Settlements Used as Evidence of Wrongdoing

When settlements become evidence: A troubling legal shift in Japan and dangerous precedent for any religious community

Published in Bitter Winter on 28^th March 2026, an article by sociologist of religion Massimo Introvigne examines the legal reasoning behind the Tokyo High Court’s endorsement of the dissolution of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification. The article pays particular attention to accusations surrounding “spiritual sales” and substantial donations, exploring the courts’ contention that such practices reflected psychological manipulation of believers.

See part 1 of the opinion piece: Civil Lawsuits as Weapons Against Religion

See also Flawed Reasoning of a Politician Backing Torts

See also Beyond Dissolution: A Religious Purge in Japan?

See also Next Target After Dissolution: Believers’ Rights

See also How to Remain Free in an Age of Inquisition

The article criticizes both the Supreme Court and the High Court for failing to explain convincingly why decades of established legal interpretation had suddenly been abandoned. Dr. Introvigne suggests that the reinterpretation of Japan’s Religious Corporation Act appears specifically designed to target the Family Federation. He further warns that such a precedent could affect many other religious communities in Japan, including organizations never accused of criminal activity but potentially vulnerable to civil lawsuits.

Reverend Shindō Mizuta (水田真道), chief priest of Kongo-ji Temple, a Buddhist leader reportedly warned that the new interpretation threatens all religions and temples. The concern is that if civil claims become sufficient for dissolution, any unpopular religious movement might eventually face similar legal risks.

Another important issue discussed in the article concerns the High Court’s treatment of settlements. Alongside civil judgments, the court relied heavily on cases resolved through negotiated agreements. Dr. Introvigne argues that this approach is fundamentally flawed because settlements are not admissions of guilt. In legal practice, parties frequently settle disputes simply to avoid lengthy, expensive, or unpredictable litigation.

The article stresses that equating settlements with proof of wrongdoing undermines basic legal principles. It may also discourage religious organizations and other institutions from settling disputes in the future, since any compromise could later be interpreted as evidence of guilt in separate proceedings.

The High Court also addressed the Family Federation’s argument that many plaintiffs in these cases were former members who had undergone deprogramming. The religious organization maintained that “anti-cult” lawyers and hostile Christian activists had encouraged parents to abduct and confine believers in attempts to force them to renounce their faith. According to the Family Federation, some of these former members later became plaintiffs in lawsuits and settlements after developing deep hostility toward the organization.

Dr. Introvigne notes that there are documented cases in which former believers allegedly faced pressure to sue the faith organization after coercive faith-breaking [See editor’s note 1 below] experiences. Entire books and studies, he explains, have examined the relationship between faith-breaking (deprogramming), apostates [See editor’s note 2 below], and “anti-cult” litigation.

The High Court rejected the Family Federation’s objections, arguing that if the plaintiffs’ claims truly lacked credibility, the religious organization would not have agreed to settlements. For the court, the very existence of settlements suggested that some wrongdoing must have occurred.

The article sharply criticizes this reasoning. Dr. Introvigne contends that settlements cannot reasonably be interpreted as confessions of guilt, especially in an environment where the Federation believed it faced widespread public hostility and judicial prejudice. In such circumstances, he argues, the organization may have considered settlement the only practical option regardless of whether allegations were accurate.

Ultimately, the article presents the High Court decision as evidence of a troubling shift in Japanese legal standards concerning religion. The Family Federation was dissolved despite the absence of criminal convictions against the religious corporation itself. Longstanding interpretations of the law were set aside, and civil judgments together with settlements were treated as sufficient proof of misconduct.

For Dr. Introvigne, this development raises broader questions extending far beyond one persecuted religious movement. The case touches on the limits of state power, the protection of minority religions, and the danger that unpopular faiths may become vulnerable to political pressure and shifting public opinion. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Family Federation’s theology or past practices, the article argues that the precedent established by the Tokyo High Court deserves careful scrutiny from anyone concerned with religious liberty and due process.

The debate therefore is not simply about donations or “spiritual sales” – a term coined by hostile activist lawyers. It concerns the standards by which democratic societies determine when a religious organization has crossed the line from protected religious activity into legally punishable misconduct. In the view presented by Dr. Introvigne, the Tokyo High Court’s decision risks lowering that threshold in ways that may eventually affect many religious communities beyond the Family Federation itself.

See part 1 of the opinion piece: Civil Lawsuits as Weapons Against Religion

See also Flawed Reasoning of a Politician Backing Torts

See also Beyond Dissolution: A Religious Purge in Japan?

