its Rights

And more, related to call for open hearings: State and Media Creating “Today’s Non-Citizens”

Still more, related to call for open hearings: Japan Copying China: State Seizure of Churches

And still more, related to call for open hearings: 12 Religious Freedom NGOs Denouncing Japan

More, related to call for open hearings: 4300 Abductions and Forcible Detentions

And more, related to call for open hearings: Japan: Families Fear for Graves of Loved Ones

Yet more, related to call for open hearings: Lawyers Manipulating, Coercing, Lying

Also related to call for open hearings: Kishida Follows Anti-Family Federation Minister

Also related to call for open hearings: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

Still more, related to call for open hearings: Malicious One-Sided Government Source Selection

Yet more, related to call for open hearings: Kishida’s Self-Defeating Populist Decisions

And still more, related to call for open hearings: Japan Urged to Make U-Turn

And yet more, related to call for open hearings: Dangerous Precedent to Crush Religions

And even more, related to call for open hearings: Tendentious Reporting by New York Times

Still more, related to call for open hearings: Japan Criticized for Glaring Rights Violations

Even more, related to call for open hearings: Japan Following the Way of China

Yet more, related to call for open hearings: Japanese Communists’ Final War

Still more, related to call for open hearings: Political and Social Activism behind Oppression