Issuing Body: Guozun Cathay Associates Japan Office
Date of Conclusion: 26 October 2025
Key Outcome: The case did not proceed to court trial. The Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office was successfully persuaded to issue a non-prosecution disposition. The client was released from custody on the same day and returned to China as per her original itinerary, with no criminal record in Japan.
This case was jointly handled by the Japan Office of Guozun Cathay Associates and the cross-border criminal defence team of its Beijing headquarters. Strictly following Japanese criminal procedure rules and Sino-Japanese cross-border legal service standards, and relying on Guozun’s dual-jurisdiction practising qualifications and local case-handling network, the firm provided an end-to-end closed-loop solution for a Chinese citizen detained overseas, covering entrustment liaison, criminal interviews, reconciliation-based defence, and release from custody.
This case has been included in Guozun’s 2025 Typical Case Library of Cross-Border Criminal Assistance. Its case-handling model – “rapid domestic entrustment liaison + immediate intervention by local lawyers + pre-promotion of compensation and forgiveness” – has been widely applied to emergency response scenarios for Chinese citizens involved in criminal offences during trips to Japan.
1. Case Background and Entrustment Process
Ms Wang, a citizen of mainland China, joined an outbound tour group organised in China and travelled to Tokyo, Japan for a 7-day group tour on 20 October 2025, with a scheduled return flight to China on 26 October. On the morning of 23 October, Ms Wang was stopped on the spot by store staff at a shop in Tokyo Disneyland on suspicion of stealing plush toys worth 16,050 yen. Japanese police attended the scene, arrested her immediately, and detained her at a police detention facility in the Tokyo Metropolis.
After the incident, her fellow travellers informed the tour leader immediately, who went to the relevant police station to communicate. However, under Japanese criminal procedure rules, only defence lawyers have the statutory right to meet suspects during the investigative stage; tour group staff and ordinary citizens are not permitted to contact detained suspects. The police only informed the tour leader of the suspected theft charge, and did not disclose key information such as interrogation progress, the client’s physical and mental state, or details of the incident. As the client’s mobile phone had been seized by the investigating authorities and she had been detained for more than 48 hours, she was completely out of contact with her family in China.
Mr Wang, a family member based in mainland China, was unable to travel to Japan to handle the matter. His core requirements were to entrust a local Japanese lawyer to conduct a criminal interview, confirm his relative’s personal safety, verify the full facts of the case, and at the same time seek to push for a lenient disposition, secure release from custody and return on schedule, and avoid a criminal record in Japan. On the evening of 23 October 2025, Mr Wang formally entrusted Guozun’s Beijing headquarters to intervene. The headquarters activated the Sino-Japanese Cross-Border Criminal Emergency Coordination Mechanism on the same day, and set up a special case-handling team together with the Japan Office. The Beijing headquarters was responsible for handling domestic entrustment procedures, collecting evidence materials and providing bilingual translation, while the Japan Office was responsible for appointing local defence counsel, conducting criminal interviews, conducting reconciliation negotiations, and liaising with judicial authorities to fully advance case resolution.
2. Full Process of Sino-Japanese Joint Case Handling
This case adopted a standardised collaboration model where “the Beijing headquarters is responsible for material coordination and entrustment compliance under the Chinese jurisdiction, and the Japan Office is responsible for local criminal procedure implementation and defence advancement under the Japanese jurisdiction”. All links have written records and verifiable outcomes:
2.1 23 October – Early Morning of 24 October 2025: Commencement of Entrustment and Dual-Jurisdiction Case Assessment
Beijing Headquarters: Received the family’s entrustment overnight, collected a full set of documents including kinship proof, the client’s passport and visa, travel itinerary, and tour group qualification materials, completed Sino-Japanese bilingual translation and format standardisation, issued the Report on Legality of Cross-Border Entrustment and Case Risk Assessment, confirmed the compliance of entrustment procedures, and synchronously transferred all materials to the Japan Office.
Japan Office: Liaised with the relevant police station at the earliest opportunity to verify the detention location, suspected charge and case progress, assessed the right of interview, detention period and scope for non-prosecution in accordance with Japanese criminal procedure rules, and simultaneously initiated preparatory work for the appointment of defence counsel.
