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

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 18, 2001, Page 35
of ―prayer money‖ by claiming it possesses supernatural powers amounts to the crime of
fraud.
Donations and the Sale of Merchandise by Religious Organizations
The following three issues are matters of concern now and in the future regarding court
litigation over donations and merchandise sales.
First, it is probably unnecessary for religious organizations to abide by the obligation to give
impartial explanations in general commercial transactions when they solicit donations or sell
merchandise. For example, if a salesman falsely claims that the drink he is selling will cure
atopic dermatitis and makes a profit of one million yen from that product, then such an act
would most likely amount to fraud. In contrast, however, leaders of a religious organization
have often been permitted within the parameters of acceptable religious activities to sell
their (self-proclaimed) special power(s) to their believers. Further, no matter how large the
donation, it remains non-taxable. The misuse of different standards for determining
unlawful conduct applying to religious activities and to commercial transactions is
increasing. With the recent health boom in Japan, for example, it is difficult to distinguish
pharmaceutical products from health foods. Likewise, it is difficult to differentiate among the
growing number of activities and facilities for medical healing, counseling, the study of Ki
(mind and spirit), religious mediation guidance, yoga and so forth.
The freedom to practice one‘s religion should be respected. It is probably reasonable that
commercial industries continue to sell dream products to make their consumers amazingly
skinny and beautiful. However, attention needs to be paid to consumers who become
victims of exorbitant pricing schemes and high-handed persuasion. When a religious
organization or an umbrella company for a religious organization is formed, performs its
activities with the primary and initial purpose of gaining money, employs high-handed,
intimidating or fraudulent methods, or charges excessive prices to procure such money,
then the acts of that organization or company should be recognized as unlawful generally in
the same way as commercial transactions. A leading court case in Japan dealt with this
theme: On 26 March 1992, the Tokyo High Court ruled that selling over one million yen
worth of a health device was unlawful. The device in question was an extraordinary rod that
was said to absorb the energy flow from the universe. The company that produced the rod
claimed that by waving the rod, sorrow, misfortune, and illness would dissipate.
Likewise, the Tokyo District Court ruling of 27 May 1997 held that a Kiko (mind and spirit
from China) doctor‘s claim that she could cure malignant diseases, for which she charged
her patients millions of yen, amounted to fraud and was unlawful. A television network that
produced and broadcast a documentary on whether the same Kiko doctor actually
possessed supernatural powers, recognized its liability in this case and paid about 60
percent of the damages incurred by some 30 individuals in an out-of-court settlement.
Although limited, there are cases where organizations (such as a group that cultivated and
purchased natural food products, an aesthetic group, and a yoga center) developed into
closed syndicates claiming to have charismatic leaders. In these cases, the activities of the
organizations generated problems for their members both in terms of money and in terms
of human rights.
Second, discretion must be exercised in disclosing the money-collecting activities of
religious organizations as crimes of fraud.
To date, there have been a number of cases in which religious organizations were judged
guilty of fraud and extortion for pressuring their members to pay by disguising their
religious activities.