Prepared by Knut Holdhus

The decision by the Tokyo District Court dated 25th March 2025 (Presiding Judge Kenya Suzuki, hereinafter referred to as “the district court decision”) based its dissolution order not only on final judgments in civil lawsuits involving our organization, but also relied on:

  1. Settlements made during litigation, and
  2. Out-of-court settlements, in order to speculate on our organization’s alleged misconduct and to significantly inflate the amount of damages. This served to overemphasize the maliciousness of the organization’s conduct.

This inflation of alleged damages from wrongdoings is particularly pronounced for the period after our Compliance Declaration [See editor’s note below], since 2010. That is, only two civil court rulings concerning donations have been issued since that year. Nevertheless, the district court decision also cited:

  • Eight litigation settlements involving nine individuals (including those that involve donations made since 2010), and
  • Out-of-court settlements involving 167 individuals (also including donations since 2010), in order to argue that “even since 2010, a considerable scale of harm that cannot be overlooked has occurred.”

However, this determination was made without carefully examining – or perhaps without reading at all – the evidence submitted by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). By lumping together settlements and out-of-court agreements, the court one-sidedly inferred that unlawful acts have been committed by our organization.

In the appeal proceedings, we address in detail the content of each settlement case since the Compliance Declaration [See editor’s note below]. We provide evidence and detail the specific facts and circumstances under which each settlement was reached, thereby thoroughly refuting the district court’s speculative conclusions. For example, among the litigation settlements were:

  • Cases in which the court ruled entirely in our favor after it was proven that the plaintiffs had fabricated evidence, and
  • Cases where no allegations of unlawful conduct were made at all.

Even among the out-of-court settlements, there are cases where false evidence was fabricated by the complainants, their attorneys, or the Ministry of Education (MEXT). These issues would have been readily apparent had the presiding judges actually read the submitted arguments and evidence from both our organization and the Ministry in the first trial. Instead, the district court judges made an extremely careless decision by ignoring the actual content and focusing solely on surface-level figures – such as the claimed damages.

Furthermore, our rebuttal makes it even more evident that the “unrealized damages” assumed in the district court decision are mere speculation without basis.

Attached to this press release is a document that outlines specific rebuttals (case-by-case analyses) related to the settlements and reconciliations. We encourage you to review it.

Summary of Individual Settlement Cases (only in Japanese)

Featured image above: Judge reading court documents behind closed doors. Illustration: Grok xAI, May 2025.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *