Fraudulent Interference with Business and Coercive Interference with Business on 2channel

2channel is Japan’s largest anonymous electronic bulletin board. However, as it has grown, it has attracted a diverse range of posters, and has become a forum where threads and posts with strong defamatory content are frequently seen.

There are numerous posts involving threats and criminal forewarnings, leading to an unending series of arrests and document inspections on various charges.

Posting carelessly on 2channel could potentially lead to various criminal charges. In this article, we will explain the crimes of obstruction of business by fraudulent means and obstruction of business by force, which have been charged in relation to posts on 2channel, providing examples for each.

Minor Offenses and Obstruction of Business

Reporting a crime to the police when there is none. Reporting a fire to the fire department when there is none. Reporting to the organizer that you will disrupt a concert. These actions were once treated and handled as minor offenses.

The Japanese Minor Offenses Act is a law that stipulates detention (restraint of the person for 1 to less than 30 days) or a fine (monetary collection of 1,000 to less than 10,000 yen) for minor violations of order. It considers any one of the 33 acts specified in the articles as a crime.

Article 1 of the Japanese Minor Offenses Act states,

“Those who fall under any of the following items shall be sentenced to detention or a fine.”

Article 1 of the Japanese Minor Offenses Act

It lists 33 acts, such as “those who reported fictitious crimes or disasters to public officials” (Item 16 of Article 1) and “those who maliciously obstructed the business of others” (Item 31 of Article 1). In the past, we have dealt with those who made false reports using this Minor Offenses Act.

However, recently, these actions are being treated as the crime of obstruction of business under the Penal Code, and there is a trend to deal with them as such. The act of “reporting a crime to the police when there is none” is now treated not as a minor offense, but as the more severe crime of obstruction of business, which carries a penalty of imprisonment for up to 3 years or a fine of up to 500,000 yen.

Obstruction of Police Duties

The backdrop to this severe punishment is the global progression of terrorism and the accompanying strengthening and expansion of security measures. If there is a false report of a bomb planted in a crowded place like a station, the police must establish a large-scale security system. Railway companies are also asked to cooperate with this security, checking trash cans, temporarily closing ticket gates, and causing significant disruption to their operations. In this case, there is a possibility that the crime of forcible obstruction of business could be established for threatening and obstructing the operations of the railway company.

Also, it might seem that obstructing the police in their duties could constitute the crime of obstruction of public duties. However, even in that case, can it be said that the execution of public duties was “obstructed”? If the report was false, the police would have wasted their efforts, but the security activities caused by the false report are still security activities, and they are not being obstructed. It seems that the crime of obstruction of public duties by falsehood would not be established.

Obstruction of Police Duties through Deception

So, can the crime of obstructing police duties through deception be established? There has been a court case disputing whether a false crime warning posted on a bulletin board is a violation of Article 1, Paragraph 31 of the Japanese Minor Offenses Act, or a crime of obstructing police duties through deception.

On July 26, 2008, a post stating “I will commit indiscriminate murder at Tsuchiura Station within a week from today” was made on a bulletin board, and the Tsuchiura Police dispatched eight officers from around 7 a.m. on the 27th to around 7 p.m. on the 28th.

In the first trial, it was ruled that the crime of obstructing police duties through deception was established. However, the defense appealed, arguing that it falls under “mischief, etc.” in Article 1, Paragraph 31 of the Japanese Minor Offenses Act.

In response, the second trial rejected the appeal. Let’s take a look at the gist of the judgment below.

Regarding the “false report of a crime warning”,

“In the police, unless they can immediately see through the falsehood, they are forced to respond with futile dispatch and vigilance,” and “the original public duties (duties) of the police that should have been carried out if there had been no false report are obstructed (made difficult to carry out).”

(Tokyo High Court Judgment, March 12, 2009 (2009 in Gregorian calendar))

It was stated. Also, regarding this post, it was evaluated as a “warning of a serious crime”,

“Considering that it can be foreseen that it will be reported to the police and the police will be forced to respond appropriately, the defendant’s act in this case is highly illegal and is not mischief but deception.”

(Tokyo High Court Judgment, March 12, 2009 (2009 in Gregorian calendar))

And acknowledged the crime of obstructing business through deception.

Crimes of Fraudulent Obstruction of Business and Coercive Obstruction of Business

The crime of fraudulent obstruction of business, which has a very broad scope of establishment, is stipulated in Article 233 of the Japanese Penal Code.

“A person who spreads false rumors or uses deception to damage another’s reputation or obstruct their business shall be punished by imprisonment for up to 3 years or a fine of up to 500,000 yen.”

Japanese Penal Code Article 233

Those who “spread false rumors” and “damage another’s reputation” are guilty of defamation, and those who “use deception” to “obstruct business” are guilty of fraudulent obstruction of business.

The crime of coercive obstruction of business is stipulated in Article 234 of the Japanese Penal Code.

“A person who uses force to obstruct another’s business shall also be punished as in the preceding article.”

Japanese Penal Code Article 234

In other words, it is a crime consisting of three elements: “using force”, “business”, and “obstruction”. Detailed explanations about fraudulent obstruction of business and coercive obstruction of business are provided in the article below.

https://monolith.law/reputation/netslander-against-companies[ja]

Obstruction of Business is Not a Complaint-Based Crime

Let’s point out an important fact. The most well-known crime related to online defamation is the ‘Japanese Defamation Crime’. When you defame someone online, you can be charged with the ‘Japanese Defamation Crime’, and it’s common for the ‘Japanese Obstruction of Business Crime’ to be established at the same time.

Unlike the ‘Japanese Defamation Crime’, the ‘Japanese Obstruction of Business Crime’ is not a complaint-based crime.

Since the ‘Japanese Defamation Crime’ is a complaint-based crime, unless the victim files a criminal complaint, you will not be arrested. However, both the ‘Japanese Fraudulent Obstruction of Business Crime’ and the ‘Japanese Coercive Obstruction of Business Crime’ are non-complaint-based crimes. Therefore, even if no one files a criminal complaint, there is a possibility of being arrested and indicted.

Many people misunderstand this point, but even for non-complaint-based crimes, victims can still file complaints. Even in the case of the non-complaint-based ‘Japanese Obstruction of Business Crime’, the victim can file a complaint against the offender. If the victim files a criminal complaint, the suspect’s circumstances may worsen, and the punishment may become more severe.

Summary

If you believe that a post has interfered with your business, it is advisable to consult with a lawyer and file a damage report or complaint with the police. Once the damage report is accepted, the police will proceed with the investigation and may arrest or refer the suspect. If you have inadvertently made a post on platforms like 2channel that could constitute a business obstruction crime, you should consult with a lawyer immediately. Although many first-time offenses that do not have a significant impact on society often result in fines, a criminal record is still attached. To avoid a criminal record, it is necessary to be non-prosecuted. It is essential to consult with an experienced lawyer and respond promptly.