Japan: Unification Church’s President Tanaka Speaks. 1. The Dissolution Verdict

The June 2025 issue of the magazine “Seiron” allows the church leader to present his version of the facts. “Bitter Winter” publishes an English translation of extensive excerpts from the interview.

By Fumihiro Kato

May 27, 2025

Article 1 of 2

President Tanaka at a press conference following the dissolution verdict. Screenshot.

On March 25, 2025, the Tokyo District Court issued a ruling ordering the dissolution of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (formerly the Unification Church) under the Religious Corporations Act. I asked the organization’s president, Tomihiro Tanaka, for his thoughts on the court ruling, the organization’s current state, and the public distrust surrounding it.

Q.: What are your thoughts on the court’s ruling, President Tanaka?

Tanaka: I was genuinely shocked by the dissolution order. I must say that none of our claims were considered at all. Before the district court’s ruling, we were fined for not responding to government inquiries, and we lost on this “non-penal fine” even at the Supreme Court. However, that case was about fines, whereas this one involves dissolving our legal entity, which I view as an entirely different matter.

When I read the decision document, I was appalled. Instead of specifying what was wrong with our organization to justify its dissolution, the decision relied on an assumption: that because the organization hasn’t changed, it will likely commit the same wrongdoings again. This formed the basis for the ruling.

Imposing a “death sentence” on our legal status based on such reasoning reflects a fervent desire to dismantle the organization. This constitutes a politically motivated trial. I also believe that the verdict was influenced by the Supreme Court’s hostile position, which was evident during the “non-penal fine” case.

There was also no consideration of non-retroactivity. In other words, and I will elaborate on this later, they are applying rules retroactively to past events and using those new rules to judge us. It feels as though people who had already completed their judicial proceedings and returned to everyday life were suddenly told, “Your previous judgment was too lenient,” and given the death penalty all over again.

Q.: Then-Prime Minister Fumio Kishida initiated the dissolution procedure…

Tanaka: The issue with Kishida began on August 31, 2022, when he announced the “severing of ties” with our organization. On that day, he held a press conference at the Prime Minister’s Office, speaking as the president of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and urging its members to avoid associations with “organizations that are pointed out as problematic by society.”

There is a difference between “organizations pointed out as problematic by society” and “organizations that are problematic.” Despite calling for severing ties, Kishida never explained what made us problematic or why we could be labeled a socially problematic organization; he didn’t say a single word in his statement.

He said, “Because someone is saying there is a problem, cut ties with them.”

Former Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. Credits.

Then, on October 14, 2022, the Cabinet approved a written government response stating that, since no criminal penalties had been imposed on our executives, our group did not meet the requirements for dissolution under the Religious Corporations Act. Therefore, no dissolution order had been requested. Based on the existing legal interpretation, it was evident that dissolving us was impossible—and the government officially acknowledged that fact.

However, following that, legal interpretations began to deviate and became distorted. On October 17, Kishida unexpectedly announced his intent to exercise the “right to ask questions,” a measure typically utilized when there is already a rationale for considering dissolution. Since the Cabinet had just acknowledged on October 14 that there was no basis for dissolution, exercising this right seemed illogical. Kishida’s statement contradicted the Cabinet’s decision.

Kishida likely did not understand the law and made a hasty statement. It also seemed that he didn’t fully grasp that the right to question is not intended for fishing around to uncover crimes. This became evident in his later remarks. The right to ask questions should be exercised only when there is already a confirmed illegal activity that could justify dissolution, and solely to investigate those facts further. You cannot assert there’s no reason for dissolution on the one hand while exercising the questioning right on the other.

The next day, October 18, during a session of the House Budget Committee, Kishida answered questions from Akira Nagatsuma of the Constitutional Democratic Party (CDP). Nagatsuma highlighted that under the current legal interpretation, dissolution was impossible and argued that civil torts recognized in civil court judgments should be included as grounds for dissolution. His point was, “You can’t dissolve them unless you change the rules.”

But Kishida replied that civil torts would not be included, emphasizing the importance of due process and rejecting the proposal. In response, Nagatsuma criticized the government’s stance, saying it was “unbelievable.”

Then the next day, in the House of Councillors Budget Committee, Kishida completely reversed himself, stating that civil torts could be grounds for dissolution.

MP Hiroyuki Konishi, who questioned Kishida, expressed disbelief, saying, “This is the very definition of inconsistency.”

MP Hiroyuki Konishi. Credits.

From this entire sequence, we can infer that, unable to dissolve us under the existing rules, they were forced to change them and then apply them retroactively to advance the dissolution process. This is a grave error. It is an unacceptable breach of procedure, and allowing such outrageous actions would undermine the rule of law.

At the very least, if the government was going to overturn a Cabinet decision, it should have convened a Cabinet meeting and passed a resolution. But that did not happen. For starters, I doubt there is any precedent in developed nations for using civil torts in civil court as grounds to dissolve a religious corporation.

The words of a nation’s Prime Minister carry significant weight. Bureaucrats have no choice but to comply. What followed was an acceleration of events that brought us to where we are now—this is nothing short of a historic incident. The international community will also take it seriously. We cannot accept this situation at all. We will promptly appeal and fight this thoroughly.

Q.: It is reported that the court recognized 1,559 victims of donation-related harm, for 20,448 billion yen.

Tanaka: However, these were not newly recognized damages, nor were new compensation payments imposed. These cases involved payments that had already been made following the resolution of disputes between private individuals. The government revisited these past cases and compiled the figures, claiming, “There were so many, and they were so terrible, that it warrants dissolution.”

One of the key issues in the court ruling was whether our group displayed “continuity” in its alleged wrongdoings, which was one of the criteria Prime Minister Kishida cited when calling for dissolution, along with organizational nature and maliciousness. Since 2009, we have promoted organizational reform under our “Compliance Declaration.” As a result, there have been only four civil lawsuits over donations since 2009, with none filed since 2016.

We vigorously challenged the government’s use of older civil cases from before 2009. Struggling to demonstrate continuity, the government submitted written statements from 157 individuals involved in 22 lawsuits. To argue that continuity existed, the government also included settled cases, informal agreements, and notices. 

We highlighted that some of these written statements contained fabrications.

Yet the court recognized not only lawsuits and settlements but even informal notices as evidence of illegal conduct. Their reasoning was, “It is presumed that illegal acts occurred.” No mention was made of the alleged fabrications in the written statements. Although the court acknowledged the decrease in lawsuits, it ruled that this had no bearing on the continuity issue. They claimed that our Compliance Declaration lacked demonstrable effectiveness and described it as a mere stopgap measure—saying we had not changed in essence, only feigned reform.

They determined facts based on speculation rather than evidence. We intend to contest this injustice vigorously.

Source: bitterwinter.org