Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 18, 2001, Page 34
the transfusion was ordered by the court to pay compensation for causing mental distress to
the said patient (Japanese Supreme Court Judgment of 29 Feb, 2000). However, there are
still no precedents regarding juveniles, especially children. In considering these types of
cases, the range of permissible religious and medical acts becomes very ambiguous. It
becomes difficult to determine whether criminal or civil law should be applied with respect
to such acts.
Type Two: Donations and Solicitation Practices
The plaintiff demanded the return of 2 million yen, donated as an offering, believing that the
religious group‘s counterfeit holy image was genuine. In this case, the court dismissed the
plaintiff‘s plea, reasoning that litigation proceedings can not be adapted to religious disputes
concerning whether a holy image is genuine, and that this particular case did not fall under
the purview of ―legal controversy‖ that lies in the court‘s domain. (Japanese Supreme Court
judgment of 7 April 1981).
However, there are a number of cases where the courts recognize that the act of soliciting
donations or monetary offerings constitutes the crime of fraud and intimidation as stipulated
in the Criminal Code of Japan.
In this connection, several judgments determined that the Unification Church is liable to pay
compensation for injuries incurred as a result of its solicitation practices. The courts ruled
that this act of soliciting millions of yen in the form of donations by taking prospective
donors to its solicitation facilities, known as video centers, and persuading them that they
are sinful for possessing their personal estate, amounts to unlawful activity. Given these
precedents, how would the courts rule in the case of a person who became a believer and
then, based on the same teaching, gave donations of 100,000 yen per month 50 times. In
such cases, court judgments tend to be rather harsh towards the victim.
For a person who believes in the spiritual world and the (ill) fate of his or her ancestors,
descending to Hell is more terrifying than dying. Nevertheless, the particular mentality of
such believers is often difficult for police officers or court judges to understand. Further, it
would be quite problematic if courts decide whether a religious teaching or leader is correct.
Legal proceedings should not be recognized where when a court concludes, for example:
―The teaching is a lie. The religious leader thought to be the Messiah was not the real
Messiah. Therefore, refund the money.‖
However, even while judging that curses and ill-fate are illusory, how might the court rule in
the case where a person donates a large sum of money (the amount of which was
previously determined by the solicitors) as a result of being made to feel insecure by those
means described in the religious organization‘s manual? In Japan, a growing number of
religious organizations subscribe to such tactics to gain donations.
Also relative to this matter, it is argued that donations in and of themselves cannot be
erased or refunded because donations as such are made on the basis of a pact between a
believer and God. Further, it is argued that the courts have no right to interfere with such
matters. This argument or way of thinking, however, was deplorably misused by the
Unification Church to defend its spiritual sales and is being rethought. To date, the courts
have ruled that the act of forcing a person to give a large donation by persuading him to do
so over a long period of time and deliberately making him feel insecure is an illegal and
unlawful act that deviates from social rationale, and that organizations conducting such
activities are liable to pay compensation to those persons incurring damages. In this
connection, the Supreme Court has passed three judgments to date, which confirm that the
Unification Church members‘ acts of donation solicitation are unlawful. Further court
judgments have held that the act of an organization pressuring a person to pay a large sum
the transfusion was ordered by the court to pay compensation for causing mental distress to
the said patient (Japanese Supreme Court Judgment of 29 Feb, 2000). However, there are
still no precedents regarding juveniles, especially children. In considering these types of
cases, the range of permissible religious and medical acts becomes very ambiguous. It
becomes difficult to determine whether criminal or civil law should be applied with respect
to such acts.
Type Two: Donations and Solicitation Practices
The plaintiff demanded the return of 2 million yen, donated as an offering, believing that the
religious group‘s counterfeit holy image was genuine. In this case, the court dismissed the
plaintiff‘s plea, reasoning that litigation proceedings can not be adapted to religious disputes
concerning whether a holy image is genuine, and that this particular case did not fall under
the purview of ―legal controversy‖ that lies in the court‘s domain. (Japanese Supreme Court
judgment of 7 April 1981).
However, there are a number of cases where the courts recognize that the act of soliciting
donations or monetary offerings constitutes the crime of fraud and intimidation as stipulated
in the Criminal Code of Japan.
In this connection, several judgments determined that the Unification Church is liable to pay
compensation for injuries incurred as a result of its solicitation practices. The courts ruled
that this act of soliciting millions of yen in the form of donations by taking prospective
donors to its solicitation facilities, known as video centers, and persuading them that they
are sinful for possessing their personal estate, amounts to unlawful activity. Given these
precedents, how would the courts rule in the case of a person who became a believer and
then, based on the same teaching, gave donations of 100,000 yen per month 50 times. In
such cases, court judgments tend to be rather harsh towards the victim.
For a person who believes in the spiritual world and the (ill) fate of his or her ancestors,
descending to Hell is more terrifying than dying. Nevertheless, the particular mentality of
such believers is often difficult for police officers or court judges to understand. Further, it
would be quite problematic if courts decide whether a religious teaching or leader is correct.
Legal proceedings should not be recognized where when a court concludes, for example:
―The teaching is a lie. The religious leader thought to be the Messiah was not the real
Messiah. Therefore, refund the money.‖
However, even while judging that curses and ill-fate are illusory, how might the court rule in
the case where a person donates a large sum of money (the amount of which was
previously determined by the solicitors) as a result of being made to feel insecure by those
means described in the religious organization‘s manual? In Japan, a growing number of
religious organizations subscribe to such tactics to gain donations.
Also relative to this matter, it is argued that donations in and of themselves cannot be
erased or refunded because donations as such are made on the basis of a pact between a
believer and God. Further, it is argued that the courts have no right to interfere with such
matters. This argument or way of thinking, however, was deplorably misused by the
Unification Church to defend its spiritual sales and is being rethought. To date, the courts
have ruled that the act of forcing a person to give a large donation by persuading him to do
so over a long period of time and deliberately making him feel insecure is an illegal and
unlawful act that deviates from social rationale, and that organizations conducting such
activities are liable to pay compensation to those persons incurring damages. In this
connection, the Supreme Court has passed three judgments to date, which confirm that the
Unification Church members‘ acts of donation solicitation are unlawful. Further court
judgments have held that the act of an organization pressuring a person to pay a large sum
