Heroin Offences and Your Status of Residence in Japan: Why Articles 64-2 and 64-3 Are Treated Separately from Other Narcotics

Cases involving heroin (diacetylmorphine) are governed by their own provisions within the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act (麻薬及び向精神薬取締法), carrying heavier statutory penalties than other narcotics. For a foreign national, however, the decisive point lies somewhere other than the severity of the sentence. Whatever punishment is imposed, the bare fact of a guilty verdict gives rise to a ground for deportation (退去強制) under the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (入管法). This article sets out how the heroin provisions are structured, what they mean for your status of residence (在留資格), and what needs to be built into your case while the criminal process is still running.

Key points

• Heroin and related substances are governed by Articles 64, 64-2 and 64-3 of the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act, which are separate from, and heavier than, the provisions covering other narcotics.
• Article 24, item 4(chi) of the Immigration Act refers only to a person who "has been found guilty". It sets no limit as to the type or length of sentence, and contains no exception for a suspended sentence.
• Where an unsuspended sentence exceeds one year, Article 24, item 4(ri) and the proviso to Article 50, paragraph 1 come into play on top of that.
• The fact of having been sentenced remains, under Article 5, paragraph 1, item 5, a ground for denial of landing (上陸拒否) with no time limit attached to it.
• In practice the key is to design the criminal case, the deportation procedure and the application for special permission to stay (在留特別許可) as a single, connected whole.

Why is heroin dealt with under different provisions from other narcotics?

Because the statutory penalties are set on a graduated scale. The Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act reserves separate provisions for diacetylmorphine (heroin) and related substances, apart from those applying to narcotics generally.

Specifically, importing, exporting or manufacturing heroin and related substances carries, under Article 64, paragraph 1, imprisonment (拘禁刑) for a definite term of one year or more. Where there is a profit-making purpose, the penalty is life imprisonment or imprisonment for three years or more, and depending on the circumstances a fine of up to 10 million yen may be imposed in addition. Possession and transfer are covered by Article 64-2, which provides for imprisonment of up to ten years, rising for profit-making cases to imprisonment for a definite term of one year or more together with a fine of up to 5 million yen. Use and receiving administration fall under Article 64-3, which provides for imprisonment of up to ten years.

By contrast, possession and transfer of other narcotics such as cocaine or MDMA carry imprisonment of up to seven years under Article 66 of the same Act, while importing, exporting and manufacturing them carry imprisonment of between one and ten years under Article 65, paragraph 1. Although the single word "narcotic" covers both groups, the legislation draws a clear distinction between them.

Sentence severity and immigration consequences are two separate questions

So far as your residence is concerned, the severity of the statutory penalty is not the decisive factor. Article 24, item 4(chi) of the Immigration Act refers simply to a person who has been found guilty of violating drug-related legislation, including the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act. It says nothing about the type of punishment or its length.

Whether the case involves heroin or any other narcotic, therefore, the moment a guilty verdict is entered you stand at the same doorway on the immigration side. Whether the sentence was suspended makes no difference to the application of this provision. Nor does the provision ask what status of residence you hold: it applies equally to those on a work-related status under Appendix I (別表第一) and to permanent residents (永住者), long-term residents (定住者) and spouses or children of Japanese nationals under Appendix II (別表第二).

What extra consequences follow if the unsuspended sentence exceeds one year?

Two further provisions come into play, each at a different stage: Article 24, item 4(ri), and the proviso to Article 50, paragraph 1 governing special permission to stay.

Article 24, item 4(ri) makes a person sentenced to life imprisonment, or to imprisonment exceeding one year, deportable, while excluding those whose sentence has been suspended in its entirety and certain related cases. Note, however, that the item opens with the words "in addition to the persons listed in (ni) through (chi)". Drug offences already fall within the scope of item 4(chi), so the benefit of that exclusion does not reach them.

The provision with greater practical significance is the proviso to Article 50, paragraph 1. For a person sentenced to life imprisonment or to imprisonment exceeding one year (excluding those whose sentence is wholly suspended and comparable cases), that proviso imposes a heightened requirement: special permission to stay may be granted only where there are "special circumstances such that refusing permission to reside in Japan would be found to lack humanitarian consideration". Item 4(chi) is not itself among the grounds listed in the proviso. Whether an unsuspended sentence of more than one year can be avoided therefore does a great deal to shape the framework of everything that follows.

After deportation, is there any way back into Japan?

The fact of having been sentenced for a drug offence remains a ground for denial of landing under Article 5, paragraph 1, item 5 of the Immigration Act, and no time limit is attached to it.

Item 9 of the same paragraph sets out periods of one year, five years and ten years according to a person's deportation history. Item 5 contains no such period. As a result, even after the period under item 9 has run its course, item 5 continues to apply. Item 5 is satisfied simply by the fact of having been sentenced: a fine is enough, and violations of the laws of countries other than Japan are included.

In that situation, the only remaining route into Japan is special permission for landing under Article 12, paragraph 1 of the Immigration Act. Where a person is leaving Japan with family remaining behind, this is the hardest reality of all, which is why it needs to be kept in view from the criminal stage onward.

Building three lines of defence

In cases involving foreign nationals and drugs, our office plans the work in three distinct stages.

The more serious the category of offence, the less time there is to invest in the first line of defence. That is precisely why, from the moment of arrest, the way the record is built has to anticipate the immigration procedure. The course of any dispute over intent or knowledge of possession in the criminal case, defects in the seizure procedure, and material substantiating family ties and the reality of daily life all become the foundation for arguments made later.

• First line: obtaining a decision not to prosecute (不起訴処分) in the criminal case, through examination of the elements of the offence, intent, and unlawfully obtained evidence
• Second line: contesting whether a ground for deportation is in fact made out in the deportation procedure
• Third line: special permission to stay, by building up the factors listed in Article 50, paragraph 5 and arguing equality on the basis of published precedent cases

How our office works

At Funado International Law Office (3F Fuse Building Main Wing, 3-4-10 Takada, Toshima-ku, Tokyo), attorney Daisuke Matsumura personally handles every stage, from the first detention-centre visit through to the close of trial. We do not delegate the work to clerical staff or junior lawyers.

For Chinese, a dedicated interpreter experienced in cases involving foreign nationals is on staff. Separate from the interpreter appointed by the investigating authorities, you can use an interpreter who acts for you throughout the criminal process. For languages other than Chinese, including English, we arrange an interpreter to suit the particular case.

From cases we have handled

In one case, a client prosecuted under the Stimulants Control Act (覚醒剤取締法) for possession with intent to profit was acquitted following exhaustive analysis of the evidence and careful examination of the defendant and cross-examination of witnesses (A-1). We have also handled many cases tried before lay judge panels, and serious cases that attracted press coverage.

Our experience extends to international criminal cases, lay judge cases, and serious matters reported worldwide (E-1). Where the statutory penalties are heavy, the essential first step is to determine whether the facts themselves can be contested, rather than confining the work to negotiation within the sentencing range.

In heroin cases it is easy to be transfixed by the severity of the statutory penalty, yet from an immigration standpoint the single fact of a guilty verdict carries just as much weight. That is why the criminal case, the deportation procedure and the application for special permission to stay have to be designed as one continuous process from the outset. This article is a general explanation. For your own situation, please consult a lawyer directly. The past results described above turned on the particular circumstances of those cases and are not a guarantee that a similar outcome will be achieved.

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