HOME > CASES&JUDGMENTS > Judgments > Solicitation for donation by a religious organization, which deviates from the socially reasonable level

[August 2014]

Solicitation for donation by a religious organization, which deviates from the socially reasonable level

The following shows a case where a Christian suffering from schizophrenia donated money nearly equal to her entire fortune to the church, disturbed and intimidated by clergymen. The Christian claimed for damages for a tort against the clergymen on the ground that the solicitation for donation deviated from the socially reasonable level.

The court judged that the solicitation for donation in this case deviates from the socially reasonable level.(Judgment by the Tokyo District Court on February 17, 2010)

  • The judgment has not been published.

Summary of the case

Appellee, first trial plaintiff:
X (Consumer)
Defendant, first trial defendant:
Y1 (Church)
Defendant, first trial defendant:
Y2 (Clergyman of the church Y1)
Defendant, first trial defendant:
Y3 (Church member)

X is a woman born in 1959. After graduation from college, X had engaged in trading operations in a financial company till 1999. Around 1991, X was diagnosed as minor depression and started to take medicines. In 1994 when working in London, X joined a church of Y1 (registered as a religious corporation in the US). Since 1997, X had joined Y1's meetings held in Japan. Y3 led organizing the meetings in Japan, where attendants listened to the recorded sound of a lecture by Y2 at a church of Y1 in the US.

Afterwards, X lost her father in 1998, but did not attend his funeral on the advice of Y2. Next month, X was baptized at a church of Y1 in the US.

In January 2002, Y2 persuaded X to donate money to the church for a few hours, saying things like "Love for money is the worst source of evil and a route for hell. Hell is the eternal world, from which you can never come back" (X became unemployed in 1999). X was frightened and donated money several times from January 24, 2002 to March 27, 2002, which amounted to about 68,700,000 yen, nearly equal to her entire fortune. After a while, X was told by Y3 that she would be expelled from the church because she did not follow the doctrine.

At the end of 2005, X realized that she had been cheated by Y2 and claimed approximately 86,000,000 yen for a tort (damages equivalent to the donation: about 69,000,000 yen, pain and suffering: 10,000,000 yen, legal fee: about 7,800,000 yen) and delay damages from Y1, Y2 and so forth.

X asserted in the suit as follows:

  1. Y2 and Y3 made X donate nearly all her fortune through insistent solicitations by repeatedly persuading X to follow the doctrine (saying "if not, you will go to hell") because words in the Bible are definite as well as by encouraging X not to take medicines even X had schizophrenia and making X mentally unstable.
  2. In addition to losing all her money due to the donation, X lost her job because Y2 repeatedly denied thinking saying "You don't need to use brain", and X had to live in strained circumstances which caused mental distress.

In response to this, those with Y1 stated as follows:

  1. Judgment of appropriateness of X's claim requires interpretation of Y1's doctrine, which does not fall under legal disputes and should be dismissed as unlawful.
  2. X's donation was based on her belief.
  3. Even if X had right to claim damages, the period of extinctive prescription expired.

The original verdict (judgment by the Tokyo District Court on August 28, on page 297 of Shohishaho News No.82) affirmed the liability for torts of Y2 and Y3 under Articles 709 and 719 of the Civil Code as well as liability of employers of Y1 based on the following reasons (written in the section "reasons"), which totally amounted to about 78,900,000 yen (damages equivalent to the donation, pain and suffering: 3,000,000 yen, legal fee: about 7,200,000 yen)

Y1, Y2 and Y3 appealed against the original verdict, which is the case shown here.

Reasons

The appeal court affirmed the original judgment quoting the reasons for the judgment and rejected the appeal.

1. Legal applicability to the claim

The X's claim seeks refund of money equal to the X's donation in light of the torts of Y2 and others who fraudulently solicited and maniacally persuaded X to donate to the church. There is no need to interpret the religious doctrine to judge whether or not the money should be refunded. This case falls under legal disputes.

2. Illegality of the solicitation for donation

It is not illegal that a person who believes in a certain religion solicits a believer to donate if the way of solicitation does not deviate from a socially reasonable level.

However, if the solicitation for donation was accompanied by intimidation, which confused and threatened the believer in deciding to donate, such donation cannot be regarded being made of his/her free will and is construed as illegal and torts, deviating from the above level.

