Arrested for Stimulant Possession in Japan: Article 41-2 Penalties, the Statistics, and Deportation

Cases under the Stimulants Control Act have a noticeably different feel from cannabis cases. Statistically, both the proportion of cases charged and the proportion resulting in a term to be served are high, and a bleak forecast is often offered from the very first day. What clients and their families most need to know at the outset is that the weight of the criminal case and the effect on the status of residence (在留資格) operate on separate logics. This article sets out the penalties for possession and receipt, what the statistics actually show, and the framework of deportation (退去強制) and special permission to stay (在留特別許可).

Key points

• Possession, transfer and receipt of stimulants carry imprisonment for up to 10 years under article 41-2(1) of the Stimulants Control Act.
• Where there was a profit-making purpose (営利目的), the penalty is imprisonment for a determinate term of not less than 1 year, together with a fine of up to 5 million yen.
• In 2024, the rate of suspension of prosecution (起訴猶予) for offences under the Stimulants Control Act was 8.5 per cent, strikingly lower than the 35.5 per cent for cannabis.
• A conviction is a ground for deportation under article 24, item 4, sub-item (chi) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (入管法24条4号チ), whatever the weight of the sentence.
• Where the term to be served exceeds 1 year, the heightened requirement in the proviso to article 50(1) applies to the assessment of special permission to stay.

What penalties apply to possession or receipt of stimulants in Japan?

Possession, transfer and receipt of stimulants carry imprisonment for up to 10 years under article 41-2(1) of the Stimulants Control Act. Where there was a profit-making purpose, the penalty is imprisonment for a determinate term of not less than 1 year, with a fine of up to 5 million yen added.

Compared with simple possession, transfer and receipt of cannabis, which carry imprisonment for up to 7 years under article 66(1) of the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act, the statutory ceiling is clearly different. Use carries imprisonment for up to 10 years under article 41-3(1)(i) of the Stimulants Control Act, and import and related conduct with a profit-making purpose carries life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than 3 years under article 41(2), so the weight rises in steps according to the conduct involved.

Possession and transfer of stimulant raw materials carry imprisonment for up to 7 years under article 41-4 of the same Act.

How much tougher are stimulant cases than cannabis cases?

Set the statistics side by side and the difference is clear. According to the 2025 White Paper on Crime (drawing on the Annual Report of Statistics on Prosecution), in 2024 offences under the Stimulants Control Act showed a prosecution rate of 74.2 per cent and a suspension of prosecution rate of 8.5 per cent. For offences under the Cannabis Control Act the corresponding figures were 44.1 per cent and 35.5 per cent. The suspension of prosecution rate for special-law offences as a whole excluding road traffic offences was 45.5 per cent.

Sentencing shows the same pattern. According to the same White Paper (drawing on the Annual Report of Judicial Statistics), of the determinate sentences imposed by district courts in 2024, offences under the Stimulants Control Act accounted for 4,770 in total, of which 1,717 (36.0 per cent) were fully suspended and 3,053 (64.0 per cent) were terms to be served. For offences under the Cannabis Control Act, 1,959 of 2,326 (84.2 per cent) were fully suspended, a contrasting picture.

Part of the background appears in the National Police Agency's report on the organised crime situation in 2025 (final figures). The repeat offender rate for stimulant offences was 64.6 per cent and the first-time offender rate for cannabis offences was 72.6 per cent, and the high proportion of people with prior convictions of the same kind in stimulant cases can be taken to influence how these cases are assessed.

• Suspension of prosecution rate (2024): stimulants 8.5 per cent / cannabis 35.5 per cent
• Fully suspended sentences (2024, district courts, determinate terms): stimulants 36.0 per cent / cannabis 84.2 per cent
• Repeat and first-time offenders (2025): stimulant offences, repeat offender rate 64.6 per cent / cannabis offences, first-time offender rate 72.6 per cent

What happens to your right to stay if you are convicted?

