Article 1In light of the fact that organized crimes are extremely harmful to a peaceful and sound social life, and taking into account the circumstances where in an increasing number of serious criminal cases, such as organized homicides committed in conspiracy by multiple persons and offenses relating to illegal trading of drugs and firearms, it is extremely difficult to clarify the factual background of the case unless telephone calls or other telecommunications used for mutual contact among criminals are intercepted, the purpose of this Act is to specify requirements, procedures and other necessary matters concerning compulsory measures for the interception of telecommunications prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act No. 131 of 1948) necessary for duly tackling the circumstances, with the aim of contributing to correct clarification of the factual background of respective cases without unduly violating the secrecy of communications.

Article 2(1)The term "communications" as used in this Act means telephone calls or other telecommunications whose transmission line is in whole or in part wired (excluding wire attached to electrical facilities for the purpose of sending or receiving radio waves or other electromagnetic waves by a system other than a wired system) or whose transmission line is equipped with switching facilities.

(2)The term "interception" as used in this Act means to receive communications being transmitted between third parties in order to know the content thereof without obtaining consent from any of the parties using those communications.

(3)The term "carrier, etc." as used in this Act means a person who engages in a business to intermediate third parties' communications by using facilities for telecommunications (hereinafter referred to as "telecommunications facilities") or otherwise provide telecommunications facilities for third parties' communications, and any other person who has installed telecommunications facilities that can intermediate communications among many or unspecified persons for the purpose of their own business.

(4)The term "encryption" as used in this Act means to conduct conversion of signals transmitting the content of the communications, signals transmitting information on the dates and times of transmissions, or other signals that are provided for use in information processing by computers (hereinafter referred to as the "original signals") by the use of computer and conversion codes (meaning codes for converting signals; the same applies hereinafter), thereby making it impossible to restore the original signals to their original state without the use of conversion codes corresponding to the conversion codes used for that conversion process (hereinafter referred to as "corresponding conversion codes"), and the term "decryption" as used in this Act means to restore signals made through encryption (hereinafter referred to as "encrypted signals") to the state of the original signals through conversion process using a computer and corresponding conversion codes.

(5)The term "temporary storage" as used in this Act means to temporarily record and store encrypted signals in a recording medium only for the period until the decryption thereof is conducted.

(6)The term "reproduction" as used in this Act means to process communications restored through decryption of encrypted signals (limited to those pertaining to signals transmitting the content of the communications) that were temporarily stored using a computer, into a state perceptible through the human sense of hearing or sense of sight by a method of play of sound, display of characters, or other method.

Article 3(1)In cases falling under any of the following items, when there is a circumstance sufficient to suspect the possibility that communications concerning plotting, instructions, or other mutual contact in relation to the commission of, preparation for or subsequent measures such as suppression of evidence pertaining to any of the crimes prescribed in the following items (for items (ii) and (iii), a series of the crimes), or other matters in relation to commission of the relevant crime (hereinafter referred to as "crime-related communications" in this paragraph) may take place and when it is extremely difficult to identify criminals or clarify the status or content of the offense by other means, a public prosecutor or judicial police officer may, with a warrant for interception issued by a judge, intercept crime-related communications conducted by the use of a means of communication identified with telephone numbers or other numbers or codes for distinguishing senders or addressees (hereinafter referred to as "telephone numbers, etc.") (hereinafter a means of communication thus identified is referred to as a "means of communication") that the suspect uses under a contract with a carrier, etc. (excluding a means of communication that is found to be unlikely to be used by criminals for crime-related communications) or a means of communication that is sufficiently suspected to be used by criminals for crime-related communications:

(2)With regard to crimes set forth in Appended Table 1 for which acts of transfer, acceptance, lending, borrowing or delivery are to be punished, the existence of a circumstance sufficient to suspect a conspiracy by multiple persons is not required, notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph.

(3)Interception under the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs cannot be conducted at a person's dwelling or in a residence, building, or vessel that a person watches over, except for the case where it is conducted at a place that a carrier, etc. watches over; provided, however, that this does not apply when consent is obtained from the owner of the dwelling, the person who watches over the relevant place or the deputy thereof.