2.2 24 October 2025: Formal Registration of Defence Counsel and First Criminal Interview
Japan Office: Completed formal registration procedures for the appointment of defence counsel on the morning of the same day, and went to the detention police station for the first confidential criminal interview. During the interview, the lawyer confirmed the client’s stable physical and psychological state, explained her statutory rights under the Japanese Code of Criminal Procedure, verified the full facts of the case, informed her of precautions for reviewing and signing interrogation records, and conveyed the concerns of her family in China.
Beijing Headquarters: Synchronously feedback details of the first interview to the family in China, supplemented and collected supporting materials such as the client’s domestic no-criminal-record certificate and employment certificate, strengthened the factual basis that the client was a first-time and accidental offender, and provided support for subsequent defence submissions.
2.3 Afternoon of 24 October – Morning of 25 October 2025: Victim Reconciliation Negotiation and Defence at Investigative Stage
Japan Office: Proactively contacted the involved Disneyland store to initiate victim reconciliation negotiations, returned the original stolen plush toys to the store, and paid equivalent compensation with the family’s authorisation, ultimately obtaining a written letter of forgiveness issued by the store. Simultaneously, the lawyer submitted the forgiveness document and preliminary defence opinion to the investigating police, highlighting that the client was a first-time offender entering Japan for a short-term trip with low subjective malice.
Beijing Headquarters: Assisted in verifying compensation standards and payment channels, translated documents related to the reconciliation agreement, ensured the full compliance of family authorisation and payment processes, and retained all payment vouchers and communication records.
2.4 Afternoon of 25 October – Morning of 26 October 2025: Defence at Pre-Prosecution Stage and Non-Prosecution Application
Japan Office: After the case was transferred to the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office upon conclusion of investigation, the lawyer conducted the second and third criminal interviews, explained the different legal consequences of prosecution and non-prosecution to the client, and sorted out key response points for prosecutor interrogation and the direction of remorse statements. At the same time, the lawyer submitted a full set of defence materials to the handling prosecutor, including the victim’s forgiveness letter, compensation payment vouchers, tour group itinerary certificate, and statement of the client’s circumstances, and requested the procuratorial authority to make a non-prosecution disposition in accordance with the principle of prosecutorial discretion under Japanese law.
Beijing Headquarters: Improved the bilingual comparison and standardised formatting of the full set of materials, supplemented and submitted supporting materials such as the client’s domestic social relations and family situation, to further demonstrate that the client had no subjective intention to overstay in Japan and low risk of reoffending.
2.5 Afternoon – Evening of 26 October 2025: Issuance of Non-Prosecution Decision and Case Closure Delivery
Japan Office: After reviewing the full case file and defence materials, the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office formally issued a non-prosecution disposition on the afternoon of the same day, and immediately lifted the detention measure against the client. The lawyer accompanied the client back to the tour group, and synchronously sent scanned copies of legal documents such as the non-prosecution decision and case closure statement to the Beijing headquarters.
Beijing Headquarters: Informed Mr Wang, the family member in China, of the case result and the client’s current situation at the first opportunity. Subsequently, the firm delivered the Case Closure Report and Handbook on Criminal Risk Prevention for Chinese Citizens Travelling to Japan to the client, and provided specific guidance on legal risks for outbound travel.
3. Key Case Handling Difficulties and Authoritative Solutions
The difficulties in handling this case are common issues in cases involving Chinese citizens in criminal matters in Japan. Relying on dual-jurisdiction professional expertise and local practical experience, the Guozun Sino-Japanese joint team has formed a replicable standardised solution:
3.1 Barriers to Right of Interview and Information Gap Under Cross-Border Detention
Legal Basis: Article 39 of the Japanese Code of Criminal Procedure, relevant provisions of the Sino-Japanese Consular Agreement
Solution: Relying on the practising qualifications of Guozun’s local Japanese lawyers, the team directly exercised the defence lawyer’s right to confidential interview, breaking through the access restrictions faced by family members and tour groups. A daily two-way synchronisation mechanism was established between the “Beijing Headquarters – Japan Office” to open up cross-border information channels and resolve the core pain point of loss of contact between family members and the detainee.