Article 24, item 4, sub-item (chi) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act lists as subject to deportation persons convicted of violating the named laws, the Stimulants Control Act among them. There is no limitation as to the type of sentence, no minimum length, and no proviso excluding suspended sentences. A term to be served, a fully suspended sentence and a fine all lead to the same conclusion so long as there is a conviction.

Because terms to be served are common in stimulant cases, a further two-stage problem arises. First, 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. Whether the sentence exceeds 1 year therefore determines the very framework in which special permission to stay is assessed.

Second, after deportation a ground for denial of landing (上陸拒否) under article 5(1)(v) remains. That provision covers persons who have been sentenced for violating laws concerning the control of narcotics, cannabis, opium, stimulants and psychotropic substances, and unlike the denial of landing based on a deportation record under article 5(1)(ix), it carries no fixed period of 1 year, 5 years or 10 years. This is a ground that the passage of time alone does not resolve, and it needs to be understood in advance.

What does a suspension of prosecution rate of 8.5 per cent mean for the defence?

We do not read that figure as meaning that aiming for non-prosecution in a stimulant case is unrealistic. We read it as showing that the issues have to be identified early and precisely.

For a foreign client, obtaining a suspended sentence at trial is the wrong target 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 only exit that fully protects the right to stay is a decision not to prosecute (不起訴処分) before charges are filed. Abandoning that exit at the outset because the odds are poor means closing the one door that remains.

There is a great deal to examine. Is there any room to contest the fact of possession itself? What was the client's awareness of the item possessed? Was there anything wrong with how the evidence was gathered, whether through street questioning, a search of belongings, or a search and seizure? In a receipt case, how far is the other party's account corroborated? Only when all of this has been worked through, and prosecution nonetheless appears unavoidable, do we move to the next layer: negating the profit-making purpose, and then containing the sentence within 1 year.

This design is inseparable from preparation for special permission to stay. Material gathered during the criminal process becomes the foundation of the arguments in the immigration process.

What to build up towards special permission to stay

Article 50(5) provides for consideration of the reason for wishing to remain, family relationships, conduct, the circumstances that led to entering Japan, the length of stay in Japan, the legal status held during that time, the facts giving rise to deportation, the need for humanitarian consideration, conditions in Japan and abroad, the effect on unlawful residents in Japan, and other matters.

In stimulant cases, "conduct" and "the facts giving rise to deportation" are the greatest obstacles, and arguments that look away from them will not persuade. Where dependence is suspected, a realistic structure for preventing relapse has to be shown through submissions and documents: attending a medical institution and continuing treatment, a concrete supervision arrangement within the family, an employer willing to take the person back, a change of living environment.

Article 50(3) also provides that an application for special permission to stay cannot be made once a written deportation order has been issued. Managing the sequence and the timing matters.

Case results and how we work

The three matters below, from our work in stimulant cases and cases concerning residence, 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. For Chinese we have a dedicated interpreter on staff who is experienced in cases involving foreign nationals; separate from the interpreter appointed by the investigating authorities, this interpreter works for the client and is available throughout the criminal process. For languages other than Chinese, we arrange an interpreter according to the needs of the case. Extensions and changes of status of residence after the criminal case ends are handled together with an affiliated administrative scrivener, so that everything is dealt with in one place.

• 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.
• In litigation to assist a woman wrongly accused of facilitating illegal employment and facing deportation, we obtained special permission to stay in a case where that offence had been found, which had no precedent.
• In a matter where a woman in her twenties was accused of withdrawing money as part of an organised fraud scheme, we argued the subjective circumstances as a whole and obtained a decision not to prosecute.

Stimulant cases are a category where the statistics line up grimly. But statistics do not decide an individual case. What decides it is the facts particular to that case, and how carefully they have been unearthed. Building the criminal outlook and the plan for protecting the right to stay at the same time is what matters most. Before you carry this alone as a family, we would encourage you to take the opportunity to put the situation in order. 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