Arrested for Cocaine or MDMA in Japan: Narcotics Act Article 66 Penalties and Deportation Under Article 24(4)(chi)

Someone handed it to you at a club or a party; you still had what was left over from a trip. Cases involving cocaine or MDMA often begin with a single, casual involvement of that kind. However lightly it was taken at the time, these are "narcotics" under the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act, and possession alone is punishable. For a foreign national, the bare fact of a conviction becomes the reason for losing the status of residence (在留資格). This article works through the provisions and penalties, what the statistics show, and what happens if the case moves into deportation (退去強制) proceedings.

Key points

• Possession and transfer of narcotics such as cocaine and MDMA carry imprisonment for up to 7 years under article 66 of the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act.
• Import, export and manufacture carry imprisonment for not less than 1 year and not more than 10 years under article 65(1), and the penalty is heavier again where there was a profit-making purpose (営利目的).
• 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.
• A person who falls within a drug offence cannot use the departure order (出国命令) system, because the requirements of article 24-3 are not met.
• National Police Agency figures for 2025 record 118 arrests involving cocaine and 88 involving MDMA and similar substances among foreign nationals arrested for drug offences.

How are cocaine and MDMA regulated in Japan?

Both are regulated as "narcotics" under the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act. For narcotics other than cannabis, possession and transfer carry imprisonment for up to 7 years under article 66 of that Act, and where there was a profit-making purpose, imprisonment for not less than 1 year and not more than 10 years with a fine of up to 3 million yen added.

Import, export and manufacture carry imprisonment for 1 to 10 years under article 65(1), and with a profit-making purpose, imprisonment for a determinate term of not less than 1 year together with a fine of up to 5 million yen. Use (administration) and receipt of administration of narcotics carry imprisonment for up to 7 years under article 66-2(1). Note that among narcotics, heroin and the like are treated separately and more severely, with imprisonment for up to 10 years under each of articles 64-2 and 64-3 of the same Act.

• Narcotics (cocaine, MDMA and the like), possession and transfer (Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act art. 66) = imprisonment for up to 7 years
• The same with profit-making purpose (same article) = imprisonment for 1 to 10 years together with a fine of up to 3 million yen
• Import, export and manufacture of narcotics (art. 65(1)) = imprisonment for 1 to 10 years
• Use (administration) and receipt of administration of narcotics (art. 66-2(1)) = imprisonment for up to 7 years

What if it was handed to me on the spot, or I was just holding it?

In this pattern the way the substance was obtained is usually simple, which is exactly why clients find it hard to grasp how serious the situation is.

In law, however, once the state of possession exists the conduct can be punished, and accepting something handed to you may be assessed as receipt. On the other hand, whether you were aware of what you had been given matters as a question of intent (故意). Who gave it to you, in what situation, and with what explanation. Stating that sequence accurately is where the case begins.

During questioning, describing the atmosphere of the occasion and the relationships involved can lead to a written statement in which fact and evaluation are mixed together. Each element of a statement needs to be checked.

What the statistics show

According to the National Police Agency's report on the organised crime situation in 2025 (final figures), arrests for drug offences in 2025 totalled 14,574, of which 1,334 related to narcotics and psychotropic substances. Arrests of foreign nationals for drug offences numbered 1,502, comprising 657 for stimulants, 527 for cannabis, 118 for cocaine and 88 for MDMA and similar substances.

Published material also gives some sense of how such cases are disposed of. According to the 2025 White Paper on Crime (drawing on the Annual Report of Statistics on Prosecution), in 2024 offences under the Narcotics Control Act showed a prosecution rate of 57.5 per cent and a suspension of prosecution (起訴猶予) rate of 15.9 per cent. That sits squarely between the 8.5 per cent for offences under the Stimulants Control Act and the 35.5 per cent for offences under the Cannabis Control Act.

These are aggregated by offence name and do not distinguish between different forms of conduct. They cannot tell you the outlook for your own case, but they do show that suspension of prosecution is a realistic outcome in this category.

