Can You Be Deported Over a Fine? How Drug Offences Are Treated Differently in the Immigration Act

You paid a fine through summary proceedings, the paperwork said the matter was concluded, and within days you were back at work. It is natural to treat the case as closed. With drug offences, however, a light sentence does not necessarily mean your residence is safe. That conclusion surprises most people, and it does not rest on anyone's opinion: it comes from the way different provisions of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (入管法) are drafted. Below we work through the contrast with other categories of offence, one provision at a time.

Key points

• Article 24, item 4, sub-item (chi) (入管法24条4号チ) speaks only of a person who has been convicted, without limiting the type of sentence, so in a drug case even a fine is a ground for deportation (退去強制).
• By contrast, Article 24, item 4-2, which covers ordinary Penal Code offences, requires a sentence of imprisonment (拘禁刑), and Article 24(4)(ri) requires imprisonment exceeding one year; a fine falls outside both.
• Sub-item (ni) on passport offences and sub-item (ho) on certain offences under the immigration statute also use the formula sentenced to a punishment, with no restriction on the type of sentence.
• Article 5(1)(v) makes a punishment imposed for violating drug legislation a ground for denial of landing (上陸拒否); a fine is enough here too, and foreign convictions are included.
• Precisely because summary proceedings end so quickly, the effect on your residence needs to be assessed early.

The case ended with a fine, so why is there still an immigration problem?

Because Article 24(4)(chi) does not ask how heavy the sentence was. It makes deportable a person who, on or after 1 November 1951, has been convicted of violating the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act, the Act on Regulation of Cultivation of Cannabis Plants, the Opium Act, the Stimulants Control Act, the Narcotics Special Provisions Act, or Part II, Chapter 14 of the Penal Code. The only requirement is a conviction.

A summary order is itself a guilty determination, reached on the documents. So while paying the fine brings the criminal process to an end, from the standpoint of the immigration statute it fixes one fact that satisfies the requirement in sub-item (chi).

How are fines treated for other categories of offence?

Set the provisions side by side and the drafting choices become obvious. Article 24, item 4-2 makes a person residing under an Appendix I (別表第一) status deportable where they have been sentenced to imprisonment for offences under certain chapters of the Penal Code, certain offences under the Act on Punishment of Physical Violence and Others, offences under the Act for Prevention of Burglary and Other Offences, offences under Articles 15 and 16 of the Act on Prohibition of Possession of Special Picking Tools, offences under Articles 2 or 6(1) of the Act on Punishment of Acts Inflicting Death or Injury through Dangerous Driving, and offences under Article 22 of the Act on Prevention of Disposal of Stolen Specified Metal Articles. Because the requirement is a sentence of imprisonment, a case that ends in a fine does not fall within it.

Article 24(4)(ri), for its part, covers people sentenced to life imprisonment or to imprisonment exceeding one year, and its proviso then excludes those whose sentence has been suspended in whole. Fines are outside its reach as well.

Other categories where any punishment is enough

Sub-item (chi) is not the only provision drafted without regard to the type of sentence. Article 24(4)(ni) lists people sentenced to a punishment for offences under Articles 23(1) (other than item (vi)) through 23(3) of the Passport Act, and sub-item (ho) lists people sentenced to a punishment for offences under Articles 74 through 74-6-3 or Article 74-8 of the immigration statute. In each case, being sentenced to a punishment is enough.

Sub-item (he) of the same item 4, on the other hand, covers offences under Article 73 of the immigration statute, that is, unauthorised activity, and requires a person sentenced to imprisonment. Within a single item, the threshold shifts from sub-item to sub-item.

Read as a whole, the pattern suggests that the legislature took the position that, for categories touching the integrity of immigration control itself and for drug offences, residence should not be permitted regardless of how light the sentence is. Whatever one makes of that policy, in practice a response has to be built on the structure as it stands.

A fine also follows you at the point of entry

Deportation is not the only setting. Article 5(1)(v) makes a ground for denial of landing the fact of having been sentenced to a punishment for violating the laws or regulations of Japan or of any other country relating to the control of narcotics, cannabis, opium, stimulants or psychotropic substances. Here too, having been sentenced to a punishment is enough, so a fine qualifies.

