Anti-conspiracy legislation fights terrorism and organized crime
Makoto IDA / Professor, Chuo University
December 7, 2017
The recently enacted Act on Punishment of the Preparation of Acts of Terrorism and Other Organized Crimes is aimed at having investigative authorities prevent organized crime before irreparable harm is done at an earlier stage, namely by making subject to punishment the stage in which acts of organized crime are being planned and prepared. This has major significance as the legislative action is in line with international standards and ideas about global standards.
A key feature of organized criminal groups today is that their activities cross national borders, necessitating joint international efforts to crack down on them. Even if Japan were not the target of an attack, it is possible that the planning and preparation for a serious crime in another country could take place in Japan. If Japan were to continue to have no regulations to deal with such crimes and be unable to cooperate with other countries, planning and preparation of drug-related crimes and terror attacks elsewhere could occur in our country without being restricted by law — potentially creating a loophole in international regulations.
The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime — of which Japan has yet to become a member — requires all participants to impose substantial punishment on such crimes at their early stages. More specifically, Article 5 of the convention requires all member states to establish as criminal offenses either or both of “agreeing to commit a serious crime” (crime of agreement) and “taking an active part in the general criminal activity of an organized criminal group” (crime of participation).
So far, Japan has lacked a regulation for a “crime of participation” under its criminal law system, and there were only a few crimes such as plotting an insurrection and a private war that correspond to the offense of “agreeing to commit a serious crime.” Therefore, the new legislation was indispensable to fulfill the obligation of the convention. Furthermore, all member countries of the OECD apart from Japan already have legislation that criminalize at least either the crime of agreement or the crime of participation.
The Act on Punishment of the Preparation of Acts of Terrorism and Other Organized Crimes, which was drawn up for Japan to conclude the convention, authorizes punishment at an early stage of organized crimes on a broad scale. Countries such as Germany and France already have regulatory legislation that is even more comprehensive. In Germany, investigation of such cases is possible through wiretapping of telephones and other communication devices and even with the help of bugging devices (though such procedures are subject to strict conditions).
In nations such as the United States and the United Kingdom, the crime of agreement is established as conspiracy, and the relevant crimes are not limited to the “crimes constituting an offense punishable by a maximum deprivation of liberty of at least four years or more serious penalty” defined by the U.N. convention.
On the other hand, the legislation enacted last June limits the offenses to crimes punishable by at least four years in jail and are “serious crimes” with a realistic prospect of “involvement of an organized criminal group.”
Moreover, “acts of preparation for implementation” (of a crime) in addition to “an act of planning” are both required for conviction. There are few countries that limit the scope of prosecution as strictly as Japan. When compared to other countries, the Japanese legislation, with its scope reduced to 277 specific crimes, can be considered to be highly restrained.
The amended law on the punishment of organized crimes further limits the scope of “groups” to which its conditions apply. It aims to snag only organized criminal groups that have a joint purpose of engaging in criminal activity as the basis for their organization. The criminal subject and elements of crime are also limited two-fold and three-fold.
In Diet deliberations, concerns and criticism were heard about the legislation, such as that it would lead to increased surveillance of civil society. There will certainly be increased investigation if punishment is authorized at an early stage in a crime. A prudent law is one that finds a balance by giving priority to the positive aspects while minimizing the negative aspects such as infringement of privacy.
In Japan’s Penal Code, there are already a considerable number of provisions that authorize punishment of serious crimes in their early stages. However, police authorities have been quite restrained in their execution of such provisions. Given that, examples put forward by people opposed to the legislation as its potential abuses are extreme and based on the assumption that police investigators are villains.
There is also criticism that the legislation violates people’s freedom of thought and is therefore unconstitutional. However, I have not heard of any such arguments made in countries such as Germany and France, where more comprehensive punishment is authorized at a very early stage of crimes. Such criticism of the legislation, whose scope is much more restricted than similar legal steps taken in other countries, is off the mark.
Makoto Ida is a professor at Chuo University Law School specializing in criminal law. The English version of this article was originally published in the Japan Times on July 11, 2017.
A key feature of organized criminal groups today is that their activities cross national borders, necessitating joint international efforts to crack down on them. Even if Japan were not the target of an attack, it is possible that the planning and preparation for a serious crime in another country could take place in Japan. If Japan were to continue to have no regulations to deal with such crimes and be unable to cooperate with other countries, planning and preparation of drug-related crimes and terror attacks elsewhere could occur in our country without being restricted by law — potentially creating a loophole in international regulations.
The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime — of which Japan has yet to become a member — requires all participants to impose substantial punishment on such crimes at their early stages. More specifically, Article 5 of the convention requires all member states to establish as criminal offenses either or both of “agreeing to commit a serious crime” (crime of agreement) and “taking an active part in the general criminal activity of an organized criminal group” (crime of participation).
So far, Japan has lacked a regulation for a “crime of participation” under its criminal law system, and there were only a few crimes such as plotting an insurrection and a private war that correspond to the offense of “agreeing to commit a serious crime.” Therefore, the new legislation was indispensable to fulfill the obligation of the convention. Furthermore, all member countries of the OECD apart from Japan already have legislation that criminalize at least either the crime of agreement or the crime of participation.
