The court failed to prove that dissolving the church was “necessary in a democratic society.”
by Patricia Duval
Article 5 of 7. Read article 1, article 2, article 3, and article 4.
The question that now arises is this: even if Japan cites the protection of public order or the fundamental rights of others as legitimate objectives, was the dissolution order necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the aim pursued?
Was the dissolution necessary in a democratic society?
The High Court ordered the dissolution of the religious association because the improper solicitation of donations by members of the Church had caused “serious harm” to the public welfare.
To determine whether this measure was necessary, it is necessary to outline the reasoning followed by the High Court in reaching this conclusion.
From its Fact Findings, the Court held the following.
The Church religious association was registered in 1964 and included a headquarters organization and local organizations. As of December 2022, there were sixty-seven dioceses and 285 churches throughout Japan.
Revenue and budget
More than 97% of the Church’s revenue consisted of donations from believers.
The Church budget was determined yearly based on:
- a draft budget prepared by each division (the bureaus at headquarters, each district headquarters, each diocese headquarters, and each church) based on the previous year’s results,
- a proposed headquarters expenditure plan based on the business plans of the various headquarters bureaus and the overseas missionary support plan,
- the headquarters budgeting bureau, after adjusting the projected amount of headquarters donations to be remitted by churches and the proposed expenditure plan, prepared the draft budget for the Church as a whole which the Board then approved.
The budget consequently included numerical targets for donations to be raised to cover the needs of the upcoming fiscal year.
There is nothing unusual or out of the ordinary about the budgeting done by staff members and the amounts of foreseen donations nationwide.
Yet the Court deemed these figures exceptionally high compared to what is considered socially acceptable, while at the same time finding that the donations supported the operation of 285 churches in 2022, the employment of 1,933 staff members as of 2024, and the lives of 2,441 dependent family members.
The Court concluded, based solely on the setting of specific numerical targets, that these donations could not have been obtained—and could not be obtained in the future—other than through means that deviate from what is “socially acceptable.”
Assessment of the religious doctrine and tenets
The Court then conducted a six-page assessment of the Church’s religious doctrine and tenets, as well as those of its founder, Reverend Sun Myung Moon.
The Court examined religious beliefs and doctrine to demonstrate that Reverend Moon and Church leaders systematically solicited donations and sought to extract every last penny from their Japanese followers, while acknowledging that these funds were used to finance missionary activities and humanitarian projects, which are common and protected practices for all religions.
This biased assessment, which is unacceptable in light of the State’s duty of neutrality, is based on alleged quotes taken out of context, from which the Court concluded that the Church’s sole objective was to encourage the faithful to make donations—even at the cost of personal sacrifice—and to raise funds.
Past allegations regarding “spiritual sales”
The Court examined the “spiritual sales” conducted by believers outside of church activities.
Although the Court did not rely on these activities to conclude that the Church had violated laws and regulations—since they did not involve any Church representatives or staff members—it appears the Court cited them solely to cast the case in an unfavorable light.
The Court examined a private company, Happy World, established in the 1970s by members of the Unification Church, whose principal business consisted of door-to-door sales of Korean ginseng tea and the import and sale of Korean marble urns.
Two salesmen were accused of putting undue pressure on customers to close sales and were sentenced in 1984 to suspended prison terms. The company ceased operations in 1987.
The Court also referred to 3 summary orders issued from 2007 to 2009 imposing fines for violations of the Specified Commercial Transactions Act, namely for door-to-door selling.
On November 10, 2009, a court sentenced the company, Shinsei Ltd., to a fine and three believers to suspended prison terms and fines.
These facts did not involve Church leaders or their staff and were not taken into account by the Court in determining the existence of “violations of laws and regulations.”
They concerned commercial enterprises that ceased to exist several decades ago and cannot be linked to the nonprofit religious association’s dissolution in 2026.
The 26 civil courts’ judgments
To establish the harm caused to the public welfare, the Court instead relied on 26 final civil judgments rendered in cases involving events that occurred between 1979 and 2014, the vast majority of which were initiated by former members who had been subjected to forced “deprogramming” (deconversion)—the Final Judgments.
In the Final Judgments, the civil courts held the civil liability of the Church for the “improper solicitation of donations” done by its members in violation of “social appropriateness.”
This conduct was characterized as “Improper Donation Solicitation Conduct” and consisted of accusations of:
- Concealing the Church’s identity during introductory seminars attended by the public,
- Referring to “karma” to create anxiety and obtain religious donations from the public,
- Thereby infringing the donors’ free will and power of choice.
Apart from the lack of credibility of most of the claimants’ allegations, which were made under duress, the facts at issue in these 26 civil judgments date back to the period between 1979 and 2014 and cannot justify such a drastic measure as dissolution at this time, unless another necessity requires it.
In particular, they date back to before the Church’s 2009 “Declarations of Compliance,” in which the Church issued specific instructions to comply with applicable laws and regulations and to prevent such allegations.
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.
