The Tokyo High Court Unification Church Decision. 4. The 2009 Compliance Declaration — Massimo Introvigne

B IT T E R HO M E AB O UT C H I NA v F RO M T H E WO R L D v I NTE RVI EWS D OC U M E NTS A N D T RAN SLATI O N S v AB O UT E D ITO RI A L B OAR D TO P I CS W I NT E R

You a re here: H o me » From th e Wo rld » Op-eds G l oba l Sea rch

Th e To kyo H igh Co u rt U n ifi cati o n N EWS L ETT E R C h u rch D eci si o n . 4. Th e 2009 “Co m p l i a n ce D ec l a rati o n” E m a i l a d d re ss:

Yo u r ema i l add ress by M assi m o I ntrovigne | M a r 30, 2026 | O p-ed s G loba l

Afte r 2009, the n u m be r of i n ci d e nts i nvo lvi ng Sign u p a l l eged i m p ro pe r so l icitatio n of d o nati on s d ro p ped to nea rly ze ro . B ut th e cou rt m a i nta i ns the p ro b l e m sti l l exists. S U P P O RT B I TT E R W I N T E R by Massimo Introvigne

Artic l e 4 of 6. Read a rti cle 1 , a rticle 2, a nd a rti cle 3. Don a te

M OST READ Wo m en’s H istory M o nth M ust N ot Forget Uygh u r Women

Th e N ew Law on Eth n i c U n ity: A Th reat to Ti beta n Bu dd h ism

Th e Tokyo H igh Cou rt U n ificatio n Reverend Moon and Mother Han prayingfor the Church and the world in 2009, the year Ch u rch Decisi o n . 2. The G host of of the “Declaration ofCompliance “ “B ra i nwash i ng” Ch i n a H a ils Ja pa n’s Disso l ution of The H igh Cou rt’s ru l i ng to d issolve th e U n ificatio n Ch u rch as a re l igi ou s the U n ifi cation Ch u rch o rga n ization is gro u n ded i n th e cla i m that it e ngaged i n i l l ega l solicitation of d onati on s. H oweve r, the C h u rch a rgu es that such sol i citatio n ceased i n 2009, exce pt i n very few cases. The refo re, d isso lving th e orga n ization i n 2026, ba sed o n Th e Tokyo H igh Cou rt U n ification p ra ctices th e Chu rch had la rgely el i m i nated 1 7 yea rs ea rl ier, seem s u n reaso na b le. Ch u rch Decisi o n . 5. Vi olati ng I ntern ati o na l Law The decisio n h igh l ights h ow, a lthough the Ch u rch had i m p lemented measu res si nce 1 987 to ad d ress th e p ro blematic activities of the co m pa ny H a p py Worl d Ch i n a’s N ew Yea r G ift to M ou nt (d iscu ssed i n the previous a rtic l e of th i s se ri es), it beca m e i ncreas i ngly awa re i n Ka i lash Pi lgri ms: M o re m em be rs at risk of cri m i na l a n d civi l acti o n s. Whi l e the cou rt states th at th e cri m i na l senten ce aga i n st be l i evers i n th e Shi nsei Ltd . case (a l so covered ea rl i er) wa s the i m med iate trigger for th e C h u rch’s response, it is a lso tru e that, i n 2008, L E GA L the Act on Spec ific Co m mercia l Transaction s was a mended to become Pri vacy Pol icy

sign ificantly stricter, p ri ma ri ly to protect co n su m e rs better.

As a resu lt, i n 2009, th e Ch u rch i ssu ed a “Com p l ia nce Decl a ration,” wh i ch th e ve rd ict d iscusses at le ngth not as a si ngl e d ocu ment but as a pl u ra l ity of officia l i nstru ctio ns sent to m e m bers i n 2009, fo l lowed by i nterp retive texts i n su bseq u e nt yea rs. The latest gu i del i nes, co nfi rm i ng that these d i rectives we re i n ful l force a n d i nclu d i ng new i nstructions, were sent to mem bers i n 2022 and 2023 i n th e wa ke of the Abe assassi nation a nd th e controve rsies that fo l lowed .

