Title: 【Unification Church Dissolution】 What Exactly Happens When a Religious Corporation Loses Its Corporate Status? The “Legal Absurdity” That Religions Targeted by the State Are Almost Certainly Crushed
Author: Masaki Nakamasa Publication Date: March 16, 2026 Publication Link: https://www.kk-bestsellers.com/articles/-/4228931/
The Unification Church’s dissolution was processed as a “non-litigious case”
It is probably widely known that, following the Tokyo High Court’s decision on March 4, the Family Federation (Unification Church) lost its corporate status, immediate liquidation procedures began, and believers have already been expelled from the church facilities and can no longer gather to perform worship or prayers. Since it is also widely known that I, from the position of a former believer with some knowledge of the church’s affairs, have opposed the dissolution order, this time I would like to explain — through the Unification Church case — what it actually means for a religious organization to lose its corporate status and be dissolved. Is the commonly repeated claim true that it merely means losing tax benefits, with no hindrance whatsoever to believers conducting their faith life?
The dissolution of the Unification Church was handled as a “non-litigious case” under Article 81 of the Religious Corporations Act. There has been debate about the requirements for dissolution under this Article 81 — whether it is limited to cases where the founder or top executives receive guilty verdicts in major criminal cases, or whether it also includes civil torts (note: torts refer to any acts that can be subject to damages claims and are not crimes). This time, however, I want to question whether it is appropriate in the first place to treat the dissolution of a religious organization as a “non-litigious case.”
When ordinary people hear the difficult-sounding term “non-litigious case,” they may imagine a strict formal review, but it is exactly the opposite. It is a simple court format close to mediation, in which the court administratively intervenes to handle internal party matters such as adult guardianship, disappearance declarations, changes to land-lease conditions, or election of corporate officers. It is a type of civil procedure, but it is almost never covered in law-school classes or textbooks, and there are few specialized explanatory books.
“Non-litigious” means there is no contentiousness — i.e., no clear dispute between the parties regarding their mutual interests. Situations like adult guardianship or disappearance declarations involve no dispute but require legal clarification, yet leaving the decision to an administrative office window would be unreliable. This procedure exists for such cases. In English it is called a “non-contentious case”; in French, matière gracieuse (“gentle matter”).
Because these are cases that should have no room for internal disputes, the format allows the court to process them quickly. Unlike regular civil litigation (which is public in principle), it is non-public in principle. Evidence examination does not need to be as rigorous as in ordinary trials; the judge can handle it conveniently under their own authority and issue a rapid “decision.”
The Religious Corporations Act does indeed stipulate that dissolution of a religious corporation is to be treated as a non-litigious case. But is the Unification Church dissolution truly a case without disputes between parties? No one thinks so. Of course, there are situations where handling a religious corporation’s dissolution as non-litigious is appropriate — for example, a small shrine or temple facing successor shortages or a drastic drop in parishioners, where the believers as a whole agree it can no longer continue.
Cases like Aum Shinrikyo or Myōkaku-ji, where the founder and executives committed major criminal acts, might also fit. Even in those cases, remaining believers contested the dissolution all the way to the Supreme Court, so “contentiousness” cannot be denied outright; however, once the main executives were arrested and what had been treated as religious acts were judged as crimes, one could argue there was originally no room for dispute.
The Unification Church case, however, is completely different. In Japan, no executives have been arrested in criminal cases. All the issues raised are civil torts — primarily lawsuits from former believers over large donations. Most of the tens of thousands of active believers did not force high donations on anyone. Tens of thousands of believers (apart from minor traffic violations) have committed no crimes, and the clergy-equivalent staff are fully in place. Knowing full well that this would severely restrict their freedom of religion, the state nevertheless ordered the dissolution on its own responsibility from the viewpoint of public interest in preventing torts.
The flaw in the current Religious Corporations Act that does not allow public adversarial trials
When the state and the organization are in direct confrontation, is it acceptable to use the simple, in-principle non-public procedures of a “non-litigious case” advanced at the judge’s discretion? The church side pointed out that the Agency for Cultural Affairs had fabricated victims’ testimonies, but the judge ignored this under their authority. Active believers applied to participate as interested parties, but that too was rejected by the judge’s authority — even though the Non-Contentious Case Procedure Act allows those affected by the ruling to become “interested participants.”
In countries such as the United States there is lively debate, from a constitutionalist perspective, about exactly which cases may be handled as non-litigious. In Japan such discussions are rarely seen. Regarding the 1966 Supreme Court special-appeal decision on whether handling fine impositions as non-litigious cases violates Article 82, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution (“Trials and judgments shall be conducted in open court”), the majority rejected the unconstitutionality claim; however, dissenting opinions argued it is still unconstitutional to deny adversarial trials when the person objects, and supplementary opinions acknowledged that the law has flaws and the matter is not entirely unproblematic.
