Question from a reader:
I saw information that the leader of the “Party for Everyone to Create Together,” who received a decision to start bankruptcy proceedings from the Tokyo District Court, traveled to Jeju Island without the court’s permission. It is said that Article 37, Paragraph 1 of the Bankruptcy Act does not have any penal provisions, but if the party
itself is a bankrupt entity, is there a possibility that the leader could be denied discharge if they traveled abroad or moved without the court’s permission? Can the same be said for individuals, not just political parties or corporations?

Considering Travel During Bankruptcy Proceedings

I heard that the leader of the “Party for Everyone to Create Together” traveled to Jeju Island without the court’s permission while receiving a decision to start bankruptcy proceedings from the Tokyo District Court. This is quite surprising news. Generally, bankruptcy proceedings are a very delicate issue for individuals and corporations, and each action can significantly impact future discharge. Before getting into the main question, let’s first clarify a bit about bankruptcy law. Bankruptcy proceedings are a legal process that occurs when a debtor loses their ability to pay, existing to protect the interests of creditors. Article 37, Paragraph 1 of the Bankruptcy Act typically does not impose penalties for disposing of assets or traveling abroad without court permission. However, that does not mean one can act freely.

Actions During Bankruptcy Proceedings and Discharge

It is extremely important to understand how actions taken by a bankrupt individual without court permission can affect their situation. In the case of the leader’s travel, going abroad without permission does not directly lead to a denial of discharge, but it is certainly not a matter to be ignored. During bankruptcy proceedings, strict management of the debtor’s assets is required. For example, if actions are taken that suggest hiding assets or income, it can significantly negatively impact the judgment on discharge. In fact, the court is very sensitive to the actions of bankrupt individuals, and careful behavior is required to avoid unnecessary risks.

Differences Between Political Parties, Corporations, and Individuals

Here, let’s also touch on the differences between political parties, corporations, and individuals. In bankruptcy proceedings, the actions of representatives of political parties or corporations can have different implications than those of individuals. When a political party or corporation itself is a bankrupt entity, the actions of its representatives are directly related to the credibility and social responsibility of the entire organization. For example, if a representative of a corporation is reported to be enjoying a luxurious trip during bankruptcy proceedings, it could provoke social backlash. Additionally, it could lead to a loss of credibility for that corporation. In contrast, if an individual bankrupt engages in similar behavior, there may be moral condemnation, but they often receive lighter legal treatment. Nevertheless, it is essential for individuals to remember the need to adhere to good faith principles towards the court.

Actual Criteria for Judgment

So, what specific criteria does the court use to determine the possibility of discharge? Generally, the sincerity of the bankrupt’s actions and consideration for creditors are emphasized. While travel itself is not illegal, if that travel is seen as “an action lacking consideration for creditors,” it could be grounds for denial of discharge. For instance, suppose a bankrupt individual is on an expensive trip when a new creditor appears and makes a financial claim. If the trip continues under such circumstances, creditors might question, “Does this person really have no ability to pay?” The mere emergence of such doubts can influence the decision on discharge.

From a Lawyer’s Perspective

Through my experience working part-time at a judicial scrivener’s office, I have witnessed many bankruptcy proceedings. I have often seriously considered how difficult the situations of bankrupt individuals are and how they should act within them. During bankruptcy proceedings, unexpected actions can develop into significant problems later, so caution is necessary. For example, if a client plans to travel abroad during bankruptcy proceedings, the first thing we check is the purpose of the trip and the reasonableness of the costs. While the desire to enjoy oneself is understandable, it is crucial to calmly assess how that action will impact discharge or rehabilitation.

Conclusion

Through the case of the leader of the “Party for Everyone to Create Together,” we have considered the importance of actions during bankruptcy proceedings. Traveling without court permission does not immediately entail penalties, but the impact of such actions on discharge must be carefully considered. Especially for political parties and corporations, their actions can affect the credibility of the entire organization, requiring even greater caution. Bankruptcy is a heavy issue not only financially but also psychologically. Therefore, it is essential to raise awareness of each action and act carefully. Above all, maintaining good faith towards creditors and society is the first step towards rehabilitation.