Issuing Authority: Guozun Cathay Associates Japan Office
Date of Case Closure: 8 August 2026
Key Outcomes: The entire case was resolved through non-litigation procedures; the employee was exempt from mandatory detention; the entry restriction period was reduced from the statutory 5 years to 1 year; and the enterprise’s joint compliance liability was fully isolated.
This case was jointly handled by the Japan Office of Guozun Cathay Associates and the foreign compliance team of the Beijing Headquarters. Strictly abiding by the entry-exit administration, labour and employment laws and regulations of China and Japan, as well as foreign labour service supervision rules, and relying on Guozun Cathay Associates’ global cross-border legal service network and dual-jurisdiction practice qualifications, we provided domestic sending enterprises and expatriate employees with a full-chain special service from crisis response to compliance upgrading. This case has been included in Guozun Cathay Associates’ 2026 Typical Foreign Compliance Case Library. Its case-handling model of “synchronous assessment of dual-jurisdiction liabilities + proactive local declaration and breakthrough + closed-loop rectification of enterprise compliance” has been widely applied to the standardised handling of compliance crises for enterprise employee expatriation in East Asia.
I. Case Background and Entrustment Process
The client is a well-known apparel trading enterprise headquartered in Shanghai, which has long been engaged in Sino-Japanese clothing exhibition docking and in-depth supply chain cooperation with a mature business model and good performance record. In the first half of 2026, the enterprise dispatched Ms. H, a core business backbone, to Japan on a short-term business visa to be responsible for the preparation of the offline clothing exhibition of the season and the collaborative docking with local suppliers. Affected by multiple objective factors such as fluctuations in the Japanese terminal market and temporary adjustments to the cooperation plan between the two parties, Ms. H failed to complete all work and leave Japan within the validity period of her visa. During her overstay, she continuously participated in local business promotion and substantive labour activities, which has touched the red line of Japan’s entry-exit administration laws.
After the risk broke out, Ms. H personally faced multiple legal consequences including detention by Japan’s Immigration Services Agency, forced repatriation, a 5-year entry ban, and a high administrative fine. As the dispatching entity, the domestic sending enterprise may also face compliance investigations by Japanese immigration authorities, damage to its overseas business reputation, and even the risk of joint liability for being identified as an illegal labour organiser due to improper management of foreign employment. To quickly prevent the crisis from escalating and minimise both legal and reputational losses, the client formally entrusted Guozun Cathay Associates to provide full-process special legal services in June 2026.
After the case was transferred from the Beijing Headquarters to the Japan Office, the “Sino-Japanese Emergency Collaborative Case Handling Mechanism” was launched on the same day, and a 5-person special case handling team was jointly established (including 2 Japanese local practising lawyers and 3 members of the Foreign-related Lawyer Talent Pool of the Beijing Lawyers Association). It was clarified that the Japan Office is responsible for the implementation of local legal procedures and full communication with immigration authorities, while the Beijing Headquarters is responsible for the assessment of enterprise liability under Chinese law and the improvement of the compliance system, with the two lines advancing in parallel to handle the crisis.
II. Whole Process of Sino-Japanese Joint Case Handling
This case adopts the standardised collaborative model of “Beijing Headquarters coordinating compliance and evidence system building under the Chinese jurisdiction, and Japan Office responsible for local legal procedures and official discretion communication”. All links have formed written results and traceable work records:
1. 3 June 2026 – 10 June 2026: Comprehensive Assessment of Dual-Jurisdiction Risks
Beijing Headquarters: Completed a full sorting and verification of Ms. H’s domestic labour contract, expatriate employment agreement, salary payment records, and the enterprise’s internal expatriate approval process. Issued the Assessment Report on Enterprise Liability for Foreign Employment under Chinese Law, clearly defining the boundary of the enterprise’s fault in this incident, systematically sorting out potential risks in domestic labour compliance and foreign labour service management, and eliminating the criminal and administrative risks of the enterprise being suspected of illegally organising foreign labour services.
Japan Office: Retrieved the immigration discretion standards and judicial precedents of similar illegal overstay cases in Japan in recent years. Combined with core facts such as Ms. H’s visa type, activity track in Japan, duration of overstay, and degree of labour participation, completed the Risk Assessment Report on Illegal Overstay and Illegal Work under the Japanese Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act, quantifying the risk levels of detention, forced repatriation, entry ban period and fines. At the same time, verified the factual basis for lenient discretion such as the party’s fixed residence in Japan and source of living security, and excluded the extreme situation where the party has no ability to perform obligations.
