Article 5 of Japan's Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act: Unlawful Importation as a Business, Life or 5+ Years' Imprisonment, and a Mandatory Fine

In organised drug cases, prosecutors may reach beyond the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act (麻薬及び向精神薬取締法) and the Stimulants Control Act (覚醒剤取締法) to the Act on Special Provisions for the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act, etc. and Other Matters for the Prevention of Activities Encouraging Illicit Conduct and Other Activities Involving Controlled Substances through International Cooperation, generally known as the Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act (麻薬特例法). Article 5 of that Act sets a sentencing framework quite unlike other provisions. Families are left carrying two worries at once: why such a heavy provision has been invoked, and what will happen to the person's status of residence (在留資格). Here we set out how the provision is structured and how to think about the procedure ahead.

Key points

• Unlawful importation and comparable conduct carried out as a business, under Article 5 of the Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act, carries life imprisonment (拘禁刑) or imprisonment for five years or more, with a fine of up to 10 million yen imposed as a mandatory addition.
• The Act also sets penalties for concealment of drug crime proceeds under Article 6, receipt of such proceeds under Article 7, and importation of goods represented as controlled substances under Article 8, paragraph 1.
• The Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act is among the laws listed in Article 24, item 4(chi) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (入管法), so a ground for deportation (退去強制) arises the moment a guilty verdict is entered.
• If the unsuspended sentence exceeds one year, the heightened requirement in the proviso to Article 50, paragraph 1 applies to special permission to stay (在留特別許可).
• In 2024, the prosecution rate for offences under the Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act was 36.8 per cent and the suspension of prosecution rate was 52.5 per cent (2025 White Paper on Crime).

What does Article 5 of the Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act actually provide?

It punishes unlawful importation and comparable conduct carried out as a business, with life imprisonment or imprisonment for five years or more, together with a mandatory fine of up to 10 million yen. What distinguishes the provision is that it does not stop at a custodial sentence: a fine is imposed in addition.

The Act contains other significant provisions as well. Article 6 makes concealment of drug crime proceeds punishable by imprisonment of up to ten years or a fine of up to 5 million yen, or both. Article 7 makes receipt of such proceeds punishable by imprisonment of up to seven years or a fine of up to 3 million yen, or both. Article 8, paragraph 1 provides for imprisonment of up to three years or a fine of up to 500,000 yen for importation and comparable conduct involving goods represented as controlled substances.

Why does the phrase "as a business" become the battleground?

Because the presence or absence of those three words changes both which provision applies and the sentencing range available.

Importing stimulants with intent to profit, for instance, carries life imprisonment or imprisonment for three years or more under Article 41, paragraph 2 of the Stimulants Control Act, with a fine of up to 10 million yen imposed in addition depending on the circumstances. Importing heroin and related substances with intent to profit under Article 64, paragraph 1 of the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act likewise carries life imprisonment or imprisonment for three years or more together with a fine of up to 10 million yen. Article 5 of the Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act raises the lower limit to five years and makes the fine mandatory.

The defence work therefore involves examining, against the evidence and in concrete terms, whether the conduct was repeated and continuous, where the person sat within any organisation, the nature of any payment and how it came to be received, and how instructions actually flowed. Accurately redrawing the degree of a person's involvement is, in these cases, the same thing as contesting which provision applies.

Where Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act cases sit in the statistics

According to the 2025 White Paper on Crime, in 2024 the prosecution rate for offences under the Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act was 36.8 per cent and the suspension of prosecution (起訴猶予) rate was 52.5 per cent. For comparison, the figures given for other drug legislation are a prosecution rate of 74.2 per cent and a suspension of prosecution rate of 8.5 per cent for the Stimulants Control Act, 44.1 per cent and 35.5 per cent for the Cannabis Control Act, and 57.5 per cent and 15.9 per cent for the Narcotics Control Act.

These are aggregate figures by offence category, and the composition behind them varies enormously with the nature of the conduct and the degree of involvement. Offences under the Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act range from the heavy category in Article 5 to the comparatively light one in Article 8, so an average cannot be taken as a forecast for your own case.

Statistics are best used as an indication that the decisive point of the defence differs from one offence to another. They are not, in our view, a tool for predicting outcomes.

What does a conviction mean for your status of residence?

The Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act is one of the laws listed in Article 24, item 4(chi) of the Immigration Act. A guilty verdict under that Act therefore establishes a ground for deportation.

The item refers only to a person who "has been found guilty". It says nothing about the type or length of the sentence, and it provides no exception for a suspended sentence. Nor does it ask what status of residence you hold: those on a work-related status under Appendix I (別表第一) and 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) all stand on the same footing.

If the unsuspended sentence exceeds one year, the proviso to Article 50, paragraph 1 of the Immigration Act then operates at the special permission stage, confining permission to cases where the authorities find "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 that proviso, but where a provision with a high lower limit such as Article 5 is applied, this heightened requirement becomes a real and present problem.

Designing all three stages as one

Even in the most serious cases, or rather especially in the most serious cases, the procedure has to be planned across three distinct stages.

The first line of defence is obtaining a decision not to prosecute (不起訴処分) in the criminal case. Since the guilty verdict itself is what costs a person their residence, we consider that a strategy treating a suspended sentence at trial as the final objective sets the wrong target from an immigration standpoint. The second line is contesting whether a ground for deportation is made out in the deportation procedure. The third is special permission to stay, which means building up the factors that Article 50, paragraph 5 of the Immigration Act now sets out in statute, and arguing, by reference to published cases in which permission was granted, that unequal treatment offends the principle of equality under Article 14, paragraph 1 of the Constitution.

How our office works

Funado International Law Office is at 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, and the work is not delegated to clerical staff or junior lawyers. Where there are multiple co-defendants, or where the trial runs long, having one person throughout is what keeps the strategy coherent.

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, 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 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). In cases that cross borders, careful work is needed to establish where the evidence is and what weight to give the statements of those involved.

Where Article 5 of the Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act is applied, both the sentencing range and the immigration consequences are debated at a different level from an ordinary drug case. Even so, the weight of a provision and the immovability of the facts are two different things. We would encourage you to begin by checking, point by point, exactly which conduct is said to satisfy which element of which provision. 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