Paradoxically, the dissolution was pronounced after the methods for soliciting donations that the court had objected to had almost disappeared.
by Patricia Duval
Article 4 of 5. Read article 1, article 2, and article 3.
Following the criminal conviction of four individual members in 2007 and 2008, the Church gave specific guidance to its members, which has been ambiguously named “Declaration.”
The Tokyo District Court, in its decision of March 25, 2025, ordering the dissolution of the Unification Church, described this guidance as follows: “In the midst of the above-mentioned criminal cases, the Interested Party issued a compliance declaration in 2009, and in addition to the factors that had repeatedly been pointed out in the civil judgments made up to that point when determining the success or failure of the tort, it issued an official statement requesting Church leaders to supervise and guide believers in their compliance with laws and regulations, while also referring to the specific commercial transaction law violations (intimidation and harassment) that had been an issue in the above-mentioned criminal cases. In addition, the interested parties have continued to issue public notices and other documents that are an extension of the declaration and are intended to expand on it.”
So, the 2009 Declaration of Compliance was rather a series of instructions given by the Church than a single document. The court recognized that the Church actually implemented a whole policy “to expand on” the Declaration and ensure compliance with laws and regulations.
The court thereby admitted two things:
– that there had been instructions spread largely by the Church to its entire staff to control its believers in their private activities regarding compliance with commercial legislation; and
– that the Church also gave specific guidance to its staff regarding the solicitation of religious donations, so it could not be accused of infringement of the free will of donors, as had happened in the tort cases it had lost.
This last point included full information about the donors and the signing of the needed documents to protect the Church. Obviously the correction department of the Church did an effective job as the court found for fact: “Of the 169 plaintiffs in the 32 civil judgments, only 3 plaintiffs (Judgment No. 31, Victim No. 166; Judgment No. 32, Victim Nos. 168 and 169) were judged to have been damaged by the payment of donations, etc. in 2010 and later, the year following the Compliance Declaration, and to have been subject to tort. In addition, for the three plaintiffs in the above two cases, the total amount of the donations, etc. that were recognized as having been made in 2010 or later out of the total amount granted was 17,611,600 yen, and the latest payment, etc. of donations, etc. based on the act of soliciting donations, etc. that was found to be illegal in the judgment, was made in 2014.”
This also corresponds to the cessation of the deprogramming occurrences. But the court ignored this factor and linked this fact to the 2009 Declaration of Compliance only.
Additionally, the court found: “A similar downward trend is also seen in the number of settlements which are based on the filing of lawsuits.” With regard to out-of-court settlements, i.e. the number of people who made claims for damages by letter regarding the payment of donations, the court stated that: “the number has continued to decline, and since 2019, it has been in the single digits (7 people in 2019 and 2020, 2021 and 2022 were 3 each).” This may seem extraordinary considering the persistent hostile media coverage and constant incitement by the National Network of Lawyers Against Spiritual Sales to file claims.
All the above figures should have been enough to conclude that the Compliance Declaration had been respected. However, in order to mitigate the value of its findings, the court stated that those facts alone were not sufficient and that the Church had not taken “fundamental measures” to prevent any recurrence of tortious acts. It namely blamed the Church for lack of thorough investigation upon receipt of notices for donation-related incidents and lack of expulsion of the soliciting members involved. This criticism is particularly irrelevant in consideration of the results provided in the court’s figures above.
Any occurrence of incident linked to donations was obviously dealt with appropriately and successfully. No expulsion was ordered since, one can infer, there were no recurrences with the same members involved. Instead of recognizing the goodwill of the Church, the court found that the tortious acts committed were of a malicious nature and concluded that “there is a high probability that the same type and same kind of tortious acts as those recognized in the relevant civil judgments” would recur.
As stated before in this series, the court ignored the fact that the solicitation of donations was done in good faith by members who were believers themselves. MEXT filed information on the use of donations from which it is obvious that they were used for maintaining the Church’s institutions, for educational and missionary work worldwide, and humanitarian aid. No money went for personal enrichment, and no money went to Reverend Moon.
