Suspected of Smuggling Stimulants Through a Japanese Airport: Life Imprisonment or Three Years and Up, and What It Means for Residence

The family member who should have walked into the arrivals hall never appears. Days later you learn that they were taken into custody during a customs inspection. That is how airport drug cases usually reach a family. Importation of stimulants with a profit-making purpose (営利目的) is among the most serious drug offences in Japanese law, and the statutory penalty includes life imprisonment. This article explains calmly how heavy this category of offence is, how the procedure unfolds, and what is at stake for a foreign client in terms of the right to stay.

Key points

• Import, export and manufacture of stimulants with profit-making purpose carry life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than 3 years under article 41(2) of the Stimulants Control Act, and depending on the circumstances that sentence together with a fine of up to 10 million yen.
• Import, export and manufacture without a profit-making purpose carry imprisonment for a determinate term of not less than 1 year under article 41(1).
• Because the statutory penalty includes life imprisonment, this category is tried before a panel including lay judges.
• On the residence side, the conviction itself 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), and if the term to be served exceeds 1 year the heightened requirement in the proviso to article 50(1) is also triggered.
• Switching early to a defence aimed only at reducing the sentence is therefore not necessarily the best course when the right to stay is taken into account.

How serious is the charge if you are stopped at the airport?

Import, export and manufacture of stimulants carry imprisonment for a determinate term of not less than 1 year under article 41(1) of the Stimulants Control Act. Where there was a profit-making purpose, article 41(2) applies: life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than 3 years, and depending on the circumstances that sentence together with a fine of up to 10 million yen. That life imprisonment is among the options shows where this category sits.

Narcotics follow a similar structure. Import, export and manufacture of diacetylmorphine, that is, heroin and the like, carry imprisonment for a determinate term of not less than 1 year under article 64(1) of the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act, and with a profit-making purpose, life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than 3 years with a fine of up to 10 million yen added. Import, export and manufacture of other narcotics such as cocaine or MDMA carry imprisonment for 1 to 10 years under article 65(1) of the same Act, and with a profit-making purpose, imprisonment for a determinate term of not less than 1 year with a fine of up to 5 million yen added.

Where organised or repeated smuggling is in issue, article 5 of the Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act, covering unlawful importation and similar conduct carried out as a business, may apply. That article provides for life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than 5 years together with a fine of up to 10 million yen, and it is distinctive in that the fine must be imposed in addition.

• Stimulants, import etc. (Stimulants Control Act art. 41(1)) = imprisonment for a determinate term of not less than 1 year
• Stimulants, import etc. with profit-making purpose (art. 41(2)) = life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than 3 years, and depending on the circumstances that sentence together with a fine of up to 10 million yen
• Heroin and the like, import etc. with profit-making purpose (Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act art. 64(1)) = life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than 3 years together with a fine of up to 10 million yen
• Unlawful importation etc. carried out as a business (Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act art. 5) = life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than 5 years together with a fine of up to 10 million yen

How does the procedure unfold?

Airport cases usually begin with a customs inspection, followed by custody at the scene and then questioning by the investigating authorities. Where a large quantity was seized, the investigation proceeds on the premise of a profit-making purpose from the outset.

Because the statutory penalty includes life imprisonment, a prosecution is tried before a panel including lay judges. The case passes through pre-trial arrangement proceedings, and a considerable period elapses between the filing of charges and judgment. Custody usually continues throughout, and for families it becomes a stretch of time with no visible end.

Where the client has only just arrived in Japan, there are further complications: no one in the country to act as guarantor and no settled address. Practical tasks such as securing contact details, communicating with family in the home country and arranging interpretation arise alongside the legal issues.

How are "I was just asked to carry it" cases treated?

Where drugs were concealed in the false bottom of a suitcase or inside souvenirs, the person who carried the bag frequently says they did not know what was inside. Since an offence requires intent (故意), that is an argument with direct legal significance.

For the account to be accepted, however, it must be consistent with the surrounding circumstances: how the trip came about, the relationship with the person who made the request, the amount of any payment and whether it was proportionate, the situation in which the bag was handed over, and who paid the travel costs. If there was something unnatural about the weight or appearance of the luggage and no check was made, an explanation of that will also be sought. Whether the conduct is assessed as involving conditional intent is, in practice, often the dividing line.

How the early statements are constructed is therefore decisive. Rather than recounting fragments of memory as they surface, the sequence from preparing for the trip to the moment of arrest has to be presented consistently and in order. Where the exchange passes through an interpreter, delicate expressions bearing on awareness can carry a much stronger meaning in the written statement, and this too calls for care.

What makes this category distinctive from the residence standpoint

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. Since the weight of the sentence is not a requirement, in this category the ground for deportation cannot be avoided once there is a conviction.

On top of that, with a statutory floor of 3 years, a conviction is likely to result in a term to be served exceeding 1 year. The proviso to article 50(1) imposes a heightened requirement for persons sentenced to life imprisonment or to imprisonment exceeding 1 year: permission may be granted only where it is found that there are special circumstances such that refusing permission would be contrary to humanitarian consideration. In other words, in this category the framework for assessing special permission to stay (在留特別許可) itself shifts to the stricter side.

In addition, after deportation a ground for denial of landing (上陸拒否) under article 5(1)(v) remains, and unlike article 5(1)(ix) it carries no fixed period of 1 year, 5 years or 10 years. Where a person is removed leaving family behind in Japan, this bears on the prospect of ever being reunited.

The trap in switching early to a mitigation-only defence

In serious cases, people sometimes take the view that contesting the matter will not change the outcome, and decide early to admit the facts and work on reducing the sentence. Measured solely by the length of the term, there are certainly situations in which that judgment is rational.

For a foreign client, however, the choice carries a further meaning. Under the structure of sub-item (chi), a conviction gives rise to a ground for deportation whatever the sentence. In other words, success in reducing the sentence does not change the residence outcome. The exits that can protect the right to stay are limited to a decision not to prosecute (不起訴処分) before charges are filed, or an acquittal at trial.

Accordingly, where there is objectively room to contest intent, admitting the facts early for sentencing purposes can be a choice that costs a great deal in residence terms. Measure the criminal outlook and the residence outlook on separate scales, convey both accurately to the client and the family, and let them decide the course. That conversation is where our office spends the most time.

We should add that a decision to contest intent must be made after scrutinising the evidence. We are not saying that contesting a case is advantageous. Determining whether there is room to contest at all, against the record, comes first.

Case results and how we work with clients

The two matters below, concerning serious cases and cases where profit-making purpose was in issue, 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. Cases tried before lay judges require long work in pre-trial arrangement proceedings on constructing arguments and testing the evidence, and our policy is to carry that process through with a single lawyer rather than dividing it. 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.

• 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. It was a case in which a finding on a subjective element, the profit-making purpose, was contested directly against the evidence.
• We have experience in international criminal cases, cases tried before lay judges, and serious cases reported worldwide.

Cases that begin with an airport arrest differ in scale from other drug cases in the severity of the offence, the length of the procedure and the burden on the family. That is precisely why the direction chosen at the very start shapes the options that remain later. Setting the scale of the sentence and the scale of residence side by side, and deciding the course in a way you are satisfied with, is what matters most. We would be glad to begin with you by putting the facts 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