Paper short abstract:

Until recently, the concept of “mind control” seldom carried legal weight in a Japanese court of justice. Stripped down to its economic impact, the manipulative aspect of “mind control” had, however, already been accepted through the legalisation of another term: reikan shōhō (lit."spiritual sales")

Paper long abstract:

Despite its recent reappearance in political debates after former prime minister Abe’s assassination in July 2022, and even if it is widely discussed in professional legal circles, albeit out of court, the concept of “mind control” seldom carries legal weight in a court of justice in Japan today. In fact, since the 1990s, when it became closely associated with media coverage related to two organisations, the Unification Church and Aum Shinrikyo, its lack of legal power has been experienced as a significant problem by lawyers (and some scholars) who wish to argue for the particularity of the methods used against those who are ready to donate everything they and their families own to a religious professional. The new revelations in 2022 involving donations by Unification Church members seem to have reinforced the idea among the public that no one in a “normal” state of mind could go bankrupt due to joining a religion. However, if considered from a different perspective, the manipulative aspect of “mind control” has already, for several years now, inspired a particular legal argument involving the term reikan shōhō (lit. “spiritual sales”). Indeed, for more than two decades now, lawyers have sometimes successfully shown how the accused could employ people’s anxieties (fuan) to force them to pay out in excess. Court judgements do not dwell on victims' state of mind, and courts have generally refused to recognise consolation payment for psychological damages. In effect, judges have not accepted that it is possible to change the personality of victims, which is what “mind control” theories presume. The codification of reikan shōhō under a new clause of the Consumer Contract Law in 2018 strengthens, however, the idea that stripped down to its economic impact, the manipulative aspect of “mind control” has already been accepted by Japanese courts of justice. Suppose someone can reclaim money paid to a fortune teller over a long period because they felt they had been manipulated to believe that the fortune teller would help them with their problems. In such cases, it can be argued that “mind control” has not been absent from legal decisions.