The Act on Punishment of the Preparation of Acts of Terrorism and Other Organized Crimes, which was drawn up for Japan to conclude the convention, authorizes punishment at an early stage of organized crimes on a broad scale. Countries such as Germany and France already have regulatory legislation that is even more comprehensive. In Germany, investigation of such cases is possible through wiretapping of telephones and other communication devices and even with the help of bugging devices (though such procedures are subject to strict conditions).
In nations such as the United States and the United Kingdom, the crime of agreement is established as conspiracy, and the relevant crimes are not limited to the “crimes constituting an offense punishable by a maximum deprivation of liberty of at least four years or more serious penalty” defined by the U.N. convention.
On the other hand, the legislation enacted last June limits the offenses to crimes punishable by at least four years in jail and are “serious crimes” with a realistic prospect of “involvement of an organized criminal group.”
Moreover, “acts of preparation for implementation” (of a crime) in addition to “an act of planning” are both required for conviction. There are few countries that limit the scope of prosecution as strictly as Japan. When compared to other countries, the Japanese legislation, with its scope reduced to 277 specific crimes, can be considered to be highly restrained.
The amended law on the punishment of organized crimes further limits the scope of “groups” to which its conditions apply. It aims to snag only organized criminal groups that have a joint purpose of engaging in criminal activity as the basis for their organization. The criminal subject and elements of crime are also limited two-fold and three-fold.
In Diet deliberations, concerns and criticism were heard about the legislation, such as that it would lead to increased surveillance of civil society. There will certainly be increased investigation if punishment is authorized at an early stage in a crime. A prudent law is one that finds a balance by giving priority to the positive aspects while minimizing the negative aspects such as infringement of privacy.
In Japan’s Penal Code, there are already a considerable number of provisions that authorize punishment of serious crimes in their early stages. However, police authorities have been quite restrained in their execution of such provisions. Given that, examples put forward by people opposed to the legislation as its potential abuses are extreme and based on the assumption that police investigators are villains.
There is also criticism that the legislation violates people’s freedom of thought and is therefore unconstitutional. However, I have not heard of any such arguments made in countries such as Germany and France, where more comprehensive punishment is authorized at a very early stage of crimes. Such criticism of the legislation, whose scope is much more restricted than similar legal steps taken in other countries, is off the mark.