Article 4(1)A request for a warrant for interception must be filed by a public prosecutor (limited to a prosecutor designated by the Prosecutor General; hereinafter the same applies in this Article and Article 7) or a judicial police officer (limited to a police officer in the rank of superintendent or higher designated by the National Public Safety Commission or a Prefectural Public Safety Commission, a ministry narcotics agent designated by the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare, or a coast guard officer designated by the Commandant of the Japan Coast Guard; hereinafter the same applies in this Article and Article 7) with a judge of a district court.

(2)When filing a request referred to in the preceding paragraph, if any request for a warrant targeting the same means of communication has previously been filed or the warrant has previously been issued with regard to the alleged facts that are the same in whole or in part as the alleged facts for which the relevant request is to be filed, a public prosecutor or judicial police officer must inform a judge of that fact.

(3)A request for permission referred to in Article 20, paragraph (1) or permission referred to in Article 23, paragraph (1) must be filed by a public prosecutor or judicial police officer when filing a request referred to in paragraph (1).

Article 5(1)When a judge who has received a request referred to in paragraph (1) of the preceding Article finds that there are grounds for the request, the judge is to specify a period not exceeding ten days as a period during which interception is authorized and issue a warrant for interception.

(2)When issuing a warrant for interception, a judge may set conditions that the judge finds appropriate with regard to the implementation of interception (meaning to intercept communications and to monitor the status of communications in a manner that enables immediate interception regarding a means of communication; the same applies hereinafter).

(3)When a request referred to in paragraph (3) of the preceding Article has been filed and when a judge finds it appropriate, the judge is to grant permission for the request.

(4)When a judge grants the permission referred to in Article 20, paragraph (1) under the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the judge must specify a place managed by a communication manager, etc. (meaning a person who manages the part of a means of communication with which the implementation of interception is conducted (for a company or other corporation or an association, its officer or employee) or the deputy thereof; the same applies hereinafter) as the place of the implementation of interception.In this case, when a person who filed a request referred to in paragraph (3) of the preceding Article has filed an application, and a judge finds it appropriate in consideration of the situation of the place of the implementation on interception pertaining to the application and other circumstances, the judge is to specify the place of the implementation of interception during the designated period (meaning the designated period prescribed in Article 20, paragraph (1); hereinafter the same applies in this paragraph) and the place of implementation of interception during a period other than the designated period, respectively.

Article 6(1)A warrant for interception must contain the name of the suspect, a summary of the alleged facts, the name of the offense, the applicable penal statute, communications to be intercepted, the means of communication subject to the implementation of interception, the method and place of the implementation of interception, the period during which interception is authorized, conditions concerning the implementation of interception, the validity period and the fact that dispositions of interception may not be commenced after the lapse of that validity period and the warrant for interception must be returned, the date of the issuance, and other matters specified by Rules of the Supreme Court, and a judge must affix their signature and seal thereon; provided, however, that if the suspect's name is not known, it suffices to state to that effect in lieu of the name.

(2)When a judge grants the permission referred to in Article 20, paragraph (1) or the permission referred to in Article 23, paragraph (1) under the provisions of paragraph (3) of the preceding Article, the judge is to state to that effect in a warrant for interception.

Article 7(1)When a judge of a district court finds it necessary, the judge may extend the period during which interception is authorized by specifying a period not exceeding ten days upon a request by a public prosecutor or judicial police officer; provided, however, that the period during which interception is authorized must not exceed 30 days in total.

(2)The extension of the period referred to in the preceding paragraph must be made by stating the period to be extended and the grounds therefor in a warrant for interception, to which the relevant judge affixes their signature and seal.

Article 8In the case where a request for a warrant for interception has been filed and when the alleged facts pertaining to the request contain the same alleged facts for another warrant for interception issued in the past, a judge may issue a warrant for interception of the same means of communication only when the judge finds that there are special circumstances that require further interception thereof.