The court could not ignore those facts, which were included in the dissolution request, but chose instead to follow a number of biased rulings of tort based on an alleged infringement of free will and undue influence, and decided that there was a malicious intent behind these acts and that would make the damage likely to recur. The court cannot, on the one hand, recognize that the members have a strong faith because they are under undue influence and at the same time find that they have a malicious intent when soliciting donations for their Church.
The court should logically have found that the defendants had acted in good faith. In total contradiction, the court assumed a malicious intent, as the civil courts had ruled in their biased decisions of tort based on “social norms.” In the same way, unable to prove any current damage with the figures given above, the court entered then into a nebulous explanation as to why there would be a hidden damage that has not yet come to light.
The court stated: “It should be said that there is no denying that there are other unexposed damages caused by illegal solicitation of donations, etc., other than those asserted in the above civil judgments, settlements after a lawsuit, and out-of-court settlements.”
By using the argument that “there is no denying,” the court reverses the burden of proof and suggests that the defendant does not deny that there is a possibility of “other unexposed damages.” It is up to the claimant to prove its case.
The court goes further in its assumptions: “the fact [is] that it is difficult to assume that all those who have suffered damage due to illegal solicitation of donations will seek a solution by consulting a lawyer, etc., due to psychological barriers such as interpersonal relationships with surrounding believers, etc.”
And taking into account all those “victims” who have not formulated claims, the court inferred that “although the damage has been on a downward trend, it is still at a scale that cannot be overlooked.” This is actually preconception and pure speculation, which violates all the rules of due process of law and the right to a fair trial.
This understanding is permeated by the concept of mind control that has been found to be unscientific and to have no legal value by western courts of law.
Based on this theory, the thirty-two civil courts, in the judgments that the dissolution order relies on, found an infringement of the free will of donors and ruled the Church liable for tort.
In spite of all the evidence provided by the Church of the strong faith of the believers at the time of their donations, the courts asserted that the donors did not have their free will, as they were under undue influence. The courts granted refund and damages.
Similarly, although the facts involved were very old (between twenty to forty years before), they denied the plea by the defense that they were time-barred (over three years old). The judges refused to apply the statute of limitations in force for civil suits, finding that the “victims” were not aware of being victims until they met with the anti-Unification Church National Network of Lawyers Against Spiritual Sales.
They ruled that the donors were under the undue influence of the Church and made the statute of limitations apply from the day they met these lawyers and were “awakened” by them to file claims. This is an obviously biased and discriminatory application of the law.
These accusations of undue influence against the Church underlie also the new law enacted on December 30, 2023 on the relief of victims. This law organizes help for the victims of a religious corporation under dissolution to file for damages, and surveillance of its assets. It has been designed for the Unification Church as it was the only denomination subjected to dissolution at the date.
For the application of the law, the authorities provided some Guidelines and gave a tailor-made definition of “victim.” Victim has been defined as meaning a person who has or may have a legal right to claim damages. Victims are not limited to victims recognized by the authority when requesting a specific dissolution order, but also victims of the same type of act that was not known at the time of the request.
They also include persons “whose intention to file a compensation request is not yet clear.” This means potential victims who would come forward later, when they are made aware that they are victims. This is done through manipulation of public opinion, in particular through the lobbying done by those “lawyers against spiritual sales” who have been funded by the government to file financial claims. Under the same reasoning, we now have a court of law include potential victims to establish the damage in a decision to dissolve the religious corporation.
Japan has a duty of neutrality in religious matters, under the right to freedom of religion or belief, which it has pledged to the international community to respect. It is actually doing the opposite.
Patricia Duval is an attorney and a member of the Paris Bar. She has a Master in Public Law from La Sorbonne University, and specializes in international human rights law. She has defended the rights of minorities of religion or belief in domestic and international fora, and before international institutions such as the European Court of Human Rights, the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the European Union, and the United Nations. She has also published numerous scholarly articles on freedom of religion or belief.
