Japanese author alarmed by lack of fairness in court ruling to dissolve Family federation as he finds glaring departure from the fundamentals of judicial process – namely, identifying, proving, and recognizing facts
Tokyo, 24th March 2026 – Published as an article in the Japanese newspaper Sekai Nippo. Republished with permission. Translated from Japanese. Original article.
Tokyo High Court Deviates from the Fundamentals of Trial Procedure
Dissolution Order Against the Family Federation
by Fumihiro Kato (加藤文宏), author
prepared by Knut Holdhus
On 4th March, the Tokyo High Court issued an order to dissolve the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification as a religious corporation.
After reading the 179-page decision along with Appendices 1 through 5, I was left holding my head in disbelief. It is vast and overwhelming, yet like a mirage, it lacks substance. Moreover, numerous longstanding issues were left unresolved and simply abandoned.
Neglect in Establishing the Facts
The most representative and deeply rooted problem was the political situation four years ago, which moved forward with dissolution as a foregone conclusion.
Politicians, intimidated by the emotional climate of society, sought to eliminate the religious organization by including civil matters among the requirements for dissolution, while bureaucrats were pressured under dominant power dynamics.
However, no decisive civil case sufficient to force dissolution could be found. The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology even resorted to fabricating written statements – likely because it recognized that the objective could not be achieved without manufacturing wrongdoing.
Unable to correct course, the matter was handed over to the judiciary. Judges were then left with no choice but to treat donations not as religious acts, but as consumer issues on par with sales and contracts.
The High Court, compelled to prove that the solicitation of donations constituted systematic and continuous fraud, intervened in matters of doctrine – something inherently beyond judicial determination – and concluded that believers had been manipulated. As a result, all donations from the past became subject to scrutiny for malicious intent, and alleged damages accumulated.
The decision recognized approximately 7.4 billion yen [ca. 70 million US dollars in 2008] in donations made prior to the 2009 compliance declaration [See editor’s note below] as confirmed damages constituting torts. For donations made thereafter, about 18 million yen [ca. 115,000 USD in 2026] were deemed to constitute torts, about 23 million yen [ca. 147,000 USD in 2026] were considered “likely” to constitute torts, and about 915 million yen [ca. 5,856,000 USD in 2026] were classified as cases where the possibility of torts “cannot be denied”. These figures, however, are merely estimates based on the judges’ impressions.
Comparing the confirmed damages before the compliance declaration [See editor’s note below] with those after, it becomes evident that the religious organization reduced what is considered harm by roughly a factor of 400 through stricter discipline. Even so, the court concluded that there was no prospect of improvement in malicious conduct.
Furthermore, due to the use of abstract and complex classifications – such as “established”, “likely”, and “cannot be denied” – confusion arose. For example, four individuals included among cases definitively labeled as “damage” on page 63 of the decision are classified on page 124 as cases where the possibility “cannot be denied”.
Despite the court’s persistent focus on the alleged systematic malicious nature of donations, no actual evidence was presented showing that the funds collected were used for illegal or improper activities. Nevertheless, the organization was deemed a religious corporation that “clearly harms the public welfare”.
By departing from the fundamentals of judicial process – namely, identifying facts, proving facts, and recognizing facts – the High Court produced contradictions at every turn, ultimately straying not only from the Religious Corporations Act but also from the spirit of the Constitution.
As a result, believers have been barred from entering the churches they supported through their own donations and can no longer even pray together in their place of faith.
Since the High Court’s decision, criticism has erupted from political figures and experts overseas.
Some voices express concern that the ruling could end up justifying China’s policies of religious suppression used as a means of ethnic cleansing.
Indeed, while attempts in European countries to deny legal status to new religions or seek their dissolution have consistently been overturned by the European Court of Human Rights, the High Court’s decision runs counter to the broader trend in liberal societies and can only be described as highly abnormal.
People Unable to Speak Out
Meanwhile, within Japan, there are people who cannot speak out about issues related to the Family Federation, even if they wish to.
Many religious figures have remained silent for the past four years out of fear of being branded as part of a “cult”. Even among legal professionals, some choose to look the other way.
Martin Niemöller once wrote, “When the Nazis came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.” Due to the High Court’s decision, these words have ceased to be merely a warning and have instead come to reflect the reality of Japan today.
Fumihiro Kato (加藤文宏), author. He has contributed to various media outlets, including opinion magazines. Under the pen name Fumi Kato (かとう ふみ), he has published works such as “Chushi Ruro” (厨師流浪 – Wandering Chef), “Kakai Fuki” (花開富貴 – Blossoming, Prosperous and Noble), and “Denko no Otoko” (電光の男 – Lightning Man). In 2023, he contributed with an article titled “Can News and Talk Shows Determine Good and Evil?” in the February issue of Monthly Seiron (月刊正論), challenging the approach to reporting on the Unification Church.]
Featured image above: Fumihiro Kato (加藤文宏), here elivering a lecture 14th December 2024 in Ichikawa City, Chiba Prefecture. Photo: Tsuyoshi Toyoda (豊田剛).
[Editor’s note: The 2009 compliance declaration of the Unification Church of Japan (now the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification) was a formal commitment by the organization to reform its practices in response to longstanding public criticism and legal challenges.
The Unification Church in Japan had faced numerous allegations related to recruitment tactics and donation solicitation, termed “spiritual sales” (霊感商法) by a hostile network of activist lawyers who had declared the religious organization an enemy. These issues led to multiple lawsuits orchestrated by the activist lawyers and significant media backlash. This prompted the organization to take measures to restore its reputation and demonstrate compliance with legal and ethical standards.
The religious organization pledged to stop possibly unethical donation practices, including what the hostile network of lawyers claimed amounted to “pressuring members into making large financial contributions under spiritual pretexts.” This was in response to accusations from the same activist lawyers that followers “were being manipulated into giving away substantial amounts of money or property.”
The Unification Church stated it would enhance internal oversight to ensure compliance with ethical and legal standards. Measures included better training for leaders and stricter guidelines for evangelization and solicitation of donations.
After this compliance declaration, there was a significant decrease in the number of lawsuits against the Unification Church – since 2015 called the Family Federation. The religious organization has used this as evidence that it has improved its practices and should not be subject to dissolution.]