How lawfulness is assessed for a new business in Japan

1. How to frame the question

The first question put to me about a new business is usually "is this service lawful in Japan?" As asked, it cannot be answered. Lawfulness is not assessed against the purpose of the business but against its structure.

Take the same objective — letting several people share a holiday home. Depending on whether you sell co-ownership shares, enter into accommodation contracts, issue membership rights or place the asset in a trust, the statutes in play are the Building Lots and Buildings Transaction Business Act, the Inns and Hotels Act, or the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act. Until the structure is settled, the applicable law is not settled either.

The working order is therefore: establish the facts, run them against the sector-specific statutes, check the generally applicable statutes, obtain the regulator's reading where needed, and restructure if necessary. This article follows that order.

2. Step 1: break the facts into four flows

Before any legal analysis, break the business into four flows. Researching statutes while these are vague produces no answer.

In particular, a structure in which your company receives and transmits funds belonging to others is an important fact when assessing the funds transfer and collection agency rules. It is not determined solely by whether your own account is used: the analysis looks at whether there is authority to receive on behalf of the payee, whether the payer bears a double-payment risk, whether funds are held, whether the transfer is domestic or cross-border, and generally at the function and reality of the service. An amendment bringing certain cross-border collection agency arrangements within funds transfer regulation took effect in June 2026. Whether your company is a party to the transaction, or only provides a place for users to contract with each other, also affects where it sits under sector-specific rules.

3. Step 2: run the flows against the sector statutes

Japanese sector-specific regulation controls entry in broadly three ways.

• Licence or permission: prior examination by the authority, which confirms compliance with statutory requirements. The internal arrangements required and the length of the examination vary greatly by regime (banking and insurance licences; the hotel business permit)
• Registration: registration in principle follows if the requirements are met, but requirements as to financial base and personnel apply (funds transfer, money lending, travel agency)
• Notification: entry by filing the statutorily specified items, though facility requirements and conduct rules may still apply (the private lodging business notification)

This distinction drives the project schedule. The time needed for examination, or for preparation before filing, differs by regime and can move a launch date materially. Understanding the required procedures and the running compliance cost before a financing round makes the plan easier to explain.

Note also that sector statutes impose conduct rules as well as entry rules. Registration is not the end: advertising rules, document delivery, segregation of funds, and record-keeping follow on a continuing basis. Compare structures with that running cost included.

4. Step 3: check the generally applicable statutes

Alongside the sector analysis, the following cross-sector statutes are frequently in play. Each has its own conditions of application, so none applies to every new business automatically.

For these, the statutory text alone often does not tell you the operative standard. The guidelines, enforcement standards and Q&A of the competent ministries have to be read alongside it. This site publishes an index of 343 such guidelines, filterable by industry and by function — the documents themselves are in Japanese, which is precisely where an English-speaking client tends to need help.

5. Step 4: mechanisms for unresolved questions

Some questions remain unresolved after research. Japan offers several ways to obtain the authorities' view in advance.

• Grey Zone Elimination System (Industrial Competitiveness Enhancement Act): confirm in advance, against a concrete business plan, how a regulation is interpreted and whether it applies. Case summaries are published; the enquiry document itself is published where the applicant consents
• New Business Special Measures System (same Act): propose a special measure derogating from a regulation, and obtain it on a company-specific basis subject to safety being secured
• Regulatory sandbox (demonstration of new technologies): obtain approval for a demonstration plan limited in duration and participants, and use the resulting data to seek regulatory change. It is not a mechanism for obtaining an interpretation
• No Action Letter procedure: obtain an answer, under each ministry's procedure, on whether specific conduct contravenes a statute

Each requires an application and coordination with the competent ministry, and a period for preparation and review. Build them into the plan rather than reaching for them just before launch. Publication practice differs by mechanism, but published enquiries and answers exist, so checking for a comparable precedent first is the efficient move.