What happens to my status of residence if I am 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, beginning with the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act. The provision contains no limitation as to the type of sentence, no minimum length, and no proviso excluding suspended sentences. A fine, and a fully suspended sentence, lead to the same conclusion.

Article 24, item 4, sub-item (ri), which deals with imprisonment exceeding 1 year, does contain a proviso excluding fully suspended sentences, but it opens with the words "in addition to those listed in sub-items (ni) through (chi)", so drug offences lie outside its scope. The belief that a suspended sentence means you can stay does not hold for drug cases.

In addition, after deportation a ground for denial of landing (上陸拒否) under article 5(1)(v) remains. The denial of landing based on a deportation record under article 5(1)(ix) carries fixed periods of 1 year, 5 years and 10 years, but item (v) has no such time limit.

If I leave Japan voluntarily, can I use the departure order system?

A person who falls within a drug offence cannot use the departure order system. This is often misunderstood, so it is worth setting out the provisions.

Article 24-3 of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act limits departure orders to foreign nationals falling under article 24, item 2-4, item 4, sub-item (ro), and items 6 through 7, and then imposes requirements: that the person appeared voluntarily before a violation investigation began; that the person does not fall under any of items 3 through 3-5, item 4, sub-items (ha) through (yo), item 8 or item 9; that the person has not been sentenced to imprisonment after entering Japan for any of the offences listed in item 4-2; that the person has no history of leaving Japan under a deportation order or a departure order; and that the person is expected to leave Japan promptly.

Sub-item (chi), which covers drug offences, conflicts with the requirement of not falling under any of item 4, sub-items (ha) through (yo). Coming forward voluntarily therefore does not lead to a departure order, and the case proceeds to deportation. This is where the treatment differs from an overstay case.

Why published grant examples matter when seeking special permission to stay

Even where a ground for deportation applies, the framework of special permission to stay (在留特別許可) under article 50 of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act remains. It is worth noting in particular that sub-item (chi) is not among the provisions listed in the proviso to article 50(1), which imposes a heightened requirement. So long as the sentence is not a term exceeding 1 year to be served, the case is assessed under the ordinary framework.

In making that assessment, article 50(5) sets out as statutory factors the reason for wishing to remain, family relationships, conduct, the length of stay, the legal status held during that time, the facts giving rise to deportation, the need for humanitarian consideration and other matters. Here our office places particular weight on analysing the special permission to stay examples published by the Immigration Services Agency (出入国在留管理庁) since 2004.

Those published examples are nothing other than an accumulation of precedents in which the administrative authority itself judged permission to be appropriate. Where permission has been granted in cases with similar circumstances and this case alone is treated differently, the rationality of that difference falls to be questioned. There is room here to structure an argument around the principle of equality in article 14(1) of the Constitution.

We cannot say that comparison with published examples will secure permission. The decision turns on the particular circumstances. We confine ourselves to two points: such grants exist, and arguments built on them are possible.

Case results and how we work with clients

The three matters below, from our work on defence before charges are filed and on special permission to stay, 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, available throughout the criminal process as an interpreter working for the client. 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 are handled together with an affiliated administrative scrivener.

• A client who had come to Japan as a tourist lost his status of residence and was arrested and prosecuted for unlawful stay. A marriage and an acknowledgment of paternity had not yet been completed and the application was initially refused; we negotiated with the authorities from a constitutional standpoint so that both could be completed, gathered favourable evidence in a situation where official documents were scarce, and analysed the immigration authorities' past grant examples, obtaining special permission to stay on a single application.
• 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 (不起訴処分).
• We have experience in international criminal cases, cases tried before lay judges, and serious cases reported worldwide.

Cocaine and MDMA cases often involve a single episode and can be resolved comparatively quickly as criminal matters. But so long as that resolution is a conviction, a different consequence awaits on the residence side. Not being reassured by the criminal outlook alone, and forming a plan early that looks through to the deportation process, is what keeps the options open. We would be glad to start by putting the situation in order with you. 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