Compare Article 5(1)(iv), which lists people who have been sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more, or an equivalent punishment, for violating any law or regulation. That provision has a threshold based on the weight of the sentence. For drugs, the threshold is simply absent.

One further point deserves attention: Article 5(1)(v) contains no time limit of the kind found in Article 5(1)(ix). Item (ix) sets periods of one year, five years and ten years depending on a person's deportation history, but item (v) has no such term of years. Item (v) also covers violations of foreign law. A fine imposed for a drug offence outside Japan can therefore become an issue when the person seeks to enter Japan.

Is it purely a good thing that the case ended quickly?

Summary proceedings decide the case on the documents without an open hearing, so physical detention is not prolonged. For the person and their family alike, that is a real and pressing benefit. In a foreign national's drug case, however, that same speed can consume the time needed to work out the effect on residence.

Our non-prosecution first approach exists precisely for this situation. Because sub-item (chi) requires a conviction, a non-prosecution decision (不起訴処分) means the requirement is never met. Conversely, a fine is still a conviction, so from the standpoint of residence it does not achieve the objective. An outcome that looks like a sufficient result by the ordinary instincts of criminal practice is not necessarily one for a foreign client. Whether defence counsel is conscious of that gap in the yardstick makes a difference to the outcome.

It follows that the decision whether to consent to summary proceedings should not be made on the likely sentence alone. Where is there room to contest the case? Was the evidence lawfully gathered? Is the finding on intent open to doubt? So that these questions can be answered before a course is set, we encourage people to seek advice before the disposition is decided.

How our office works, and matters we have handled

At Funado International Law Office, attorney Daisuke Matsumura handles every stage personally, from the first detention visit through to the close of trial. The work is not delegated to clerks or junior lawyers. For Chinese, a dedicated interpreter experienced in cases involving foreign nationals is on staff, so that alongside the interpreter appointed by the investigating authorities you have an interpreter working for you throughout the criminal process. For languages other than Chinese, we arrange an interpreter to suit the case. Renewals and changes of status of residence (在留資格) after the criminal process are handled together with an affiliated administrative scrivener.

As an example of a contested trial, we obtained an acquittal for a client prosecuted under the Stimulants Control Act for possession for the purpose of profit, through exhaustive analysis of the evidence and through questioning of the defendant and full cross-examination. Avoiding a conviction as such carries particular weight for a foreign client.

Before charge, a client re-arrested several times as a collector in a specialised fraud case obtained non-prosecution decisions on every count, after sustained work on the interrogations and formal objections to improper questioning. In another matter, acting for a woman wrongly accused of promoting illegal employment and facing deportation, we are currently litigating a challenge to the long-standing practice under which intent and negligence are treated as irrelevant to grounds for deportation, and in the same case we obtained special permission to stay (在留特別許可), which is without precedent in a case where promoting illegal employment had been found.

The lightness of a fine and the weight of the consequences for your residence do not seem to match. Once you can see how the provisions are drafted, that discomfort turns out to have a reason behind it, and once the reason is clear, so is the point at which to act. Please note that this article is general commentary only; for your own situation, speak to a lawyer directly. The past matters described here turned on their own particular facts, and they are not a guarantee of a similar outcome. Even if you have already paid a fine, we can look together at what can still be done.

This article reflects the law as at August 2026.

About the author

Daisuke Matsumura, Attorney at Law
Dai-Ichi Tokyo Bar Association (registration no. 59077, admitted 2019)
Funado International Law Office (Fuse Building Main Wing 3F, 3-4-10 Takada, Toshima-ku, Tokyo)
Practice focused on criminal defence for foreign nationals and immigration proceedings.
Results include an acquittal in a Stimulants Control Act case (possession for the purpose of profit), non-prosecution in organised fraud cases, and special permission to stay in cases regarded as difficult.

Funado International Law Office
Website: https://matsumura-lawoffice.jp/
WeChat ID: matsumura1119