2. 11 June 2026 – 18 June 2026: Special Disposal Plan and Evidence System Construction
Beijing Headquarters: Assisted the enterprise in sorting out objective supporting materials for business plan changes and original expatriate work arrangement documents. Issued a situation statement and compliance commitment letter sealed by the enterprise, providing enterprise-end evidence support for the core proposition of “non-malicious overstay and non-active organisation of illegal work”. Simultaneously drafted the Framework Plan for Compliance Rectification of Enterprise Foreign Employment, reserving a complete implementation path for subsequent system upgrading.
Japan Office: Combined with the dual-jurisdiction legal research conclusions of China and Japan, formally determined the core disposal path of “proactive declaration + application for the departure order system”. Simultaneously guided Ms. H to sort out basic materials such as proof of residence in Japan, proof of source of income, and certificate of no criminal record, completed the sorting of all evidence lists and pre-drafting of documents before declaration, ensuring that the declaration materials meet the acceptance standards of the Immigration Services Agency at one time.
3. 19 June 2026 – 25 June 2026: Issuance of Legal Documents and Implementation of Proactive Declaration
Sino-Japanese lawyers jointly drafted a Sino-Japanese bilingual declaration letter and complete statement of facts, fully invoking relevant lenient provisions of the Japanese Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act. Combined with the objective background of Chinese enterprise business adjustments, they comprehensively elaborated the occasional and non-subjective malicious nature of this overstay, as well as the lenient circumstances that the party did not cause social harm and has a strong willingness to cooperate.
On 25 June 2026, practising lawyers from the Japan Office accompanied Ms. H to the Japan Immigration Services Agency to complete the proactive declaration, submitted all supporting materials on the spot and cooperated in completing the preliminary inquiry, officially launching the application review procedure for the departure order system, and taking the initiative in the case compared with the disposal process of passive detection.
4. 26 June 2026 – 21 July 2026: Multiple Rounds of Communication Breakthrough and Final Ruling
The Japan Office continuously communicated with the investigating officer in charge of the Immigration Services Agency, and supplemented explanations and strengthened corresponding evidence one by one in response to core issues raised by the officer such as the determination of the nature of work, the rationality of the reason for overstay, and the ability to guarantee departure. Combined with the discretion scale of similar cases in Japan, efforts were focused on promoting lenient treatment for the party, including exemption from detention and significant reduction of the entry restriction period. The Beijing Headquarters simultaneously supplemented supplementary explanations and rectification commitment documents from the enterprise, verifying the objectivity of business adjustments and the enterprise’s willingness to proactively rectify employment management, forming a complete reasoning chain of “active cooperation at the individual level + proactive rectification at the enterprise level”.
On 21 July 2026, the Japan Immigration Services Agency made a final ruling: agreeing to apply the departure order procedure; Ms. H was exempted from detention at the immigration detention centre and could purchase a plane ticket to leave Japan within 15 days; the restriction period for her re-entry into Japan was significantly reduced from the statutory 5 years to 1 year.
5. 22 July 2026 – 8 August 2026: Departure Guarantee and Enterprise Compliance Delivery
The Japan Office assisted Ms. H in completing all procedure verifications before departure, confirmed that the itinerary arrangement and departure procedures were fully compliant, and ensured that the party successfully returned to China by plane on 2 August 2026 without any procedural obstacles.
After the party successfully returned to China, the joint case handling team formally delivered the Case Closure Report and the Enterprise Employee Expatriation Foreign Compliance Management Manual to the client enterprise. They assisted the enterprise in completing the adjustment of foreign labour contract clauses, established a tiered early warning mechanism for visa validity and compliance norms for expatriate behaviour, and completed the full-process closed-loop service of “crisis response – risk isolation – system upgrading”. The case was officially closed.
III. Core Case Handling Difficulties and Authoritative Solutions
The three types of core issues involved in this case are high-frequency compliance risk points for Chinese enterprises dispatching employees to Japan for business. Relying on dual-jurisdiction professional capabilities and practical experience, the Sino-Japanese joint team of Guozun Cathay Associates has formed a replicable standardised solution:
1. Determination of the Compliance Boundary Between Business Visa and Substantive Work
Professional Basis: Provisions of the Japanese Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act on the scope of activities for residence status; Article 4 of the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of Foreign Labour Cooperation
Solution: Strictly dismantle the legal boundary between “business inspection, negotiation and docking, exhibition participation” and “substantive labour for remuneration”. Conduct fact stratification from multiple dimensions such as the nature of work content, the subject of remuneration payment, the proportion of working hours, and the ownership of work results, and accurately assess the risk of being identified as illegal work. At the same time, weaken the subjective malicious determination of “active illegal work” through evidence sorting, providing a factual basis for subsequent lenient discretion.
