Can Defamation Claims Lead to the Removal of Fraud Accusations?

Is it possible to claim defamation and request the removal of posts or disclosure of IP addresses when comments such as “fraud”, “fraudulent company”, or “I was deceived by that company” are written on anonymous bulletin boards or blogs like 2channel or 5channel?

Of course, when you hold a client’s money in some capacity, you should aim to deliver something that satisfies the client or increase that money through investment. However, it goes without saying that there is no such thing as a “sure thing” in business. If the client is not satisfied with the outcome, or if you are unable to realize the dividends you were aiming for, is it inevitable that you will be labeled as a “fraud”?

Identifying the “Facts Presented” in the Article

In considering this issue, it is crucial to identify what the “facts” that are “presented” in the article are. The words “fraud” and “deceived” could be used in either of the following meanings, and the impression they give to the reader of the article could significantly alter the conclusion.

• Written to mean that “fraud” under the Japanese Civil Code or the Japanese Penal Code has been committed
• Written to mean something like “the outcome was ultimately unsatisfactory”

Even in cases where the same words “fraud” and “deceived” are used, the context before and after can change which of the above meanings (or something in between) is intended.

And to put it simply, defamation is established when:

• The facts written (i.e., presented) in the article are
• False

.

https://monolith.law/reputation/defamation[ja]

Fraud in the Context of Civil and Criminal Law

Legally, it’s quite difficult to establish “fraud”.

“But that’s only if you can ‘prove’ that they’re fraudsters, right?
In reality, there’s no crime more rampant than fraud. That’s because it’s an incredibly difficult crime to ‘prove’.
To prove a fraud crime, you first have to prove that the fraudster ‘intended to deceive’ the victim.
It’s called ‘deception’. And it’s incredibly difficult. After all, it’s about what’s inside the mind.
‘I just borrowed the money, I intend to pay it back’… If such a claim is accepted, you can’t accuse them of fraud.”

Manga “Kurosagi” Volume 1

Legally, “fraud” refers to the act of making someone pay money, etc., with the intention of deceiving them. For example, in situations such as:

• In the context of system development or business transactions, where you are trusted to create a good product or service and are given money, but the end result is not satisfactory to the other party.
• In the context of investment management or ICOs, where you are trusted to handle money, but end up failing in the operation.

In such cases, there should be no intention to deceive at the time of receiving the money. This is due to the lack of the above-mentioned “deceptive act” (or its intent).

Therefore, if you are written about as having committed “fraud” or having “deceived” someone, despite having no intention to deceive at the time of receiving the money, it contradicts the truth. In such cases, it is highly likely that you can claim defamation and request the deletion of the article or the disclosure of the IP address.

When Simply Written in the Sense of “Unacceptable”

If you cannot interpret the content as implying “a fraudulent act under the law” and it is simply written in terms such as “fraud” or “deceived” in the sense of “unacceptable”, it is close to an individual’s “opinion”, such as “the ramen at that shop is not good”. In such cases, it would be difficult to claim defamation.

Which Facts are Indicated?

Interpreting the facts presented, such as those in bulletin board posts, is crucial because it can significantly influence the conclusion. If you want to have an article removed, you would likely argue that:

1. The post was written implying that a fraudulent act under the law has been committed,
2. We have not committed any fraudulent act under the law, therefore
3. The post is defamatory and should be removed.

In response, the other party may argue that they simply wrote about their personal feelings of being deceived.

The Standard is “Ordinary Attention and Reading by General Readers”

There is a Supreme Court decision stating that the standard for determining how to interpret a specific case is “ordinary attention and reading by general readers”.

Defamation is nothing but damaging a person’s social reputation. Therefore, even if a newspaper article could be interpreted differently upon careful reading, it should be interpreted according to the meaning understood by ordinary attention and reading by general readers. If the article is contrary to the facts and defamatory, it should naturally be regarded as a defamatory article.

Supreme Court decision, July 20, 1956 (Showa 31)

However, the phrase “ordinary attention and reading by general readers” is somewhat vague. In practical terms, the conclusion may change depending on whether you can make a reasonable argument that “according to ordinary attention and reading by general readers, considering the context, this article indicates that a fraudulent act under the law has occurred”. At least in a lawsuit, such a “reasonable argument” is required, and the conclusion may change depending on whether you can make a reasonable argument in out-of-court negotiations (request for transmission prevention measures) conducted with a lawsuit in mind.

The Standard is the Interpretation When Reading Including Previous and Following Posts

Furthermore, this “ordinary attention and reading by general readers” refers to the interpretation when reading with “ordinary attention” including previous and following posts, in the case of bulletin boards such as 2channel and 5channel’s past logs and current threads. Regarding a case where it is difficult to understand what and who each post is about in a specific thread created on an Internet bulletin board, with a total of 4 posts,

Since the post in question was made on the thread in question, it is appropriate to consider how it is usually interpreted in the context of the entire thread, not just the post itself, in a comprehensive and objective manner.

Tokyo District Court decision, April 22, 2013 (Heisei 25)

According to this standard, even if a single post does not read as “committed a fraudulent act under the law”, if the nuance of “fraudulent act” can be inferred when reading with previous and following posts, it is possible to argue that “this post can be read as stating that a fraudulent act under the law has been committed”.

Knowledge of how to construct arguments to maximize the recognition of defamation, and a sense of how a case would likely turn out in court, are particularly necessary when requesting the removal of posts or the disclosure of IP addresses etc. that state “fraud” or “I was deceived”.

https://monolith.law/reputation/deletion-method-pastlog-of-5ch[ja]

https://monolith.law/reputation/provisional-disposition[ja]