The cou rt recogn izes that th ese d i rectives we re com pre hensive. Th ey i n cl ud ed d eta i led i nstru ctions not to encou rage or sol icit donati on s by l i nki ng th em to the ka rm ic rel atio nsh i ps of ancesto rs, a n d to avo id receivi ng d on ati o ns that a re d ispro po rtionate to the fo l lowers’ eco n om ic c i rcu msta n ces. The d i rectives a lso spec ifi ed that d on ations shou ld come fro m i nd ivi d u a ls wh o have ad eq uate ly stu d ied the U nification doctri n e, a n d that the reci p ient shou l d be clea rly i dentifi ed as the U n ificati on Ch u rch . Add iti o na l ly, th ere were ru l es aga i nst sol iciti ng d on ati o n s fro m d evotees with menta l h ea lth issues o r who a p pea red se n i l e. Rega rd i ng donations fro m ol d er peo pl e, m em bers were a dvised to consid e r factors su ch as thei r d ec isi on-m a ki ng a b i l ity, fa ith, l ivi ng ci rcu msta nces, a n d fa m i ly situation to preve nt issu es a risi ng fro m u n reasona b le do natio ns.

If a nyth i ng, as th e H igh Cou rt acknowledges, measu res ta ken after the Abe assassi natio n were even more strict, a nd the C h u rc h esta b l ished a n I nde pen d ent Co m pensati on Co m m ittee, i ncl u d i ng nation a l ly ren own ed l awyers, to q u ickly rei m bu rse d i ssati sfi ed d o n ors.

And wh en, fol lowi ng th e emotiona l reactio ns to Abe’s shooti ng, the government passed a new law on re l igious d onati on s, th e Ch u rch i m m ed iate ly vowed to com ply, even tho ugh ma ny expe rts criticized the law as a th reat to re l igi ou s l i be rtv. Pa rentheti ca l lv. the H igh Cou rt decisio n u ses th is 2023 law retroactivelv to

eva l u ate th e C h u rch’s a ctions befo re it was enacted. I t c la i ms, u nconvi nci ngly, that th is is not a case of retroactive law e nforcem e nt beca use the 2023 statute cla rified a n d i nterp reted provisi o ns that were i m pl i citly i n cl ud ed i n ea rl ier l aws.

The measu res i ntrod uced by the Ch u rch to en d “spi ritua l sa les” a nd i m proper sol i c itation of do natio ns sh ou l d have cl osed th e case. S i nce it is i l logica l to d isso lve a re l igious co rpo ration for si ns, whether rea l or pe rce ived, co m m itted m o re th a n fifteen yea rs ago, a nd that it h as si nce l ea rned not to repeat, th e logical concl u sion is that th e C h u rc h shou l d not be d i ssolved .

Co ntrary to co m mon reason i ng, the H igh Cou rt ho lds that th e Co m pl i a nce Decla ration a nd its gu i del i n es fa i led to ad eq uate ly ad d ress the p roble m of i l l icit sol ic itation of do natio ns. To su p po rt th is c la i m, the cou rt co ntra d i cts its own ca lcu lations. The ru l i ng ma i n ly d epend s on cou nti ng cases whe re the Ch u rch lost civi l lawsu its. It l ists th ree cases wh ere donors su ccessfu l ly sued th e C h u rch over d on ati o n s or travel expe n ses to Ko rea—costs that a fo rmer bel ieve r late r regretted—d ati ng from after th e 2009 Com p l ia nce Decl a ration, s pecifi cal ly between 20 1 0 a nd 20 1 3. No cases of d o nations after 20 1 3 a re mentioned . Add iti on a l ly, th e H igh Cou rt cites a si ngle settlem ent i nvolvi ng a dono r wh o, after bei ng a Ch u rch m em be r fo r j ust five mo nths i n 20 1 6, rece ived a refun d .

Cl ea rly, fou r cases over 1 5 yea rs d o not i nd icate a trend . Th ey me rely s how that the m echa n ism ma n dated by th e Com pl i ance Decla ratio n too k so m e yea rs to be fi rm ly esta b l i shed . M ea nwh i le, th e cases d ec rea sed to a ha n dfu l a nd eventu a l ly to zero.

H owever, th e H igh Cou rt i ntrod uces two n ew, u n usua l categories. The fi rst i ncl ud es cases where th e re i s “a co n sidera b le possi b i l ity” that d o n atio ns we re u n l awfu l ly sol icited afte r the Com pl ia nce Decla rati on . I n th is category, the H igh Co u rt i dentified on ly two cases: a 2024 Su p rem e Cou rt decisio n ove rtu rn i ng p revio us ru l i ngs favo ra bl e to th e U n ificati o n Ch u rch a nd a settl e m ent. I n the two cases, re latives attem pted a co m pl i cated reconstruction of d onations mad e by a d eceased bel iever a n d a be l i ever wh o had a l l eged ly lost m e nta l ca pacity.