2. Precise Application of Leniency Procedures in Illegal Overstay Cases
Professional Basis: Article 24-3 of the Japanese Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (Departure Order System)
Solution: Firmly grasp the core application premise of “proactive declaration”, complete the proactive surrender process before the party is officially detected by the authorities, and seize the opportunity for discretion. Systematically prepare complete supporting materials for the three core elements of “no other criminal record, fixed residence, and ability to leave Japan promptly”. Through continuous and professional communication between local practising lawyers and the discretionary authority, promote the Immigration Services Agency to apply leniency procedures, replace mandatory detention and standard repatriation procedures with voluntary departure, and minimise adverse consequences.
3. Liability Isolation of Sending Enterprises in Cross-Border Violations
Professional Basis: Article 8 of the Labour Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China; relevant provisions of the Japanese Immigration Control Act on the liability of organisers of illegal work
Solution: Sort out evidence of the enterprise’s fulfilment of management obligations from multiple dimensions such as the enterprise’s expatriate management system, visa application procedures, and employee risk notification obligations. At the same time, issue a formal compliance statement and comprehensive rectification plan, clarify the boundary of personal liability for employees’ overstay and violations, legally cut off the joint liability risk of the enterprise being identified as “organising illegal work”, and avoid damage to the enterprise’s overseas business qualifications and long-term business reputation.
IV. Authoritative Legal Bases Applicable to This Case
(I) Chinese Laws
1.Article 4 of the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of Foreign Labour Cooperation: Employers outside the territory of the People’s Republic of China shall be entities legally established in the country or region where they are located. Engaging in foreign labour cooperation shall abide by the laws and regulations of the relevant countries or regions, respect local customs and habits, and shall not harm national security and public interests.
2.Article 8 of the Labour Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China: When an employer recruits a worker, it shall truthfully inform the worker of the work content, working conditions, work location, occupational hazards, work safety conditions, labour remuneration, and other information that the worker requests to know.
(II) Japanese Laws
1.Article 24, Paragraph 4, Item (2) of the Japanese Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act: A foreign national who has exceeded the period of stay and is illegally residing in Japan shall be subject to compulsory deportation, and shall be investigated by an immigration control officer and the repatriation procedure shall be implemented.
2.Article 24-3 of the Japanese Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act: For a foreign national who illegally resides in Japan in violation of the Immigration Control Act, if he or she meets specific conditions such as proactively going to the Immigration Services Agency to declare, having no other criminal record, and being expected to leave Japan promptly, an immigration inspector may apply the “departure order” in accordance with the law, allowing him or her to leave Japan voluntarily within 15 days and exempting him or her from the detention procedure.
V. Authoritative Practical Suggestions Based on the Experience of This Case
Combined with years of Sino-Japanese cross-border compliance service experience of Guozun Cathay Associates Japan Office, the following three compliance suggestions are put forward for Chinese enterprises with needs of dispatching employees to Japan:
1.Strict Matching of Visa Activities: Strictly arrange the scope of employees’ overseas activities in accordance with the visa type. Short-term business visas are only used for transactional work such as inspection, negotiation, and exhibition participation. It is strictly prohibited to arrange employees holding business or tourist visas to engage in substantive labour for remuneration. If there is a genuine need for long-term residence, apply for the corresponding residence status visa in accordance with the law in advance to eliminate the risk of out-of-scope activities.
2.Dynamic Management of Visa Period: Establish a tiered early warning mechanism for the validity period of employees’ overseas visas, and plan work itineraries and departure arrangements in advance. If it is really necessary to extend the stay due to business adjustments, it is necessary to apply for the change of residence period in accordance with the law before the visa expires, and resolutely put an end to overstay.
3.Professional Disposal of Crisis in Advance: In the event of employee overstay or illegal employment risks, a professional team with dual-jurisdiction service capabilities should be entrusted to intervene at the first time. Before the official detection by the authorities, start the proactive declaration procedure, and minimise legal consequences through statutory leniency procedures. Simultaneously complete enterprise-end compliance rectification and isolate joint liability risks in a timely manner.