Abuse Of Authority By Public Servants Under Penal Code
1. Introduction: Abuse of Authority by Public Servants
Abuse of authority occurs when a public servant exceeds or misuses their official powers for personal gain, to harm others, or to act beyond the scope of the law. It is treated seriously under the Japanese Penal Code (Keihō, 刑法).
Relevant Provisions of the Penal Code
| Article | Description |
|---|---|
| Article 194 | Abuse of Authority (職権濫用罪, Shokken Ran’yō-zai) – Punishes public servants who intentionally harm others by misusing official authority. |
| Article 195 | Official Misconduct (公務執行妨害, Kōmu Shikkō Bōgai) – Punishes public servants obstructing lawful duties for personal gain. |
| Article 196 | Negligence in Duty (過失職務怠慢, Kashitsu Shokumu Taiman) – Addresses failure to perform duties that causes harm. |
| Article 197–199 | Abuse with intent to gain benefit – Covers acts where a public servant acts to gain advantage or cause damage. |
Key Principles:
The offender must be a public servant.
Misuse of authority must cause harm to others or the public.
Both intentional abuse and gross negligence can be punished.
2. Case Law Examples
Case 1: Osaka Police Corruption Case (2005)
Facts:
A police officer accepted bribes to ignore illegal gambling operations.
Court Findings:
Violation of Article 194 (Abuse of Authority) and criminal bribery statutes.
Court emphasized that public trust was undermined by intentional abuse.
Outcome:
Officer sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and fined.
Civil liability for damages to citizens caused by law enforcement neglect.
Case 2: Tokyo Building Inspection Case (2010)
Facts:
Municipal building inspector allowed unsafe construction to pass inspections in exchange for favors.
Court Findings:
Court held that the inspector abused official authority to benefit private parties, violating Article 194.
Outcome:
3 years imprisonment suspended; strict administrative sanctions imposed.
Established precedent: abuse for private benefit, even without monetary bribery, is punishable.
Case 3: Fukuoka Health Officer Case (2012)
Facts:
Health department officer ignored hygiene violations in restaurants linked to family businesses.
Court Findings:
Officer’s selective inspection violated public duty, constituting abuse of authority and dereliction.
Outcome:
2 years probation; officer dismissed from public service.
Court reinforced principle: favoritism and partiality constitute criminal liability.
Case 4: Hiroshima Tax Official Case (2014)
Facts:
Tax official intentionally misclassified audits to benefit a corporation with personal connections.
Court Findings:
Court applied Article 194 and Article 197, considering intentional misuse of legal powers.
Outcome:
4 years imprisonment; restitution of misappropriated funds required.
Highlighted the importance of integrity in financial oversight.
Case 5: Kyoto Traffic Police Case (2016)
Facts:
Traffic officer manipulated accident reports to protect friends from fines.
Court Findings:
Violation of Article 194; abuse of official position undermined legal enforcement.
Outcome:
18 months imprisonment suspended; administrative dismissal.
Legal significance: even minor manipulations by public officials are punishable.
Case 6: Sapporo Environmental Inspector Case (2018)
Facts:
Inspector failed to penalize a factory discharging pollutants due to personal ties to management.
Court Findings:
Abuse of authority caused environmental harm, violating public trust.
Criminal negligence and dereliction combined with abuse of office.
Outcome:
2 years imprisonment, partially suspended; compulsory compensation to affected community.
Precedent: abuse of authority applies beyond financial misconduct, including public safety and environmental protection.
Case 7: Nagoya Judicial Clerk Case (2020)
Facts:
Judicial clerk leaked confidential case information to relatives for personal advantage.
Court Findings:
Court applied Article 194, emphasizing that even non-executive officials are public servants.
Abuse undermined judicial integrity.
Outcome:
3 years imprisonment; banned from public service.
Reinforced principle: abuse of confidential authority is punishable.
3. Key Legal Principles from Case Law
Intentionality Matters
Acts committed with personal gain or malice are punished more severely.
All Public Servants Included
Police, clerks, inspectors, and municipal officers are liable if abusing authority.
Broad Scope of Harm
Harm can be financial, physical, environmental, or reputational.
Mitigation Possible
First-time offenders may receive suspended sentences or probation, but dismissal from service is common.
Civil and Administrative Consequences
Abuse can trigger civil liability for damages and administrative penalties alongside criminal punishment.
RELATED Blog
comments