"Profit-Making Purpose" in Japanese Drug Cases: How the Finding Changes Everything, Including Your Right to Stay

In a drug defence, whether a case is treated as simple possession or as possession with profit-making purpose (営利目的) shifts the minimum sentence, shifts the outlook for custody, and, for a foreign client, shifts the very framework in which special permission to stay (在留特別許可) is assessed. The quantity seized, small packages, a set of scales, cash, message histories on a phone. From fragments like these an inference of profit-making purpose is built, and that process often leaves more room for argument than people assume. This article looks at how this one element transforms a case, from the standpoint of both the statutes and the procedure.

Key points

• Possession, transfer and receipt of cannabis with profit-making purpose carry imprisonment for 1 to 10 years under article 66(2) of the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act, and depending on the circumstances that sentence together with a fine of up to 3 million yen.
• Possession, transfer and receipt of stimulants with profit-making purpose are the aggravated form under article 41-2(1) of the Stimulants Control Act, carrying imprisonment for a determinate term of not less than 1 year together with a fine of up to 5 million yen.
• Whether or not there was a profit-making purpose, a conviction is a ground for deportation (退去強制) under article 24, item 4, sub-item (chi) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (入管法24条4号チ).
• Where the sentence to be served exceeds 1 year, the heightened requirement in the proviso to article 50(1) is triggered and the standard for special permission to stay becomes stricter.
• The defence goals therefore need to be layered: non-prosecution first, then negating profit-making purpose, then containing the length of any term to be served.

How much heavier is the sentence if profit-making purpose is found?

The biggest change is that a minimum sentence appears. For cannabis, simple possession, transfer and receipt carry imprisonment for up to 7 years under article 66(1) of the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act, whereas with a profit-making purpose article 66(2) applies: imprisonment for not less than 1 year and not more than 10 years, and depending on the circumstances that sentence together with a fine of up to 3 million yen.

For stimulants, possession, transfer and receipt carry imprisonment for up to 10 years under article 41-2(1) of the Stimulants Control Act, while with a profit-making purpose the penalty becomes imprisonment for a determinate term of not less than 1 year, with a fine of up to 5 million yen added. In substance the ceiling is raised considerably.

A floor of 1 year also means the starting point for sentencing has moved. Dispositions that would be well within view on a simple possession charge can fall out of view once a profit-making purpose is found.

• Cannabis, simple possession etc. (Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act art. 66(1)) = imprisonment for up to 7 years
• Cannabis with profit-making purpose (art. 66(2)) = imprisonment for 1 to 10 years, and depending on the circumstances that sentence together with a fine of up to 3 million yen
• Stimulants, possession etc. (Stimulants Control Act art. 41-2(1)) = imprisonment for up to 10 years
• Stimulants with profit-making purpose (the aggravated form of that paragraph) = imprisonment for a determinate term of not less than 1 year together with a fine of up to 5 million yen

How is a profit-making purpose inferred?

Because a profit-making purpose concerns a person's state of mind, in most cases the finding is attempted by inference from external facts. What is commonly relied on in practice includes the quantity of the drug seized, multiple small packages, equipment such as digital scales and zip-lock bags, a quantity of cash, and messages in a communication history that suggest dealing.

Each of these facts, however, is capable of an explanation other than a profit-making purpose. A personal user may obtain a quantity at once; a person may receive a substance already divided into small packages; cash may derive from wages or a remittance; the other party to the messages may be someone with whom the substance was used together rather than a buyer. Cases are not all alike.

An inference can lose much of its force when one of its premises falls away. The essential work, therefore, is to build up a concrete account of each circumstantial fact, when, from whom and how it came about, in a form that is consistent with the record.

What contesting a profit-making purpose looks like in practice

The approach varies with the case, but broadly it divides into contesting whether the circumstantial facts exist at all, and accepting those facts while contesting whether a profit-making purpose can properly be inferred from them. In the latter, we present the whole picture, including the client's circumstances, income, history of use and how the substance was obtained, and examine whether the chain of inference contains a leap.

