Japan: Legal Issues in the Unification Church’s Dissolution Verdict. 3. Relying on Civil Cases

Civil cases do not require the same strict standards of fact-finding of criminal cases. They should not be used as grounds for dissolution.

By Nobuya Fukumoto

April 16, 2025

Article 3 of 4. Read article 1 and article 2.

The Tokyo Court Complex Building, hosting the Tokyo District Court. Credits.

The Tokyo District Court held that tortious acts committed prior to 2009, when the Family Federation issued its “Compliance Declaration,” could be recognized on the basis of civil court judgments in which the Family Federation was found liable, as well as judicial and non-judicial settlements. However, drawing reasonable inferences of tortious conduct from settlement cases is highly irregular. Furthermore, there are significant problems with relying on civil judgments as grounds for the dissolution order, but these objections were all dismissed.

In general, civil cases do not require the strict standard of fact-finding that is applied in criminal cases. In criminal proceedings, the principle of “in dubio pro reo” (when in doubt, for the accused) applies, and a conviction requires proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In contrast, in civil proceedings, the recognition of a tort is based on the preponderance of the evidence—that is, a lesser standard requiring only that the evidence be more convincing than not. 

However, considering that even the imposition of a criminal fine—a penalty imposed on a corporation—is subject to the strict procedural safeguards of criminal law, it follows that the far more serious disadvantage of dissolution should, a fortiori, be subject to a similarly strict standard of proof. Therefore, past civil judgments, which were based on the lower evidentiary standard of civil procedure, should not be used as evidence in determining grounds for dissolution.

Particularly in cases where the Family Federation was the defendant, the courts, seemingly with an eye toward providing relief to so-called “victims,” tended to accept the testimonies of these “victims” while rejecting the testimony of witnesses presented by the Family Federation. As a result, even attorneys affiliated with the anti-cult National Network of Lawyers Against Spiritual Sales (NNLSS) stated that there exists an unwritten rule in Japanese courts: “If you are a cult, you lose.” 

Left-wing lawyer Hiroshi Yamaguchi, one of the founders of the National Network of Lawyers Against Spiritual Sales. Screenshot.

In Western academia, it is a well-established view that the testimony of so-called “apostates” lacks credibility. However, Japanese courts, unaware of this academic consensus, gave undue weight to the testimony of the “victims.” Therefore, civil judgments resulting from such biased and unfair evaluations should not be admitted as evidence for determining grounds for dissolution.

The court in the present decision claims that the fact-finding was fair because cross-examination was conducted. However, a defining characteristic of “apostates” is their tendency to withhold the truth even under cross-examination. Thus, cross-examination does not in any way guarantee the veracity of their testimony.

A majority of the plaintiffs in the 32 civil judgments submitted as evidence by MEXT were victims of deprogramming. Individuals who have been confined are often compelled to testify in ways that align with the intentions of those who confined them. Judgments in which such individuals served as plaintiffs should not be admitted as evidence. 

Furthermore, it is precisely because there are politically motivated opponents of the Family Federation that such problems arise. Without the anti-cult activism of these opponents, it is highly unlikely that so many “victims” would have come forward in the first place.

Among the judgments submitted by MEXT are cases such as the “Return My Youth” lawsuits in Okayama and Kobe, in which the Family Federation prevailed at the trial court level but was defeated on appeal. The fact that the Family Federation won at first instance indicates that even judges (at the district court level) did not recognize the acts as unlawful. An act over which even judges are divided in opinion should not be used as ground for dissolution.

The old and the new MEXT buildings in Tokyo. Credits.

The judgments submitted by MEXT are based on varying standards of illegality depending on the case. Overall, the standards appear to have been set with the aim of preventing the Family Federation from winning outright. Accordingly, civil judgments resulting from such tailored standards should not be relied upon as grounds for dissolution.

In recognizing the illegality of actions by Family Federation believers, the courts have relied on violations of social norms, such as “deviation from social acceptability.” However, as mentioned earlier in this series, under Article 18(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, restrictions on freedom of religious expression based on social norms are impermissible. As such, all past civil judgments that relied on such reasoning constitute violations of international law and should not be used as grounds for dissolution.

Source: bitterwinter.org