Page 50 - วารสารกฎหมาย ศาลอุทธรณ์คดีชํานัญพิเศษ

วารสารกฎหมาย ศาลอุทธรณ์คดีชำานัญพิเศษ

I. Introduction

Legal-title laundering: the problem of laundering is not restricted merely to
money.

It is certain that the importance and necessity of tackling issues of money
laundering are commonly recognized in our international society. When such issues
1
are discussed in the international context, one of the main points on which our attention
is focused is the way of coordinating domestic regulations on the abuse of arbitrage of
legal institutions, which is made possible due to the differences of domestic laws and

the legal barrier of sovereignty between countries. Generally speaking, the theoretical
2
significance of this kind of arbitrage, whether positive or negative, based on the conflict
of laws, crucially requires further study for promoting international commerce in

a secure and stable manner. 3

The laundering of money is not the only way of conducting international
laundering. We should also tackle another type of laundering, viz. the laundering of
legal titles, enabled due to a certain kind of choice-of-law rules. This latter kind of

laundering, at least potentially, appeared in a case before the Japanese Supreme Court. 4
This article will, in focusing on the case and the Japanese Supreme Court’s judgment

on it, point out some of the significance and implications of the case, and some
characteristics of the ways of thinking in Japan, including of courts and scholars, as to
“secure and stable transactions” in the international context.

1 The FATF (Financial Action Task Force [on Money Laundering]) was established in 1989 on the
G7’s initiative to deal with “money laundering”. See also the FATF Recommendations (adopted on February 16,
2012): INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ON COMBATING MONEY LAUNDERING AND THE FINANCING OF
TERRORISM & PROLIFERATION.
2 For instance, see CORRESPONDENT BANKING: A GATEWAY FOR MONEY LAUNDERING (a report
by the Minority Staff of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
United States Senate 107 Congress), February 5, 2001.
th
3 A. RILES, Managing Regulatory Arbitrage: A Conflict of Laws Approach, 47 Cornell International Law
Journal 63 (2014).
4 The Japanese Supreme Court’s judgment on October 29th, 2008 (56-8 Minshu 354). The English translation
of the judgment quoted in this article is provided at the official site of the Japanese Supreme Court, http://www.courts.
go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=604 [last accessed 6 July, 2015]

48