6. Step 5: restructure

Where the conclusion is that the business as designed engages a regulation, the responses fall broadly into: ① obtain the licence, registration or other authorisation and comply; ② revise the business plan; ③ restructure so that the relationship to the regulation changes. Depending on the case, the special measures system or the sandbox may also be worth considering.

In practice, the question is whether the element that triggers the regulation can be changed while preserving the commercial value you are after — revisiting how funds are received and transmitted, substituting a licence to use for a transfer of title, or moving from principal to intermediary. Each change can engage a different regulation, so each has to be checked on its own.

That said, where only the form is adjusted and the substance is unchanged, the substance tends to govern the analysis. A restructuring has to change the reality of the funds, the contracts and the service — not only the labels in the documents. Where the judgement is difficult, use confirmation with the competent ministry or external review.

The method is illustrated in the worked example on shared holiday homes, which sorts five structures by legal character.

7. Keep a record — and consider an opinion from outside counsel

One point that is regularly overlooked: record not only the conclusion but the reasoning.

There are two reasons. First, in fundraising or M&A due diligence you will be asked how the lawfulness of the business was confirmed. Without a record, the exercise starts again from the underlying facts and the statutes consulted, at a cost in time and fees. Second, statutes and guidelines change. If the assumptions behind the conclusion are on record, you know what to revisit when they do.

Beyond that, where the decision carries weight, it is worth obtaining a written opinion from outside counsel. Not for internal comfort: if the decision is later challenged as a breach of a director's duty of care, the fact that an opinion was obtained is itself part of what is assessed.

The "process" of a business judgement

In the Apaman Shop case (Supreme Court, 15 July 2010; Hanrei Jiho No. 2091, p. 90), directors were sued derivatively over a decision to buy out shares in an unlisted subsidiary at ¥50,000 per share as part of a group reorganisation. The Supreme Court held that, in deciding the method and the price of such an acquisition, directors may weigh the necessity of the acquisition, the financial burden, the need to complete it smoothly and other factors, and that unless there is something markedly unreasonable in the process or the content of the decision, there is no breach of the duty of care.

What matters here is the assessment of the process. The Court noted that the decision had been considered by the management committee and that the opinion of a lawyer had been obtained, and found nothing unreasonable in how the decision was reached. The High Court below (29 October 2008) had found a breach of duty on the basis of insufficient investigation, so the fact that an external professional had been brought into the process was one of the elements that separated the two outcomes.

An assessment of whether a new business is lawful has the same structure. Whether to proceed is a business judgement, and the fact that a regulation is later found to apply does not by itself make the directors liable. What is examined is whether the process of reaching the decision was reasonable — and a written analysis from outside counsel is concrete evidence going to that question.

An opinion is not an indemnity

Three qualifications go with this.

• It does not replace the directors' own consideration. The opinion is obtained and then weighed; it is not simply adopted.
• The facts given to counsel must be accurate and complete. A decision taken on an opinion founded on an inaccurate understanding of the facts is not a reasonable process. An opinion obtained by withholding inconvenient facts can cut against you.
• The case has limits. Apaman Shop concerned an affirmative, strategic group reorganisation, a category in which courts defer most to business judgement. Decisions such as further lending to a company already in distress are reviewed more strictly.

What the opinion should contain

Whether it takes the form of a formal opinion or an internal memorandum depends on the matter and the budget. Either way, four things are worth recording.

1. The facts assumed — technical architecture, contractual relationships, flows of funds and of data
2. The statutes and guidelines consulted, with their versions and dates
3. The conclusion and its reservations — what is a firm view and what is a risk assessment
4. What would change the conclusion — which assumptions, if they move, require the analysis to be revisited

The fourth is the one that earns its keep. Businesses move and rules change; "come back to me if this assumption changes" tells the business side when the next check is due.

---

This article is general information, not legal advice on any specific matter. Any assessment depends on the specific business and the current state of the law and guidelines. For a review of a business model intended for the Japanese market, please use the contact form.