The following facts are recognized in this case:

  1. X joined a church Y1 in 1994 and started to attend meetings held in Japan since 1997.
  2. X was told at the church Y1 that those who don't follow Jesus Christ will go to hell.
  3. Under the instruction of Y2, X repeatedly watched and read videos and books describing that those who don't follow Jesus Christ will go to hell.
  4. Y2 and Y3 denied X's thinking saying "You don't need to use brain" and repeatedly told X to obey Y2.
  5. X was diagnosed as minor depression due to repeated negative comments on medicines by Y2 and stopped taking medicines including anti-depression medicine.
  6. X was reproved by Y2 and Y3 for planning to buy a flat and was seized by guilt about not following Jesus Christ.

Under these circumstances, Y2 urged X to donate, telling for a several hours things like "Love for money is the worst source of evil and a route for hell, from which you can never come back. If you stop loving money which is the worst source of evil, you can get into the way of blessing". X was threatened by these words and donated huge money nearly equal to all her fortune. X was diagnosed as schizophrenia on January 2, 2002. Considering these facts, the solicitation for donation is construed as illegal and torts, deviating from the socially reasonable level.

Explanation

Cases addressed by the court shall be "legal disputes" (Article 3 of the Court Act). Academic, religious or aesthetical disputes cannot be solved by applying laws and do not fit in with the court. Those with the church Y1 claimed that the case does not fit in with the court because it does not fall under legal disputes. However, the court considered that the case falls under legal disputes and lawful because there is no need to interpret the religious doctrine to judge whether or not the demand is appropriate, quoting the original judgment.

The Supreme Court has a list of precedents concerning the right of hearing on religious issues. It can be said that the following cases constitute criteria for judging whether or not a case may be rejected as not falling under legal disputes:

  1. Cases where a religious post itself is an object to be judged (reference precedent (1)) - rejected
  2. Cases where a religious issue itself is not an object to be judged, but is the premise necessary for determining appropriateness of a claim, and it is difficult to reach a conclusion without getting into the religious doctrine and details of the religion - rejected
  3. Cases where a religious issue itself is the said premise, but there is no need to judge details of the religion including the doctrine - construed as "legal disputes" and lawful (reference precedent (2)).

The court judged that "Solicitation for donation cannot be construed illegal unless the way of solicitation deviates from a socially reasonable level. However, if the act of soliciting donation disturbed, confused, or intimidated the believer and such a mental state triggered his/her decision to donate, it cannot be said that donation caused by such solicitation has been made of his/her free will. Therefore, such solicitation deviating from the said level is illegal and is construed as torts". In addition, the act of soliciting donation in this case disturbed and intimidated X who was suffering from depression and schizophrenia, and such a mental state of X triggered X's decision to donate extremely huge amount of money (nearly entire fortune). Considering these facts comprehensively, the court judged that the solicitation deviates from a socially reasonable level.

Recent judgments (reference precedents (7) & (8)) also construed that solicitation deviating from a socially reasonable level is illegal.

Reference precedents

  1. Judgment by the Supreme Court on January 1, 1980
    (Page 55 of Hanrei Jiho No.956 (case of Shutokudera))
  2. Judgment by the Supreme Court on April 10, 1980
    (Page 85 of Hanrei Jiho No.973 (case of Honmonji))
  3. Judgment by the Supreme Court on April 7, 1981
    (Page 2 of Hanrei Jiho No.814 (case of a "board mandala"))
  4. Judgment by the Supreme Court on September 8, 1989
    (Page 1 of Hanrei Jiho No.1011 (case of Rengeiji))
  5. Judgment by the Supreme Court on September 7, 1993
    (Page 90 of Hanrei Jiho No.1503 (case of Nichirenshoshu Kancho))
  6. Judgment by the Supreme Court on September 28, 1999
    (Page 78 of Hanrei Jiho No.1689 (case of Butsuseji))
  7. Judgment by the Fukuoka High Court on March 16, 2012
    (Page 336 of Shohishaho News No.92)
  8. Judgment by the Tokyo District Court on August 22, 2011
    (Page 236 of Shohishaho News No.89)