Statements require care as well. Once a remark to the effect that "I was also thinking of selling some" is recorded during questioning, reversing it later is not easy. This is particularly acute where questioning proceeds through an interpreter, since the Japanese legal term for profit-making purpose does not map neatly onto its everyday sense, and the mismatch can end up embedded in the written statement. Understanding, at the moment, what each answer means is important.

Our office has acted for a client prosecuted under the Stimulants Control Act for possession with profit-making purpose who was acquitted after exhaustive analysis of the evidence together with examination of the defendant and cross-examination. A finding of profit-making purpose is not something that will always be overturned by contesting it, but neither is it something to be written off as beyond argument.

Is the effect on residence different from a simple possession case?

On the single question of whether a ground for deportation applies, there is no difference. Article 24, item 4, sub-item (chi) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act simply lists persons convicted of violating the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act, the Stimulants Control Act and the other named laws; neither a profit-making purpose nor the weight of the sentence appears as a requirement. A fine for simple possession and a term to be served for possession with profit-making purpose lead to the same conclusion on this point.

The difference emerges at the next stage, in relation to special permission to stay. The proviso to article 50(1) imposes a heightened requirement for persons sentenced to life imprisonment or to imprisonment exceeding 1 year (excluding those given a fully suspended sentence, and those given a partly suspended sentence where the unsuspended part is 1 year or less): permission may be granted only where it is found that there are special circumstances such that refusing permission would be contrary to humanitarian consideration.

Sub-item (chi), which covers drug offences, is not among the provisions listed in that proviso. So long as the case does not result in a term exceeding 1 year to be served, it is assessed under the ordinary framework rather than the heightened one. Raising the sentencing floor to 1 year through a finding of profit-making purpose moves the case towards that dividing line, and that is where the institutional weight of this issue lies.

Setting the goals in layers

In drug cases involving foreign nationals, a defence that treats a suspended sentence as the ultimate goal has set its target wrongly when measured against the right to stay. Under the structure of sub-item (chi), a conviction gives rise to a ground for deportation whatever the sentence. The first objective must be a decision not to prosecute (不起訴処分) before charges are filed.

Where a profit-making purpose is in issue, however, how realistic that exit is varies greatly from case to case. We therefore do not narrow the objective to one point but design it in layers: first, non-prosecution; if that is difficult, second, negating the profit-making purpose so that the matter is handled as the simple form; and if a term to be served appears unavoidable, third, containing that term within 1 year.

Whether the third layer is in view changes the nature of the mitigation material to be submitted at trial. Evidence directed at the framework in which special permission to stay will be assessed has to be built up in parallel, from the criminal stage onwards.

Case results and how we work

The two matters below, concerning cases where profit-making purpose was in issue and serious cases, are those we are able to describe publicly. Past results reflect the particular circumstances of those cases and are not a guarantee of a similar outcome.

Attorney Daisuke Matsumura personally handles every stage, from the first visit at the detention facility through to the close of trial. Where profit-making purpose is contested, the work of cross-checking a large volume of material, the condition of the seized items, communication records, statements of co-defendants, is indispensable, and keeping the case with one lawyer pays off here. For Chinese we have a dedicated interpreter on staff who is experienced in cases involving foreign nationals; for languages other than Chinese, we arrange an interpreter according to the needs of the case. Residence procedures after the criminal case ends are handled together with an affiliated administrative scrivener.

• A client prosecuted under the Stimulants Control Act for possession with profit-making purpose was acquitted following exhaustive analysis of the evidence together with examination of the defendant and cross-examination.
• We have experience in international criminal cases, cases tried before lay judges, and serious cases reported worldwide.

Whether those few words, profit-making purpose, attach to a case changes the entire landscape. The sentencing floor moves, the outlook for custody moves, and the standard for special permission to stay moves. Conclusions do not follow automatically from the state of the seized items; there is always room to retell how things came about, carefully. Before you face questioning with your worries unspoken, we would encourage you to take the opportunity to examine the case against the record. This article is a general explanation; for your own case, consult a lawyer directly. Past results reflect the particular circumstances of those cases and 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