Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 58
physical and psychological damages. The court ordered the church to pay a total amount of
approximately 29.5 million yen in damages, citing the church for recruiting and
indoctrination while hiding its true identity, and the fact that some former members were
coerced into purchasing expensive items and donating large amounts of money. The same
suit had been filed at eight different courts in Japan and this was the second case in which
the plaintiff received a winning verdict. The first victory had gone to a former male church
member in Okayama.
The court‘s ruling consisted of four cases: 1) Sapporo District Court compensation claim
no.603 in 1987 2) Sapporo District Court compensation claim no.1929 in 1988 3) Sapporo
District Court compensation claim no.570 in 1990 4) Sapporo District Court compensation
claim no.603 in 1992.
In case 1, the plaintiff‘s claim demanding compensation from Ark Company, an affiliated
company of the Unification Church, was dismissed. In case 2, the plaintiff‘s claim
demanding compensation from the Unification Church for 800,000 yen and 5 percent per
year interest since 1988, was upheld. Other claims in the case were dismissed. In case 3,
the plaintiff‘s claim demanding compensation from the Unification Church for 1,100,000 yen
and 5 percent per year interest since 1990 was upheld. Other claims in the case were
dismissed. In case 4, the claim of 15 plaintiffs demanding compensation from the Unification
Church for approximately 2,700,000 yen total and 5 percent per year interest since 1992
was upheld. Other claims in the case were dismissed.
In cases 2 through 4, the compensation was based upon circumstances and the duration of
the plaintiffs‘ affiliation. The maximum was 1,000,000 yen. Most of the compensation to the
plaintiffs was for training fees of two- and four-day seminars and several donations to the
Unification Church. The total amount of compensation was one-third of the plaintiffs‘ claim.
The ruling said that the plaintiffs‘ lives and time could not be considered a total waste while
they were in the church, because some of them said they had meaning in their lives and
were satisfied at that time.
The Unification Church appealed the 2001 Sapporo District Court ruling to the Sapporo High
Court. On March 14, 2003, the Sapporo High Court sustained the verdict of the Sapporo
District Court, ruling that the Unification Church illegally recruited 20 members and that it
should compensate physical and psychological damages (Compensation Claim number 331
2003). Finally the Unification Church‘s appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed in the
same year.
We should note that this ruling did not acknowledge the plaintiffs‘ claims that they were
mind controlled. The ruling was made without using the theory of mind control and without
referring to the cult controversy in Western countries, cited by the Unification Church.
Instead, plaintiffs were considered to be recruited and indoctrinated in a way that was not
socially acceptable. The ruling considered each case and the illegality of individual member‘s
actions, not the illegality of the religious corporation of the Unification Church per se.
Therefore, the government did not take an action against the Unification Church, which
contrasted sharply with the case of Aum and those of other so-called cults. In the Sapporo
District Court case, church members were sentenced because of the illegality of their
actions in a criminal context.
How did the judge acknowledge the illegality in the recruitment and indoctrination process
of the Unification Church?
Two points were cited in the decision.
The church members had recruited the plaintiffs, former Unification Church members,
including students and housewives between 1985 and 1991. The students and other young

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 59
men were invited to view a video of a self-development workshop, and the women were
invited to a ―culture center,‖ which included such topics as fortune-telling by numerology
(using the number of Chinese character strokes in women‘s names) and tracing family
lineage. Not until these women were deeply involved in various workshops were they made
aware of the religious content of the workshops and the association with the Unification
Church. By that time, they had already committed themselves to continuing the workshops.
According to the women, if they had been informed of the church's identity from the
beginning, they would not have participated in the workshops.
According to the court ruling, the Unification Church recruiters took advantage of
weaknesses in the former members (personal problems, illness of family members,
uncertainties about the future, etc.) and fanned anxieties in the recruits that had no direct
connection to the church's religious dogma (the fear of their family becoming extinct,
communicating with the spiritual world, curses, etc.), and consequently stirring up their
concerns over religious salvation.
The ruling, instead of focusing on whether the former members acted voluntarily or were
coerced into action, acknowledged the illegality in the purpose, means, and results of
systematic recruiting and indoctrination by the church members. Although the Unification
Church insisted on former members‘ self-responsibilities entering into the church and the
invalidity of applying mind-control theory into their conversion process, the ruling rejected
the contention of a mind-control controversy.
The above decision clearly indicated the systematic strategies by the Unification Church in
Japan to recruit more converts and indoctrinate more members. Moreover, it shows the
transitional process in those followers who had fallen for the strategy, from introduction, to
conversion, to devotion.
In addition, the ruling includes the epoch-making concept that in its missionary activities a
religion should teach its ideas as religious reality. Indoctrination of dogma camouflaged as
science would unjustly influence individuals' decision-making capabilities. In fact, the
Unification Church usually teaches its dogma as a fact that natural science and history have
already proved, and it reveals its name and actual activities to participants only at the final
stage of seminars. Most participants considered that they should follow the teaching of the
Unification Church, feeling it to be natural and necessary. Religious dogma could not be
proved and disproved by rational thought and knowledge of historical facts, and so once
participants misunderstood that dogma within the frame of reference of incontrovertible
fact, they were unable to challenge or undermine the worldview that the Unification Church
had constructed. They were robbed of the opportunity to decide for themselves whether
they accepted the religious interpretation of nature and history the Unification Church
provided.
Deprogramming Cases
In 1998 and 1999 members of controversial religions filed lawsuits against Protestant
pastors who had conducted deprogrammings1 and against the families who had given their
consent to a coercive deprogrammig that included confinement of members. The plaintiffs‘
claim that deprogramming is coercive proselytizing and contrary to basic human rights and
freedom of religion has been argued by the Unification Church for decades. However, in
Japan no such lawsuits existed accusing a husband and parents who had tried to rescue
their children from the Jehovah‘s Witnesses and the Unification Church, respectively. Before
I turn to the controversy of deprogramming, I shall briefly outline one case of the Jehovah‘s
Witnesses and two cases of the Unification Church.