Is it a proper understanding of the rule of law simply to execute the procedure because the Religious Corporations Act says so, when the issue involves basic human rights guaranteed by the Constitution — namely, whether the religious corporation has committed civil torts warranting dissolution or whether there is fear of future ones?
Tens of thousands of people object because their freedom of religion may be restricted, yet the current Religious Corporations Act refuses to allow public adversarial trials — a clear flaw. It is strange to proceed to trial without first considering how to correct that flaw. Isn’t this legislative inaction by Agency for Cultural Affairs officials, the Religious Corporations Council (which includes lawyers and legal scholars), and the lawmakers (including former Prime Minister Kishida) who decided to exercise the right of inquiry? In other words, didn’t they fail to take legislative measures to fix the Religious Corporations Act?
Human-rights advocates or constitutional liberals are quick to loudly denounce legislative or administrative inaction on issues like the Hansen’s disease prevention law. Yet on this issue, lawyers, legal scholars, and intellectuals who style themselves as human-rights advocates have not discussed at all the pros and cons of dissolving religious corporations via non-litigious procedures. Is it because the target is their enemy — the hated “anti-communist cult”? Shouldn’t a true human-rights advocate or liberal insist that, precisely because it is a hated enemy, it must be judged openly and fairly in a public trial?
What exactly will happen to the Family Federation after losing its corporate status?
The problem is not limited to court procedure. In non-litigious cases, just as in ordinary civil lawsuits, liquidation begins the moment the appeal-court (High Court) decision is issued. As reported in the media, the Family Federation has lost its corporate status and can no longer act as a corporation. What does this mean concretely?
All 260 facilities nationwide owned or leased by the church have been seized by the liquidators. Believers are barred from entering, making worship and various rituals impossible. Weddings and funerals are no exception; they cannot hold funerals or use cemeteries. In some locations the responsible liquidator (agent) has even refused permission to remove personal belongings. They are also being asked to surrender believers’ personal information stored on PCs.
Normally, once liquidation is complete, remaining assets are transferred to a voluntary organization formed by former believers. But the Agency for Cultural Affairs and the liquidators say they must wait for years because it takes time for Unification Church victims to come forward courageously.
In ordinary corporate liquidation the creditor-claim period is two months. Waiting years is extraordinarily long. Moreover, the liquidators’ daily fees are paid from the church’s own assets. The Agency for Cultural Affairs, the liquidators, and the left-wing lawyer groups (such as the Japan Federation of Bar Associations) collaborating with them apparently do not want to hand over any facilities or assets to the believers. The president of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations has publicly argued that this is how it should be done.
Some may say believers can simply perform rituals outside the facilities, but that is not easy either. The staff who preach, provide pastoral care, and officiate rituals are church employees; their current superiors are the liquidators. Staff are prohibited from religious activities during working hours. Many have been ordered to remain on standby at home. Meeting other believers during standby time under business orders and discussing anything could be viewed as a religious gathering and thus a violation of business orders. On holidays it would technically be outside business hours, but that would fall outside the doctrinally fixed times for rituals; if working hours are not clearly defined, virtually everything risks being treated as a violation.
This creates a major obstacle for believers filing a special appeal to the Supreme Court. Without access to church facilities or assets, key figures cannot easily gather to plan countermeasures, prepare documents, or hire lawyers. The church website and communication equipment are unavailable, so they cannot appeal their legitimacy to the public — nor even send messages from leaders to ordinary believers. Any message sent risks being checked for the presence of staff members. The organization also cannot take legal action as a corporation against media defamation or privacy violations. I am currently assisting with the final survival struggle of the church in exactly this situation.
The “dissolution order” is a pitfall lurking in the current law
Is the current law reasonable when it stipulates that a dissolution order — which prevents believers from performing religious rituals, holding gatherings, or freely expressing opinions, and even makes preparation for the final hope of a special appeal impossible — is to be reviewed as a non-litigious case? Even if amending the current law is difficult, could the judge not have exercised discretion to open the review to the public, make it as adversarial as possible, and limit the scope of liquidation until the special appeal is concluded?
Did the Japan Federation of Bar Associations (obsessed with crushing the Unification Church), former Democratic Party and Communist Party lawmakers, the media, religious scholars, and journalists never anticipate that such problems would arise? It is now becoming concretely clear what mental suffering the dissolution is causing believers and how it is restricting their religious activities — yet the media and intellectuals pay no attention and merely repeat, like a broken record, “Victim relief as soon as possible…” Do they realize that they themselves are creating “victims” — not only by restricting faith activities but also by causing job losses, disadvantages in school admissions, discrimination, and bullying?
If such closed-door procedures via non-litigious cases are justified, no religion can feel safe. If organizations can be dissolved on the basis of vague speculation such as “In the past they committed △△ illegal acts based on ○○ doctrine, so even if they are quiet now, in the future…” in a court format that allows such reasoning, won’t this boomerang against those who denounce the Unification Church as the representative of evil religions?