E sta b l i s h m e n t of To rts 4 th March 3 M iki Decision (by persons)

2009 Com pliance Declaration

Possi bi lity cannot be den ied

Rea so n a b l e poss i bi l ity

99999999999999999 9999999999S RgSRSS8SSR88RRRRRRRS

The different categories oftorts considered by the High Court decision (Miki decision). Source: Attorney Tatsuki Nakayama.

To reach sign ifi ca nt n u m be rs, th e H igh Cou rt constru cts a second new category, the “cases i n wh ic h it ca n not be den ied th at th ere is a possi bil ity” that donati o n s we re so licited th ro ugh i l l icit m ea ns afte r the Co m p l ia nce Dec la ration . The d iffe re n ce with the previous catego ry is th at here there is a me re “possibi l ity” rather than “a consid e rabl e possi b i l ity.” H e re, the H igh Cou rt lists settlements i nvolvi ng 1 38 fo rme r m e m bers. To cl ai m a veneer of fa i rness, it states that “cases i n wh ich settl em e nt was con cl u ded afte r the Shooti ng I ncid e nt [the Abe assassi nation] i n th is ca se a re not incl ud ed, beca u se it ca n n ot be ru l ed out th at, i n l ight of th e heightened socia l criti cism d i rected at th e Appe l l a nt [the U n ification Ch u rch], th e Appe l la nt m ay have agreed to settle ment eve n i n cases whe re th e cla i ma nts’ al legatio ns d id n ot necessa ri ly have s ufficient ba sis.”

H oweve r, th e 1 38 l isted cases—a bout ten per yea r fro m 20 1 0 to 2023—a re n ot clea rly cases of i l l icit post-2009 sol i citati o n of d o nati o ns. If they we re, th e H igh Cou rt wo u ld have i n cl ud ed them i n its fi rst l ist of post-2009 (b ut p re-20 1 4) wro ngd oi ngs, wh i ch l isted o n ly th ree civi l d ecisions a nd one settle m e nt. Acco rd i ng to the cou rt’s own words, the 1 38 cases “do n ot perm it a co ncl usive fi nd i ng.” Wh ethe r d onati on s were ma de after 2009 a n d sol icited th rough i m proper mea ns “ca n n ot be ru l ed out,” but th e opposite ca nnot be ru l ed out either. I n su m ma ry, th is is p u rely specu lation , a n d no d ec ision shou ld have been based o n it.

The n u m be rs bei ng th us i n concl usive, th e H igh Cou rt resorts to th ree othe r a rgu ments to prove that the i l licit sol i citation of donations conti n ued after th e Co m pl ia n ce Decla rati o n of 2009. The fi rst is th at the a m ou nt of d o nations received by th e U n ification C h u rch fl u ctuated but d id n ot su bsta ntia l ly decl i n e after 2009. Of cou rse, th is i s not evi de nce of a ny wrongdoi ng. If a nyth i ng, it p roves that, notwithsta nd i ng a l l socia l criti cism , m ost mem be rs re m ai n ed steadfa st i n the fa ith . To s u p port d i sso l ution, the cou rt s ho u ld not prove that donati o n s were col l ected, but that they were col l ected th rough i ll icit m ea n s.

The seco n d a rgu ment is that, after 2009, the ch u rch conti n u ed to set “n u merica l ta rgets” or q u otas fo r expected do nations a nd eva l uated pa stors based on wh eth e r they m et th ese q u otas. Th e H igh Cou rt ad m its that the system was gra d u a l ly “m itigated” a nd that meeti ng th e d onati o n q uota was on ly one of seve ra l crite ria u sed to eva l u ate pasto rs (accord i ng to the c h u rch, affecti ng th ei r overa l l oerfo rma nce bv 1 0%). H owever, it ma i nta i ns that the ch u rch co u l d

esta bl ish h igh n u m e rical ta rgets fo r donatio ns aga in i n the futu re—wh i ch is, aga i n, specu lation—a n d it a ppea rs to cons i d e r b u dgeti ng do nation s i n a dva n ce as i n herently o bj ectiona b le.

