Unification Church Case in Japan: Anti-Cultist Eight Suzuki Saved by Technicalities

The court was aware he had no evidence when he claimed that Shinzo Abe was clandestinely paid 50 million yen for a video. Yet, it managed to declare him not guilty of defamation.

By Massimo Introvigne

May 20, 2025

Eight Suzuki. From X.

Award-winning Japanese journalist Masumi Fukuda reported in 2023 an authoritative opinion that in Japan “in civil lawsuits, there is a kind of unwritten rule, that ‘If you are a cult, you lose,’” and “claims that would not be accepted in other cases would be easily accepted if the opponent is a religion labeled a ‘cult.’” These words are not by Masumi Fukuda. She quoted attorney Yoshiro Ito, who was a member of the anti-cult National Network of Lawyers Against Spiritual Sales.

In the current Japanese climate, the unwritten rule has almost become a written one when it comes to the Unification Church (now called the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, but still often referred to with the old name) and its connected organizations.

On May 14, 2025, the Tokyo District Court (the same court that pronounced the dissolution of the Unification Church on March 25 in the first degree) rendered a verdict on a matter that looked simple. Anti-cult journalist Eight Suzuki, a vitriolic opponent of the church, had repeatedly stated that former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, assassinated in 2022, was paid fifty million yen (roughly US$ 343,000) for sending a video message to an event of the Universal Peace Federation (UPF), an NGO connected with the Unification Church. Since Abe did not report the payment in his tax returns, the implication was that the politician and the UPF were accomplices in a tax evasion scheme, also violating Japan’s Political Funds Control Act.

Suzuki had no evidence that this was the case. He knew President Donald Trump reported the money he received from UPF for similar video messages to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics. He deduced that Abe should have been paid half of what Trump received. By the way, the fact that Trump duly reported the payments as part of his income means there was nothing illegal or clandestine about them.

Suzuki’s deduction is not evidence. There are many possible reasons why Abe could have sent a video to the UPF, including ideological sympathy and gratitude for the support his factions of the Liberal Democratic Party received in the elections, without money necessarily changing hands. In short, Suzuki made an allegation he could not prove. He added insult to injury by claiming that the money allegedly paid to Abe came from the “victims” of the Unification Church. Of course, he had no evidence of this either.

Suzuki’s first defense in the case was that the plaintiff, UPF Japan, had no legal capacity “due to irregularities in its general meetings and financial reporting timelines.” This objection was dismissed, and the court recognized UPF Japan as an unincorporated association with sufficient structure to be considered a juridical entity under Article 29 of the Japanese Code of Civil Procedure.

The court defined UPF Japan as “the Japanese branch of the international NGO UPF.” However, contradictorily, it found that Suzuki’s statements, while not supported by evidence, did not defame UPF Japan as they were referred to either the Unification Church or UPF (international), which were not plaintiffs in the case.

Poster for one of Suzuki’s anticult lectures. “No to the Unification Church’s advance into Tama City! Eight Suzuki talks about 22 years of struggle against the Unification Church.”

The court acknowledged that there are social media posts, an article, and a portion of a book he authored in which Suzuki claimed that UPF Japan arranged Abe’s video presentation. To ignore this evidence, the court had to state that the different statements by Suzuki could not be considered together, but should be separated and examined individually. The statements mentioning the alleged payment of 50 million yen were made separately from those connecting the video message to the UPF Japan. The court concluded that Suzuki did not accuse UPF Japan of paying Abe clandestinely. He accused the Unification Church or the international UPF, but these are different entities from UPF Japan.

A second argument the court used is that Suzuki did not clearly say that the supposed payment amounted to tax evasion, bribery, or violation of the Political Funds Control Act. Thus, the court said, the statements were not necessarily defamatory.

The decision is an egregious example of the principle “if you are (connected to) the Unification Church, you lose” in Japanese courts, no matter what. The court did not state that Suzuki could prove its claims. He could not. The court argued that the journalist did not clearly say that the (imaginary) payment to Abe was illegal, and even if he said so, he was defaming the Unification Church or UPF as an international entity rather than UPF Japan.

The court weaved a web of technicalities to get Suzuki off the hook. Even so, it would not have succeeded had it logically considered Suzuki’s different statements as a whole, since some clearly mentioned UPF Japan and even named his legal representative at the time of the unproven payment. Only by artificially separating Suzuki’s statements from one another could the court conclude that he had not defamed UPF Japan.

Tokyo District Court. Credits.

Once the dust of technicalities settles, the facts are plain. Suzuki wanted to slander UPF Japan, in addition to the Unification Church and the international UPF. In all his publications, he made no distinction between these various entities. For him, these are all parts of an evil “cult” preying on innocent “victims.”

While opinions are protected by freedom of expression, specific claims of illegal acts not supported by evidence amount to defamation. Suzuki stated that “UPF” and “the Unification Church” had paid 50 million yen to Abe. The general context of his statements and writings indicates that he identified UPF Japan as the entity that arranged for Abe’s video to be shot. Since the payment was unrecorded, it might only have been clandestine and illegal. Suzuki thus accused UPF Japan of a crime it did not commit.

A “normal” court of law would have sanctioned Suzuki for defamation. However, by acting “normally,” a Japanese court would have violated the unwritten, and now perhaps written, rule that “if you are connected with the Unification Church, you lose.” It is not about the law.

It is about politics and a campaign to destroy the Unification Church and its connected organizations in Japan.

Source: bitterwinter.org