3.2 Difficulties in Applying Non-Prosecution Discretion to Short-Term Foreign Tourists
Legal Basis: Article 248 of the Japanese Code of Criminal Procedure (principle of prosecutorial discretion), discretionary standards for petty theft cases of Japanese public prosecutors offices
Solution: Focusing on the four core discretionary elements – “first-time and accidental offence, minor circumstances, compensation and forgiveness, no overstay risk” – the team submitted evidence materials in all aspects, emphasised the client’s temporary entry status and active remorse performance, and precisely matched the non-prosecution discretionary standards of the procuratorial authority.
3.3 Recognition of Local Judicial Validity of Cross-Border Entrustment and Evidence Materials
Legal Basis: Defence counsel entrustment rules of the Japanese Code of Criminal Procedure, standards for recognition of the validity of foreign official documents
Solution: The Beijing headquarters completed compliance review and notarised translation of domestic materials, and the Japan Office adjusted the material format and submission method in accordance with the form requirements of Japanese judicial authorities, ensuring that cross-border entrustment procedures and evidence materials fully met the acceptance standards of Japanese criminal proceedings.
3.4 Expedited Case Handling Within Detention Period and Risk Prevention of Deportation
Legal Basis: Provisions on criminal investigation detention periods in Japan, immigration management linkage rules for foreigners involved in criminal cases
Solution: The emergency case-handling mechanism was activated, with all links seamlessly connected. The full process of entrustment, interview and reconciliation was completed within the 48-hour detention period. A complete defence opinion was submitted on the first day the case entered the pre-prosecution stage, and the non-prosecution decision was obtained before the Immigration Services Agency of Japan initiated deportation proceedings, so as to avoid leaving an adverse immigration record.
4. Applicable Authoritative Legal Bases
4.1 Japanese Laws
1.Article 39 of the Japanese Code of Criminal Procedure: A detained suspect may have confidential interviews with his/her defence counsel. Investigative authorities may only adjust the date and time of the interview to the extent necessary for investigation, and shall not unduly restrict the right of defence counsel to meet the suspect.
2.Article 235 of the Japanese Penal Code: A person who steals the property of another shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than 500,000 yen.
3.Article 248 of the Japanese Code of Criminal Procedure: Where prosecution is not necessary in light of the character, record, gravity of the crime, circumstances, and situation after the crime, prosecution may not be instituted.
4.2 Chinese Laws
1.Article 28 of the Lawyers Law of the People's Republic of China: Lawyers may accept entrustment to handle foreign-related legal affairs and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of clients.
2.Relevant provisions of the Exit and Entry Administration Law of the People's Republic of China: Chinese citizens encountering legal disputes overseas may legally entrust domestic law firms to liaise with overseas legal service institutions.
4.3 Bilateral Agreement
Relevant principles of the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between the People's Republic of China and Japan: The two parties shall provide mutual assistance in criminal proceedings such as criminal investigation and prosecution, and legally protect the legitimate rights and interests of parties.
5. Authoritative Practical Recommendations Based on Case Experience
Combined with years of cross-border criminal assistance experience of Guozun Cathay Associates Japan Office, the following four practical recommendations are put forward for Chinese citizens travelling to Japan and criminal risk prevention:
1.Pre-emptive legal risk awareness: Proactively understand common criminal charges and punishment standards in Japan before departure, paying special attention to easily overlooked acts such as petty theft, public disorder, and fare evasion on trains, so as to avoid violating local laws due to unintentional acts.
2.Promptly entrust local lawyers after involvement in a case: When facing criminal summons or arrest in Japan, do not rely solely on tour groups or remote handling by family members. Local practising lawyers in Japan should be entrusted at the earliest opportunity to exercise the right of interview as soon as possible and avoid the risk of adverse statements.
3.Prioritise promotion of compensation and forgiveness: For first-time petty property offence cases, timely returning the original property, compensating for losses and obtaining written forgiveness from the victim is the core discretionary circumstance for Japanese procuratorial authorities to make a non-prosecution decision, and should be taken as the priority direction of defence.
4.Retain key supporting documents: Properly keep documents such as itineraries, hotel orders and employment certificates during outbound travel. In case of involvement in a case, they can be used to prove short-term entry status and no overstay risk, providing factual basis for lenient handling of the case.