In 2009, the church issued a “Compliance Declaration” that reduced the claims against it almost to zero at the time of the Abe assassination.
by Nobuya Fukumoto
Article 4 of 4. Read article 1, article 2, and article 3.
With respect to the period following the “Compliance Declaration” issued by the Family Federation in 2009, the Tokyo District Court acknowledged that both the number of lawsuits and the number of judicial and non-judicial settlements had decreased. Nevertheless, the court recognized the existence of torts even in settlement cases based on “reasonable inference.” Furthermore, in cases where neither judgments nor settlements existed, the court assumed that there were additional, unreported instances of tortious conduct. The following issues arise with respect to these findings.
Fact-finding in court must be based on evidence. However, rendering a judgment on a matter as serious as the dissolution of a religious corporation by relying on inference or assumption to determine the existence or nonexistence of facts constitutes a violation of the right to a fair trial.
According to a document issued by the Consumer Affairs Agency on September 30, 2022, titled “Status of Consumer Complaints Regarding the Former Unification Church,” the percentage of complaints related to the Family Federation among all consultations relating to so called “Spiritual Sales” from 2012 to 2021 was merely 0.0095%, and for the period from April to June 2022, the figure was only 0.0033%. This data indicates that there were virtually no complaints during those periods, and thus, there is no basis to assert that unreported or unrecognized tortious conduct existed outside of the lawsuits or settlements already known.
In contrast, following the shooting of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in July 2022, a wave of intense media criticism was directed at the Family Federation. Amid growing political pressure—including the Liberal Democratic Party’s announcement of severing ties with the Family Federation —complaints against the Family Federation arose nationwide. As a result, the National Lawyers Network for Victims of the Unification Church was formed, and beginning in February 2023, nine rounds of collective negotiations were initiated. These efforts led to demands for compensation from the Family Federation by 195 former members under the pretext of “victim redress.”
However, according to a table compiled by the said lawyers’ group listing the alleged time periods of harm for each notifier involved in the collective negotiations, not a single person had joined the organization after 2019. Furthermore, analysis of these collective negotiation cases shows that the vast majority involved individuals who had joined more than 20 years ago, with the oldest case dating back approximately 60 years. Despite widespread media incitement, the fact that almost no one has come forward to claim recent harm clearly demonstrates that there are no “unreported” or latent cases of tortious conduct occurring since 2009.
It also became clear that certain written statements prepared by MEXT had been fabricated—not only through newly submitted statements by the original authors and their family members, but also through the results of cross-examinations conducted last December on two of the authors. During these examinations, testimonies were given that contradicted the contents of the statements, including a testimony such as “the statement contains things I have no memory of.” These inconsistencies confirm that MEXT fabricated statements—an act that strongly suggests the MEXT itself had determined that no grounds for dissolution existed and resorted to falsification in an attempt to bolster the evidence.
The court, in its written decision, did not cite at all the written statements of former believers alleging harm—regardless of whether the statements contained fabricated facts—as evidence. On the other hand, as noted above, it recognized a tort and grounds for dissolution based on abstract inferences drawn from the mere fact of settlements. This constitutes an extremely unjust finding in the context of judicial proceedings.
| Problems with recognizing pre-Compliance Declaration torts based on civil judgments | Civil proceedings do not involve the strict fact-finding standards of criminal procedures. |
| Civil trials are unfair to the extent that even a former lawyer from the NNLSS testified that “if you are a cult, you lose.” | |
| Excessive reliance on the testimony of apostates. | |
| Disregard for the fact that the majority of plaintiffs were victims of deprogramming. | |
| Acts judged to be lawful by trial courts are nonetheless treated as grounds for dissolution. | |
| Standards for determining illegality differ from case to case. | |
| Past civil judgments that found illegality based on violations of social norms constitute violations of international law. | |
| The issue of recognizing post-Compliance Declaration torts based on speculation and inference | Despite acknowledging that the number of lawsuits has decreased, the court compensated for this by: ① Recognizing torts in both judicial and non-judicial settlements through “reasonable inference”; ② Arbitrarily assuming the existence of unreported cases. |
| The fact that MEXT fabricated written statements was completely ignored. |
In order for dissolution to be granted, it must be clearly recognized that the organization has caused serious harm to the public welfare. However, conclusions based on inference can by no means be regarded as constituting such a “clear” recognition.
The decision in this case states that, in light of the practical impediments to freedom of religion, a dissolution order may only be granted when it is necessary and unavoidable. However, in reality, there are no “unreported” or latent instances of tortious conduct, and thus there is no necessity or unavoidability justifying a dissolution order. Moreover, while a new law regulating donations—with penal provisions—was enacted in December 2022, the Family Federation has implemented new reforms in compliance with this law. Given this, it is inconceivable that the Family Federation could now accept problematic donations, and thus, the necessity or inevitability of a dissolution order cannot be recognized.
In the end, the court disregarded legal theory, ignored constitutional, international, and procedural law, dramatically expanded the standards for determining illegality, applied them retroactively, and recognized tortious acts through the astonishing method of speculation—thereby maximizing the appearance of harm. On this basis, it issued a dissolution order. It can therefore be said that this dissolution order was an unjust judgment, predetermined in conclusion and rendered pandering to the government and the public sentiment inflamed by the biased media.
It is self-evident how dangerous it is for a court to abandon the principles of the rule of law and legal governance in favor of temporary public opinion.
Among conservative commentators, criticism of the ruling has already begun. Some journalists have expressed their outrage on YouTube, calling the decision one that fulfills the wishes of the murderer who took the life of former Prime Minister Abe. The likelihood has now increased that copycat offenders, having learned from this dissolution decision, will emerge both domestically and internationally—targeting prominent individuals for terrorism in an attempt to promote their own political views.
Moreover, if the dissolution order is finalized, approximately 2,000 employees of the Family Federation will lose their jobs—impacting over 4,000 individuals including their dependents—many of whom will face great difficulty in finding new employment under current social conditions. Among these employees are many second-generation believers whose careers are rooted in their faith. Over 100,000 members of the Family Federation continue to face severe social discrimination and persecution due to slanderous, biased media coverage—and some have even been driven to take their own lives. If the dissolution order is upheld, discrimination and persecution against these believers will undoubtedly intensify, resulting in irreversible human rights violations. Yet, there is no indication that the court took any of these grave circumstances into account in rendering its decision.
One must ask: are the judges who issued the dissolution order—motivated by personal ambition and pandering to temporary public opinion—prepared to take responsibility for the heavy toll, human tragedy, and potential copycat terrorism that may arise from their decision?