See also Next Target After Dissolution: Believers’ Rights

See also How to Remain Free in an Age of Inquisition

Text: Knut Holdhus, editor

Featured image above: Dr. Massimo Introvigne, an Italian scholar specializing in the sociology of religion. He founded and serves as managing director of the Center for Studies on New Religions, an international network of academics focused on the study of new religious movements. He has authored around 70 books and over 100 scholarly articles in this field. Here, speaking in Geneva, Switzerland 16th June 2025. Screenshot from video by UPF. Image resolution improved by Grok xAI.

[Editor’s note 1: Coercive faith-breaking (“deprogramming”) in Japan refers to the practice of coercively attempting to separate individuals from their religious affiliations or beliefs, typically through intervention by family members, professional faith-breakers (deprogrammers) or organizations hostile to new religious movements (NRMs). This phenomenon often targets members of such movements, e.g. relatively large faiths like the Family Federation or Jehovah’s Witnesses, but also smaller groups like Happy Science (Kōfuku no Kagaku) and other newer religious movements.

However, also Soka Gakkai, a Buddhist-based lay organization with more than 8 million Japanese members, and affiliated with Nichiren Buddhism, has occasionally been subject to faith-breaking attempts.

The practice gained attention in the latter half of the 20th century, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s. Parents or concerned family members often hired faith-breakers who taught them how to abduct and forcibly detain believers. Almost all such cases involved confining the individual believer and cutting him or her off from the religious community. During the confinement, the believer was subjected to intense questioning or indoctrination designed to break his or her faith. The aim was to “rescue” the person from what the family often had been tricked by faith-breakers or lawyers to regard as harmful influence from the religious organization.

Critics of forced de-conversion argue that it violates fundamental human rights, including freedom of thought, religion, and association. Reports of psychological trauma and accusations of unlawful detention have sparked debates over its ethical and legal implications. In response, some religious groups, particularly NRMs, have lobbied for greater protections against such practices.

Japanese courts have been inconsistent in addressing cases of coercive faith-breaking. While some verdicts have condemned the practice as illegal detention, others have been more lenient, citing family concerns about “mental health” or alleged “exploitation” as mitigating factors.]

[Editor’s note 2: Apostates here refer not just to someone who have left the religion, but who are now being used to undermine the group. Apostates in Japan are often being used by hostile and cynical lawyers for malicious reasons to cause harm to the faith they were forced out of, when they had their faith broken coercively by so-called faith-breakers (deprogrammers), working in league with activist lawyers.]

Related to settlements used as evidence: Lawfare: State Uses Legal System in War on Faith

More, related to settlements used as evidence: Scholar Questions Secrecy in Dissolution Case

And more, related to settlements used as evidence: Shocked Author: “Japan Ignores Basics of Justice”

Still more, related to settlements used as evidence: Legal Inconsistencies A Blow to Democracy

Even more, related to settlements used as evidence: Japan: Court Accused of Using Speculation

Also related to settlements used as evidence: MEXT’s Legal Spin and “Dissolution at All Costs”

Also related to settlements used as evidence: UN Report: Japan’s Lawfare Against Faith Minority

And also related to settlements used as evidence: Protesting No Transparency in Closed-Door Trial

More, related to settlements used as evidence: Dangerous Flaws in Dissolution Order Decried

Also related to settlements used as evidence: “Lawyers Lying and Shaming Japan” for 50 Years

And also related to settlements used as evidence: Japan Following the Way of China

And also related to settlements used as evidence: Japan’s Dissolution Case Echoes China’s Playbook

More, related to settlements used as evidence: Media/Legal Expert: Communism Behind Persecution

And more, related to settlements used as evidence: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

More, related to settlements used as evidence: Collusion to Rob Minority of Its Rights

And more, related to settlements used as evidence: State and Media Creating “Today’s Non-Citizens”

Still more, related to settlements used as evidence: Japan Copying China: State Seizure of Churches

And still more, related to settlements used as evidence: 12 Religious Freedom NGOs Denouncing Japan

More, related to settlements used as evidence: 4300 Abductions and Forcible Detentions

And more, related to settlements used as evidence: Japan: Families Fear for Graves of Loved Ones

Yet more, related to settlements used as evidence: Lawyers Manipulating, Coercing, Lying

Also related to settlements used as evidence: Kishida Follows Anti-Family Federation Minister

Also related to settlements used as evidence: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

Still more, related to settlements used as evidence: Malicious One-Sided Government Source Selection

And still more, related to settlements used as evidence: Japan Urged to Make U-Turn

And yet more, related to settlements used as evidence: Dangerous Precedent to Crush Religions

Even more, related to settlements used as evidence: Japan Following the Way of China

Yet more, related to settlements used as evidence: Japanese Communists’ Final War

Still more, related to settlements used as evidence: Political and Social Activism behind Oppression

Still more, related to settlements used as evidence: Dissolution Case: Rule of Law on Trial 4th March