The government is applying the finishing touches to new legislation to support victims of dubious activities of religious groups, such as being coerced into making unreasonably massive donations and “reikan shoho,” or spiritual sales.

The relief legislation is being drafted in response to a public outcry against activities of the former Unification Church, formally known as the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification.

What is emerging from the government’s legislative work, however, provides more concern than reassurance about the effectiveness of the proposed measures.

As the first legislative step in response to the problem, the Cabinet on Nov. 18 approved a bill to revise the Consumer Contract Law to change the rules for allowing canceling purchase agreements related to spiritual sales.

The proposed revisions would expand the scope of sales pitches that are deemed inappropriate and allow cancellations to cover purchases that are detrimental to the interests of the purchasers’ relatives as well as the purchasers themselves.

Inappropriate sales discussions under the new rules would also include those designed to take advantage of the anxiety of targeted consumers as well as those intended to inspire fear in their minds. These changes represent a step in the right direction.

But the revisions would add a new requirement for cancellation. To cancel a purchase agreement, the purchaser should show that the seller has claimed that the agreement was “indispensable” for avoiding being put in a  disadvantageous situation.

Under the current provision, the requirement is that the seller told the purchaser that the agreement would help avoid a disadvantageous situation “for certain.”

Why is the government trying to raise the bar for cancellation? The Consumer Affairs Agency says this would clarify what a victim would need to prove at a trial. But it could limit the scope of cases that can be judged to be fraudulent and malicious sales pitches.

The government should make a convincing case for this specific revision at the Diet with a willingness to adjust the revision in response to reasonable criticism.

The revision to extend the statute of limitations for cancellation to up to 10 years is a reasonable measure given that it usually takes years for adherents of the Unification Church to leave the organization and exercise their legal rights.

But the Unification Church has changed its strategy for raising funds. It has shifted the strategic focus from spiritual sales of goods, such as pots, seals and other items, at exorbitant prices to collecting donations as indicated by complaints concerning the group’s activities.

This will limit the range of cases eligible for legal relief under the revised law.

That is why lawyers involved in helping victims claim that the proposed revisions to the Consumer Contract Law would not be enough to tackle this deep-rooted problem.

The challenge facing the government is to draft and enact a new effective law to regulate donations collected through questionable methods.

The government’s draft bill contains the requirements for cancellation in the Consumer Contract Law including the “indispensable” passage. This seems to be an attempt to clearly define the sales methods and practices that would be subject to penalties under the envisioned new law.

But this approach raises doubts about whether the new law would provide relief to many of the victims. The law should be designed to ensure effectiveness while taking into account the potentially wide range of its effects because it would cover all types of donations made by individuals to organizations regardless of their nature.

The focus is on how to ensure relief to families of followers whose excessive donations have seriously damaged their financial means and other well-being.

The question is whether spouses and children of such followers can recover the financial damages they have suffered because of excessive donations even if the followers have not left the group.

The government’s draft bill would allow families to exercise the followers’ right to cancel their donations to the group on their behalf as a special case of the so-called “obligee’s subrogation right” under Article 423 of the Civil Code, which stipulates, “An obligee may exercise the right vested in the obligor in order to preserve his or her own claim” under certain conditions.

This is not a bad proposal that also gives consideration to the victim’s own property rights. But this measure may not work if the followers do not have such information as how much money they have donated and from when.

The government needs to ensure the system will really be effective by seeking advice from lawyers and other well-informed experts.

Some opposition parties that have been in talks over the legislative initiative with the government and the ruling coalition criticize the draft bill for being “toothless.”

But the importance of providing relief to as many victims as possible and preventing further damage requires all-out bipartisan efforts to create effective legislation to help victims.

The Asahi Shimbun, Nov. 20