When a Technical Intern Is Arrested in a Drug Case: Continuing the Training, the Effect on the Employer, and the Family Back Home

When someone who came to Japan on a technical intern training (技能実習) status of residence (在留資格) becomes involved in a drug case, the questions arrive all at once alongside the criminal liability itself. Can the training continue? What will the employer and the supervising organisation be told? What can be said to the family waiting back home? Many interns have taken on substantial costs to come to Japan, and the weight of the situation bears no comparison with a similar case involving a Japanese national. Here we set out the legal framework accurately and identify what should come first in the limited time available.

Key points

• Technical intern training is a status of residence under Appendix I (別表第一) of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (入管法), granted for a fixed period and maintained through renewal.
• For drug offences, Article 24, item 4(chi) operates on a guilty verdict alone, regardless of whether the status falls under Appendix I or Appendix II (別表第二).
• Article 24, item 4-2, which applies on top for Appendix I holders, covers certain Penal Code and comparable offences; drug offences fall under item 4(chi), not that provision.
• Even where there is no prosecution, a separate route remains through the conduct assessment at renewal of the period of stay.
• Among people arrested in 2025 in cases involving foreign nationals who had come to Japan, technical intern training was the largest category by status of residence, at 2,812 people or 22.0 per cent (National Police Agency).

Where the technical intern training status sits

Technical intern training is one of the statuses listed in Appendix I of the Immigration Act. It is tied to the activity carried on in Japan, with a fixed period of stay and residence continued through renewal. In that respect it is structurally different from the Appendix II statuses, which rest on personal status or position.

Holders of an Appendix I status are subject to a separate ground for deportation (退去強制) under Article 24, item 4-2 of the Immigration Act. It applies where a person is sentenced to imprisonment (拘禁刑) for offences under certain chapters of the Penal Code, certain offences under the Act on Punishment of Physical Violence and Other Acts, or offences under Article 2 or Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Act on Punishment of Acts Inflicting Death or Injury on Others by Driving a Motor Vehicle, and it applies even where the sentence is suspended. Holders of an Appendix II status are outside its scope.

Drug offences, however, are not governed by that item. For drugs, the provision that applies is Article 24, item 4(chi), which operates irrespective of which status of residence is held. Being a technical intern therefore neither worsens nor improves the position on this point.

If I am convicted, can I continue my technical intern training?

The basis of your residence itself begins to fall away, so continuing the training becomes very difficult in practice.

Article 24, item 4(chi) of the Immigration Act refers to a person found guilty of violating the Narcotics and Psychotropics Control Act (麻薬及び向精神薬取締法), the Cannabis Cultivation Control Act (大麻草の栽培の規制に関する法律), the Opium Act (あへん法), the Stimulants Control Act (覚醒剤取締法), the Anti-Drug Special Provisions Act (麻薬特例法), or Chapter XIV of Part II of the Penal Code. It imposes no limit as to the type or length of the sentence, and it contains no provision excluding suspended sentences.

In other words, a case ending in a fine and a case ending in a suspended sentence are treated the same way on the deportation side. The explanation that "a suspended sentence means you can stay in Japan" is plainly wrong for drug cases. The exclusion for suspended sentences operates in the proviso to Article 24, item 4(ri), and since that item opens with the words "in addition to the persons listed in (ni) through (chi)", its benefit does not reach drug offences.

The burden carried by the family back home

In technical intern cases, matters back home often weigh heavily alongside the proceedings in Japan. The cost of coming to Japan, the contractual relationship with the sending organisation, the financial hopes the family has invested. None of these is a legal issue, but they shape the intern's decisions profoundly.

Some people, wanting to be released quickly and to get back to work, admit during questioning to things that are not true. In a drug case, though, buying release now at the price of moving closer to a guilty verdict means moving toward losing the right to remain.

If I am not prosecuted, what happens at renewal?

In terms of whether a ground for deportation exists, a decision not to prosecute (不起訴処分) is decisive. It is not a guilty verdict, so Article 24, item 4(chi) does not operate.

On the other hand, an Appendix I status still has the checkpoint of renewing the period of stay. The examination requires good conduct, and even in a case ending without prosecution, the substance of the underlying facts can be taken into account. A prior conviction and a prior investigation record are distinct concepts in law, but the realistic understanding is that, when conduct is assessed, the course of events leading to the disposal may itself be examined.

Two perspectives when seeking special permission to stay

Where a ground for deportation is made out, the next question is special permission to stay (在留特別許可). Article 50, paragraph 5 of the Immigration Act sets out in statute the factors the Minister of Justice is to consider, including the reasons for wishing to remain, family circumstances, conduct, how the person came to enter Japan, the length of residence in Japan and the legal status held during that time, the facts giving rise to the deportation, and the need for humanitarian consideration.

In drug cases, conduct and the facts giving rise to the deportation are the greatest obstacles. The task is therefore to confront those squarely while building up the remaining factors with concrete supporting material.

The second perspective is the use of published cases. Since 2004, the Immigration Services Agency (出入国在留管理庁) has published, year by year, cases in which special permission to stay was granted and cases in which it was refused. These are an accumulation of precedents in which the administration itself concluded that permission was appropriate. Where permission has been granted in cases with comparable circumstances and yet a different result is reached, that provides a basis for raising a question under the principle of equality in Article 14, paragraph 1 of the Constitution. Outcomes turn on individual circumstances, but this is, in our view, a perspective worth building into the argument.

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.

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 Vietnamese, English, Korean and other languages, we arrange an interpreter to suit the particular case.

From cases we have handled

In one case, a client re-arrested several times as a courier in a specialised fraud operation obtained a decision not to prosecute on every count, achieved through the handling of interrogations, protests against improper questioning, and the steady accumulation of argument and evidence (B-2). The point that how the early questioning is handled shapes the outcome applies equally to drug cases.

In another, a client who had lost their status of residence and was arrested and prosecuted for unlawful overstay obtained special permission to stay on a single application, after we negotiated with the authorities to establish marriage and acknowledgement of paternity, gathered favourable evidence in circumstances where almost no official documents from the country of nationality existed, and analysed the immigration authorities' previous grants of permission (D-1).

In technical intern cases, the criminal process and the immigration questions are compounded by circumstances back home. That is precisely why deciding at the outset what takes priority is what supports every decision that follows. Rather than carrying it alone, or settling on a course from the advice of those around you, we would encourage you to confirm the legal framework first and then decide. 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