Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 18, 2001, Page 40
solicitation tactics are problematic. Throughout Japan, ―Return Our Youth‖ lawsuits were
filed and are pending in courts in Sapporo, Hamamatsu, Nagoya, Kobe, and Okayama.
Also, in August 1999, three former Unification Church members filed a lawsuit in Tokyo,
claiming that the methods of recruitment employed by the Church were unlawful. These
three plaintiffs alleged that the recruiting methods involved using threat and fraud to
compel young people to devote their lives to the Church. Accordingly, such recruiting
methods deviate from the permissible domain of recruiting activities heretofore recognized
by religious organizations in general, and are, thus, unlawful.
The Aum Shinrikyo Problem
Why was Aum Shinrikyo Able to Perpetrate such Grievous Incidents in Japan?
The reasons need to be addressed relative to the slaying of Attorney Sakamoto, his wife,
and his infant, the Matsumoto Sarin Incident, and the Sarin gassing of the Tokyo
Metropolitan Subway System in March 1995 before the compulsory investigation was
initiated.
First, the parties most responsible for such grievous incidents are police, specifically the
police of Kanagawa and Shizuoka prefectures. When Attorney Sakamoto was suddenly
taken from his home, a Prusha (the badge known to be worn only by Aum Shinrikyo
believers) was found in a room of the attorney‘s home. Some of the Aum Shinrikyo
believers living at a Satiyan (a building constructed by Aum Shinrikyo where its members
live in communion and work together) in Kamikuishiki village approached residents in the
area trying to seek help. Signs of abnormality were present and clear: Aum Shinrikyo
members suffered physical damage that could be caused only by Sarin and other poisonous
gases, and vegetation in the vicinity withered. Given these signs, it is important to question
why the Prefectural Police did not cooperate and make arrests.
Second, the tax authorities also bear extensive responsibility. This has been an ongoing
problem since 1995. Why didn‘t the National Tax Administration Agency conduct a more
strict investigation into the income and expenditures of Aum Shinrikyo and the corporations
it orchestrates? It is doubtful that the Agency sought cooperation from the Police and other
relevant State bodies. It is unlikely that the Agency exchanged information regarding the
results of investigations conducted with the Police. In The United States and in France, for
example, members of the Unification Church were arrested for tax evasion. This had a large
impact. Reverend Moon spent more than one year in prison for a conviction of tax evasion.
In the Republic of Korea as well last year, the national tax bureau conducted a probe into
the corporations connected with the Unification Church. In another example, the U.S.
Internal Revenue Service did not recognize the Scientology religion as a tax-exempt
religious organization. As a result, Scientology‘s lawsuit to fight such a ruling lasted more
than 10 years in U.S. courts. Some argue that tax systems vary from country to country,
and therefore the Japanese tax system may proceed in its own way. However, the tax
authorities in Japan do not act in a way that appears equal, just, uniform, or reasonable.
The weakness of Japanese tax authorities in dealing with religious organizations is
surprising. Even today because the problem of monetary collections by religious
organizations has become a major social issue, the Japanese National Tax Administration
Agency has gradually begun to initiate investigations, negotiate with religious organizations,
and force them to pay back several hundreds of millions of yen in taxes. Nevertheless, while
corporations or individuals undergo criminal prosecution mutatis mutandis for malicious and
large-scale tax evasion, similar prosecutions of religious organizations are lacking. The
responsibility of tax authorities is not only to collect taxes. Their role is also to ensure that
corporations and individuals are treated equally with regard to tax collection and to ensure
administrative effectiveness by exchanging information with relevant administrative
government bodies, including the police.
solicitation tactics are problematic. Throughout Japan, ―Return Our Youth‖ lawsuits were
filed and are pending in courts in Sapporo, Hamamatsu, Nagoya, Kobe, and Okayama.
Also, in August 1999, three former Unification Church members filed a lawsuit in Tokyo,
claiming that the methods of recruitment employed by the Church were unlawful. These
three plaintiffs alleged that the recruiting methods involved using threat and fraud to
compel young people to devote their lives to the Church. Accordingly, such recruiting
methods deviate from the permissible domain of recruiting activities heretofore recognized
by religious organizations in general, and are, thus, unlawful.
The Aum Shinrikyo Problem
Why was Aum Shinrikyo Able to Perpetrate such Grievous Incidents in Japan?
The reasons need to be addressed relative to the slaying of Attorney Sakamoto, his wife,
and his infant, the Matsumoto Sarin Incident, and the Sarin gassing of the Tokyo
Metropolitan Subway System in March 1995 before the compulsory investigation was
initiated.
First, the parties most responsible for such grievous incidents are police, specifically the
police of Kanagawa and Shizuoka prefectures. When Attorney Sakamoto was suddenly
taken from his home, a Prusha (the badge known to be worn only by Aum Shinrikyo
believers) was found in a room of the attorney‘s home. Some of the Aum Shinrikyo
believers living at a Satiyan (a building constructed by Aum Shinrikyo where its members
live in communion and work together) in Kamikuishiki village approached residents in the
area trying to seek help. Signs of abnormality were present and clear: Aum Shinrikyo
members suffered physical damage that could be caused only by Sarin and other poisonous
gases, and vegetation in the vicinity withered. Given these signs, it is important to question
why the Prefectural Police did not cooperate and make arrests.
Second, the tax authorities also bear extensive responsibility. This has been an ongoing
problem since 1995. Why didn‘t the National Tax Administration Agency conduct a more
strict investigation into the income and expenditures of Aum Shinrikyo and the corporations
it orchestrates? It is doubtful that the Agency sought cooperation from the Police and other
relevant State bodies. It is unlikely that the Agency exchanged information regarding the
results of investigations conducted with the Police. In The United States and in France, for
example, members of the Unification Church were arrested for tax evasion. This had a large
impact. Reverend Moon spent more than one year in prison for a conviction of tax evasion.
In the Republic of Korea as well last year, the national tax bureau conducted a probe into
the corporations connected with the Unification Church. In another example, the U.S.
Internal Revenue Service did not recognize the Scientology religion as a tax-exempt
religious organization. As a result, Scientology‘s lawsuit to fight such a ruling lasted more
than 10 years in U.S. courts. Some argue that tax systems vary from country to country,
and therefore the Japanese tax system may proceed in its own way. However, the tax
authorities in Japan do not act in a way that appears equal, just, uniform, or reasonable.
The weakness of Japanese tax authorities in dealing with religious organizations is
surprising. Even today because the problem of monetary collections by religious
organizations has become a major social issue, the Japanese National Tax Administration
Agency has gradually begun to initiate investigations, negotiate with religious organizations,
and force them to pay back several hundreds of millions of yen in taxes. Nevertheless, while
corporations or individuals undergo criminal prosecution mutatis mutandis for malicious and
large-scale tax evasion, similar prosecutions of religious organizations are lacking. The
responsibility of tax authorities is not only to collect taxes. Their role is also to ensure that
corporations and individuals are treated equally with regard to tax collection and to ensure
administrative effectiveness by exchanging information with relevant administrative
government bodies, including the police.
