35.5% for Cannabis, 8.5% for Stimulants: What the Suspension of Prosecution Statistics Really Tell You

People searching for numbers are usually searching for a sense of what lies ahead. Criminal proceedings are hard to read, so the impulse is entirely natural. Published statistics are one useful clue, but they do not announce the outcome of any individual case. Drawing on the 2024 White Paper on Crime and material published by the National Police Agency, this article sets out how much the figures differ from one offence to another, and then says how far those figures should be trusted and where trust should stop, with the question of a foreign national's residence kept in view.

Key points

• In 2024 the suspension of prosecution (起訴猶予) rate was 35.5 per cent for Cannabis Control Act violations and 8.5 per cent for Stimulants Control Act violations, so the offence charged makes a very large difference.
• At the sentencing stage, 84.2 per cent of cannabis cases result in a wholly suspended sentence, but for a foreign national a suspended sentence is no guarantee of residence.
• Statistically, therefore, the decisive stage lies not at trial but before the prosecutor decides on a disposition.
• Published statistics are aggregate figures by offence and do not distinguish first offences from repeat offences, or simple possession from possession for the purpose of profit.
• In 2025, 1,502 foreign nationals were arrested for drug offences, an increase of 214 on the previous year.

The figures, offence by offence

Start with the overall picture. According to the 2024 White Paper on Crime (drawing on the Annual Report of Statistics on Prosecution), the prosecution rates and suspension of prosecution rates for 2024 break down as set out below. For reference, across all special-law offences other than Road Traffic Act violations, the suspension of prosecution rate is 45.5 per cent.

What emerges is that quite different categories sit inside the single heading of drug offences. The 8.5 per cent for Stimulants Control Act violations is strikingly low, while the 52.5 per cent for Narcotics Special Provisions Act violations is above the general average. Lump everything together as drug cases and that spread disappears from view.

• Stimulants Control Act violations: prosecution rate 74.2 per cent / suspension of prosecution rate 8.5 per cent
• Cannabis Control Act violations: prosecution rate 44.1 per cent / suspension of prosecution rate 35.5 per cent
• Narcotics Control Act violations: prosecution rate 57.5 per cent / suspension of prosecution rate 15.9 per cent
• Narcotics Special Provisions Act violations: prosecution rate 36.8 per cent / suspension of prosecution rate 52.5 per cent

Why is the gap between cannabis and stimulants so wide?

No firm conclusion is possible, but a difference in the structure of the offending is likely to lie behind it. According to the National Police Agency's report on the organised crime situation in 2025, the first-offender rate in cannabis cases is 72.6 per cent, rising to 85.4 per cent among those under 20 and standing at 71.9 per cent among people in their twenties. For stimulant cases, by contrast, the repeat-offender rate is 64.6 per cent. Where most of those arrested are being apprehended for the first time, and where repetition is common, dispositions naturally diverge.

The pattern of offending differs too. In the 2025 statistics, stimulant cases comprise 3,742 for use and 2,030 for possession, while cannabis cases comprise 5,354 for possession, 700 for administration and 126 for cultivation. Total arrests for drug offences that year were 14,574, of which cannabis accounted for 6,832, a record high.

In cannabis cases, then, suspension of prosecution is a realistic option; in stimulant cases the opening is considerably narrower. The way a strategy is set has to reflect that.

How far can these numbers be trusted?

Frankly, they cannot be used in place of a forecast. Published suspension of prosecution rates are aggregate figures by offence, and they do not distinguish first offences from repeat offences, simple possession from possession for the purpose of profit, or foreign nationals from anyone else. No figures are published for first offences limited to simple possession or personal use, and the statistics on cannabis use are still accumulating.

So there is no reading on which one in three cannabis cases ends in suspension of prosecution because it is cannabis. What the numbers tell you is where, for a given offence, effort is best allocated. They do not tell you the result. When we explain them, we set out these limits at the same time.

Where do drug cases involving foreign nationals stand now?

According to the National Police Agency's report on the organised crime situation in 2025, 1,502 foreign nationals were arrested for drug offences, an increase of 214 on the previous year. The breakdown is 657 for stimulants, 527 for cannabis, 118 for cocaine and 88 for MDMA and similar substances. By nationality and region, the figures run: Vietnam 343, Brazil 229, the Philippines 128, Korea 119, the United States 106, Thailand 83, Peru 47 and China 41.

Confining the count to foreign nationals visiting Japan, drug cases number 1,142. Looking at the 12,777 total arrests of foreign nationals visiting Japan by status of residence (在留資格), Technical Intern Training accounts for 2,812 (22.0 per cent), Temporary Visitor for 2,166 (17.0 per cent), Student for 1,521 (11.9 per cent), Long-Term Resident for 1,469 (11.5 per cent) and Engineer/Specialist in Humanities/International Services for 1,069 (8.4 per cent). A substantial proportion, in other words, are people whose lives are based in Japan.

Why an 84.2 per cent suspension rate is not a reason to relax

In the 2024 sentencing statistics, of the 2,326 people given determinate sentences in district courts for Cannabis Control Act violations, 1,959 (84.2 per cent) received wholly suspended sentences and 367 (15.8 per cent) received sentences to be served. For Stimulants Control Act violations, of a total of 4,770, 1,717 (36.0 per cent) received wholly suspended sentences and 3,053 (64.0 per cent) sentences to be served.

For a Japanese defendant, one can read this as showing that more than eight in ten cannabis cases lead to rehabilitation within the community. For a foreign national, the figure is no reassurance at all. Article 24, item 4, sub-item (chi) (入管法24条4号チ) makes a person convicted of violating drug legislation deportable (退去強制) and says nothing about the type or the length of the sentence. The exclusion for suspended sentences is in the proviso to sub-item (ri) of the same item, but that sub-item is expressed to apply in addition to those listed in (ni) through (chi), so the proviso never reaches drug offences.

Overlay the statistics on that structure and the point of concentration becomes clear. A suspended sentence at trial is not a destination when measured against residence. The contest lies before the disposition is decided, where prosecution rates and suspension of prosecution rates move.

About our office

At Funado International Law Office, attorney Daisuke Matsumura handles every stage personally, from the first detention visit through to the close of trial, and as a matter of policy the work is not passed to clerks or junior lawyers.

For Chinese, a dedicated interpreter experienced in cases involving foreign nationals is on staff. 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. The residence procedures that follow the criminal process are handled together with an affiliated administrative scrivener, without a gap.

From matters we have handled

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 cross-examination. It shows that even in a category where the statistics look forbidding, verifying the content of the evidence item by item is worth doing.

In a matter where a client was treated as a collector in a specialised fraud case and re-arrested several times, careful handling of the interrogations, formal objections to improper questioning and patient presentation of the evidence and argument produced non-prosecution decisions (不起訴処分) on every count.

Statistics can light the direction of travel, but they do not choose the destination. What matters is working out early which category your own case belongs to, and where your effort can be concentrated. Please note that this article is general commentary only; for your own situation, speak to a lawyer directly. Past matters turned on their own particular facts, and they are not a guarantee of a similar outcome.

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