H e re, th e cou rt fa l ls i nto the com mo n m ista ke of treati ng p ra cti ces sha red by m a ny deno m i nati ons as u n iq u e when co ntroversia l organ izati ons ad o pt the m . Donati ons a re th e p ri ma ry sou rce of i ncome for m ost chu rch es . A bu dget forecast that d oes not accou nt for donations wou ld n ot m a ke sense for a ch u rch . Th e H igh Cou rt’s word i ng is not neutra l; it ma l i ci ou sly redefines bu dget forecasts as “q u otas.” Rega rd i ng th e eva l u ation of pastors, a l l ch u rc hes today req u i re th em to be wise ma nage rs, not j ust spi ritua l lea de rs. A pastor who ca n not co l lect d on ati o n s wou l d n ot be effective, a lth ough th is sh ou ld n ot be the on ly way to j udge h is work—a n d it isn’t i n th e U n ificati o n Ch u rch .

The th ird a rgu m ent exposes th e H igh Cou rt’s tru e p u rpose. It repeated ly states that the i m proper so licitation of d onati on s is l i kely to ha ppe n aga i n, beca use thei r “root ca use l ies i n the Ch u rch itself.” It suggests that a s lo ng as th e Ch u rch p romotes th e u niversa l m ission of th e True Pa rents, al ong with sac rifice, d evotion , a nd he l p i ng sufferi ng a ncesto rs, it wi l l i nevita b ly conti n ue to gathe r la rge d on ati o n s a n d prom pt be l ieve rs to so l i cit co ntri buti o n s u n lawfu l ly. Th erefore, d issol utio n becomes u navoida ble.

It seems that the co u rt’s on ly satisfaction wou ld be a p u bl i c ad m issio n that the chu rch’s theol ogy is flawed a n d i n h erently a busive, cou pled with a p ledge to m od ify or e l i m i nate core e le m ents of th e U n ification doctri ne. The deci sion u lti mately ci rcles back, showi ng it does n ot add ress a b uses that a re mostly corrected but rath e r seeks to su p press the ch u rc h based o n its fu nda me ntal natu re a nd bel i efs.

J a pa n, Rel igious Li be rty, U n ificatio n Chu rch

M a ssi m o I ntrovign e M assi m o I ntrovign e ( born J u n e 1 4, 1 955 i n Rom e) is a n Ita l ia n socio logist of rel igions. H e is the fou nd er a nd m a nagi ng d i recto r of the Center fo r Stud ies o n N ew Re l igi on s (C ES N U R), a n i nte rnationa l netwo rk of sch ol a rs who stu dy n ew re l igio us movements. I ntrovigne is the a uth o r of so m e 70 boo ks a nd m ore th a n 1 00 a rticles i n the fie l d of sociol ogy of rel igi o n . H e was the ma i n a uthor of the Enciclopedia delle religion! in Italia ( E n cycloped ia of Rel igi o ns i n Ita ly). H e is a m e m ber of th e ed ito ria l boa rd for the I nte rd isc i p l i na ry l ou rna l of Resea rc h o n Re l igi o n an d of the executive board of U n ive rsity of Ca liforn i a Press’ N ova Re l igio. Fro m Ja n u a ry 5 to Dece m be r 3 1 , 20 1 1 , he h as served as th e “Re presentative o n com bati ng raci sm, xenop h ob ia a n d d i scri m i n ation, with a specia l focu s on d iscri m i nati on aga i nst Ch ristians and mem be rs of oth er rel igi o ns” of th e O rga n izati on for Secu rity a nd Co-operati o n i n Eu ro pe (OSCE). From 20 1 2 to 20 1 5 he served as cha i rperson of the O bse rvato ry of Re l igious Li berty, i n stituted by the Ita l ia n M i nistry of Foreign Affa i rs i n ord e r to m o n itor probl e ms of rel igi ous l i berty o n a wo rl dwide sca l e.

www. cesn u r.org/

READ M O R E

Th e To kyo H igh Cou rt The To kyo H igh Co u rt Th e To kyo H igh Co u rt U n ificati o n C h u rch U n ifi cati on C h u rc h U n ifi cati o n C h u rch D ecis i o n . 6. Wh o Wi l l Dec i s i on . 5. Vio l ati ng Decisio n . 3 . “Sp i ritu a l Sa les” P rotect th e Be l i eve rs? I nternati o na l Law a n d Excessive Do nati o n s Ap r 1 , 202 6 M a r 3 1 , 2026 M a r 28, 2026

i u i z i - i or iru Your emai l add ress Q Italy i nfo@bitterwinter.org Don a te

N ot i ce at c o l l e ct i o n