This means that liability arises not only for intentional conduct but also for negligent conduct. The burden effectively shifts to the employer to show that they took reasonable steps to avoid hiring unauthorized workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
2. Situations Where \u201cNo Negligence\u201d May Be Recognized<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
An employer may be deemed to have exercised due diligence if they took reasonable and appropriate measures, such as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- Always requiring presentation of the Residence Card, and verifying its authenticity (e.g., using IC chip reading apps recommended by the authorities).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Checking the type of status of residence and confirming whether work is authorized.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- For students or dependents, ensuring compliance with work restrictions (e.g., 28-hour-per-week limit).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Seeking advice from the Immigration Services Agency or a certified specialist (e.g., immigration lawyer) and keeping a record of the inquiry.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n3. Situations Where Negligence Is Likely Found<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Conversely, negligence is likely recognized if the employer failed to exercise proper caution:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- Not asking for or checking a Residence Card at all.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Overlooking expired cards or accepting poorly forged cards that a reasonable check would have revealed.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Allowing a student to work full-time without verifying special permission for extra activities.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Ignoring suspicious circumstances that should have prompted further investigation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n4. Case Examples<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- Convenience store case: Failure to check residence card \u2192 negligence recognized, punishment imposed.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Forgery case: A sophisticated forged card was presented, and even IC reading could not be done at the workplace \u2192 no negligence, case dismissed.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Case reported by\u00a0ben54.jp<\/a>: The worker\u2019s identity was checked only superficially (e.g., without removing a mask) \u2192 negligence recognized, deportation deemed appropriate.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n5. Practical Checklist for Employers<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
To reduce the risk of liability, employers should implement the following measures:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"\u2705\"](\"https:\/\/fonts.gstatic.com\/s\/e\/notoemoji\/16.0\/2705\/72.png\")
Require the presentation of the Residence Card.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Use an IC chip reader or official app to verify card authenticity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Confirm the type of status of residence, period of stay, and any work restrictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For students or dependents, check whether a work permit (Permission to Engage in Activity Other Than That Permitted) is granted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Monitor compliance with the 28-hour-per-week limit for part-time workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Contact immigration authorities or specialists if there is any uncertainty, and keep written records of responses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conduct periodic checks of residence status, not only at hiring but also during ongoing employment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n6. Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The crime of promoting illegal employment under Japanese law does not allow \u201cignorance\u201d as an excuse. Negligence is sufficient to establish liability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, if an employer can demonstrate that they exercised due diligence and acted without negligence, they may be exempted from punishment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In practice, the most effective safeguard is to follow a clear checklist of verification procedures and maintain proper documentation. This ensures that the employer can prove \u201cno negligence\u201d if their hiring practices are ever questioned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Japan Immigration News<\/h2>\n\n\n