Makoto Ida is a professor at Chuo University Law School specializing in criminal law. The English version of this article was originally published in the Japan Times on July 11, 2017.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
テロ準備罪法成立 どう見る
井田良 / 中央大学教授
2017年 12月 7日
最近成立した改正組織犯罪処罰法（テロ準備罪法）は組織犯罪に対し、取り返しのつかない被害が生じる前の計画準備段階から処罰の対象にし、捜査機関が犯罪を防止しようというものだ。この法律は国際標準とグローバルスタンダードに沿っていて、意義がある。
現在の組織犯罪集団の特徴は国境を越えた活動で、国際的な共同の取り組みを必要としている。日本が攻撃対象になっていなくても、他国で実行される重大犯罪が日本国内で計画され、準備される可能性もある。そうした犯罪に対応する規定が日本になく、他国と協力できなければ、薬物関連犯罪やテロ犯罪の計画や準備が日本国内で規制されずに行われる可能性がある。そうなると国際的な規制の抜け穴になってしまう。
日本政府が未締結の国際組織犯罪防止条約は、早い段階からのこの種の犯罪に対する処罰を各国に求めている。より正確には条約第５条は、締約国に対して「重大な犯罪を実行することに合意する（犯罪実行の合意）」と「組織犯罪団体の犯罪活動で積極的役割を果たす（組織犯罪への参加）」のいずれか、もしくは両方を犯罪とするよう求めている。
これまで日本の既存の刑法の下では「組織犯罪への参加」に関する規定はなく、内乱陰謀罪と私戦陰謀罪のようなわずかな数の処罰規定のみが「犯罪実行の合意」に対応する規定にすぎなかった。それ故、同条約の求めるところを満たすためには新法が不可欠だった。さらに日本を除く経済協力開発機構（ＯＥＣＤ）加盟国は少なくとも「犯罪実行の合意」か「組織犯罪への参加」かのいずれかを犯罪とする法的措置をすでにとっている。
今回の改正法は、広い範囲で組織犯罪の早期処罰を認めている。しかしドイツやフランスなどはこれよりはるかに包括的な規定の法律を持っている。ドイツでは電話やその他の通信の傍受や、厳しい要件の下でだが盗聴器により室内の会話を聞く会話傍受さえ認めている。
米国や英国のような国では共謀罪として犯罪実行の合意を処罰する伝統があり，対象となる犯罪は、国際組織犯罪防止条約の定める「４年以上の自由のはく奪、もしくはより重大な刑罰」を予定された犯罪に限定されていない。
他方、日本の改正法では「組織犯罪集団」を厳格に絞り、それによる「重大な犯罪」を４年以上の刑と限定した。さらに処罰するには「計画行為」に加えて「犯罪の準備行為」の両方が求められる。犯罪の要件を日本のように絞っている国はほとんどない。他の国と比べると、対象犯罪を２７７に絞った日本の法律は非常に制約されたものだ。
改正法は適用要件とする「団体」をさらに絞り、団体の結合関係の基礎としての共同の目的が重大な犯罪を実行することにある、組織的犯罪集団のみを捕捉しようというものだ。犯罪主体と犯罪要件を二重三重に限定している。
国会審議では、「市民社会への監視が強まる」などと懸念や批判が出た。確かに、犯罪の前段階の処罰を認めるのであれば、捜査は拡大する。そのプラス面を優先し、プライバシー侵害などのマイナス面を極小化してバランスをとるのが賢明な立法だ。
日本の刑法には、すでに前段階の処罰を認めた規定が相当数あるが、警察権力は限定的に行使している。改正法に反対する人たちの持ち出す事例は、捜査官の悪意を仮定した「捜査官悪玉論」であり、極論だ。
「内心の自由が侵される」「憲法違反だ」との批判もある。しかし非常に早い段階での包括的処罰を認める独仏など諸外国で、憲法違反だとか内心の自由に反するという議論を私は聞いたことがない。諸外国よりもはるかに限定した改正法へのそうした批判は、的外れである。
（井田良氏は中央大学大学院法務研究科教授。専門は刑法学。本稿の英文は２０１７年７月１１日のジャパンタイムズ紙に掲載された）
現在の組織犯罪集団の特徴は国境を越えた活動で、国際的な共同の取り組みを必要としている。日本が攻撃対象になっていなくても、他国で実行される重大犯罪が日本国内で計画され、準備される可能性もある。そうした犯罪に対応する規定が日本になく、他国と協力できなければ、薬物関連犯罪やテロ犯罪の計画や準備が日本国内で規制されずに行われる可能性がある。そうなると国際的な規制の抜け穴になってしまう。
日本政府が未締結の国際組織犯罪防止条約は、早い段階からのこの種の犯罪に対する処罰を各国に求めている。より正確には条約第５条は、締約国に対して「重大な犯罪を実行することに合意する（犯罪実行の合意）」と「組織犯罪団体の犯罪活動で積極的役割を果たす（組織犯罪への参加）」のいずれか、もしくは両方を犯罪とするよう求めている。
これまで日本の既存の刑法の下では「組織犯罪への参加」に関する規定はなく、内乱陰謀罪と私戦陰謀罪のようなわずかな数の処罰規定のみが「犯罪実行の合意」に対応する規定にすぎなかった。それ故、同条約の求めるところを満たすためには新法が不可欠だった。さらに日本を除く経済協力開発機構（ＯＥＣＤ）加盟国は少なくとも「犯罪実行の合意」か「組織犯罪への参加」かのいずれかを犯罪とする法的措置をすでにとっている。
今回の改正法は、広い範囲で組織犯罪の早期処罰を認めている。しかしドイツやフランスなどはこれよりはるかに包括的な規定の法律を持っている。ドイツでは電話やその他の通信の傍受や、厳しい要件の下でだが盗聴器により室内の会話を聞く会話傍受さえ認めている。
米国や英国のような国では共謀罪として犯罪実行の合意を処罰する伝統があり，対象となる犯罪は、国際組織犯罪防止条約の定める「４年以上の自由のはく奪、もしくはより重大な刑罰」を予定された犯罪に限定されていない。
他方、日本の改正法では「組織犯罪集団」を厳格に絞り、それによる「重大な犯罪」を４年以上の刑と限定した。さらに処罰するには「計画行為」に加えて「犯罪の準備行為」の両方が求められる。犯罪の要件を日本のように絞っている国はほとんどない。他の国と比べると、対象犯罪を２７７に絞った日本の法律は非常に制約されたものだ。
改正法は適用要件とする「団体」をさらに絞り、団体の結合関係の基礎としての共同の目的が重大な犯罪を実行することにある、組織的犯罪集団のみを捕捉しようというものだ。犯罪主体と犯罪要件を二重三重に限定している。
国会審議では、「市民社会への監視が強まる」などと懸念や批判が出た。確かに、犯罪の前段階の処罰を認めるのであれば、捜査は拡大する。そのプラス面を優先し、プライバシー侵害などのマイナス面を極小化してバランスをとるのが賢明な立法だ。
日本の刑法には、すでに前段階の処罰を認めた規定が相当数あるが、警察権力は限定的に行使している。改正法に反対する人たちの持ち出す事例は、捜査官の悪意を仮定した「捜査官悪玉論」であり、極論だ。
「内心の自由が侵される」「憲法違反だ」との批判もある。しかし非常に早い段階での包括的処罰を認める独仏など諸外国で、憲法違反だとか内心の自由に反するという議論を私は聞いたことがない。諸外国よりもはるかに限定した改正法へのそうした批判は、的外れである。
（井田良氏は中央大学大学院法務研究科教授。専門は刑法学。本稿の英文は２０１７年７月１１日のジャパンタイムズ紙に掲載された）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