Article 9In cases set forth in the following items, court clerks and other court officials are to take measure specified respectively therein, as ordered by a judge:

Article 10(1)A warrant for interception must be presented to a communication manager, etc.; provided, however, that this does not apply to a summary of the alleged facts.

(2)The provisions of the preceding paragraph also apply when the period during which interception is authorized has been extended.

Article 11(1)With regard to the implementation of interception, it is permitted to connect equipment for interception to telecommunication facilities or to take any measures necessary for the implementation of interception.

(2)A public prosecutor or judicial police officer may have public prosecutor's assistant officers or judicial police officials take the measures referred to in the preceding paragraph.

Article 12A public prosecutor or judicial police officer may ask a carrier etc. for necessary cooperation for the implementation of interception, such as the connection of equipment for interception.In this case, the carrier, etc. must not refuse it without justifiable grounds.

Article 13(1)When conducting the implementation of interception, attendance of a communication manager, etc. is required. When a communication manager, etc. cannot attend, a public prosecutor or judicial police officer must have an employee of a local government attend the implementation of interception.

(2)An observer may present their opinions concerning the implementation of interception to a public prosecutor or judicial police officer.

Article 14(1)With regard to communications that took place during the implementation of interception but for which it is not clear whether they fall under the communications to be intercepted as stated in a warrant for interception (hereinafter simply referred to as the "communications to be intercepted"), a public prosecutor or judicial police officer may intercept those communications only to the minimum extent necessary for judging whether they fall under the communications to be intercepted.

(2)With regard to communications in a foreign language or communications using ciphers or other method that makes it impossible to instantly restore the content thereof, for which it is impossible to make a judgment as to whether they fall under the communications to be intercepted as it is difficult to know the content thereof at the time of interception, a public prosecutor or judicial police officer may intercept those communications in full.In this case, a judgment as to whether they fall under the communications to be intercepted must be made promptly thereafter.

Article 15While conducting the implementation of interception, if there are communications whose content is evidently found to be the fact that any crime other than the crime stated as the alleged facts in a warrant for interception, which is set forth in Appended Table 1 or Appended Table 2 or which is punishable by the death penalty, life imprisonment, imprisonment or imprisonment without work for a minimum period not less than one year, has been committed, is being committed, or is to be committed, a public prosecutor or judicial police officer may intercept those communications.

Article 16With regard to communications with a physician, dentist, midwife, nurse, attorney (including a registered foreign lawyer), patent attorney, notary public or a person engaged in a religious occupation (excluding a person stated as the suspect in a warrant for interception), when they are found to be related to those persons' services provided upon a request of a third party, they must not be intercepted.

Article 17(1)With regard to communications that took place during the implementation of interception, when the communications fall under communications to be intercepted or communications for which interception is authorized under the provisions of Article 15, or when it is found that it will contribute to making a judgment as to whether they fall under the communications to be intercepted under the provisions of Article 14, a public prosecutor or judicial police officer may search the telephone numbers, etc. of the other parties to the communications at the place of the implementation of interception.In this case, it is not necessary to obtain a warrant separately.

(2)A public prosecutor or judicial police officer may ask a carrier, etc. for necessary cooperation in relation to the dispositions referred to in the preceding paragraph.In this case, the carrier, etc. must not refuse it without justifiable grounds.

(3)When it is necessary to take measures for the search referred to in paragraph (1) at a place other than the place of the implementation of interception, a public prosecutor or judicial police officer may request a carrier, etc. that can take those measures to take them after informing the carrier, etc. of the fact that it is a search to be conducted under the provisions of that paragraph.In this case, the provisions of the second sentence of the preceding paragraph apply mutatis mutandis.

Article 18When communications are taking place at the time when the implementation of interception is to be suspended or terminated as stated in a warrant for interception, it is permitted to continue the implementation of interception until the use of the relevant means of communication (hereinafter referred to as "conversations") is terminated.

Article 19When the grounds or necessity for interception have ceased to exist, the implementation of interception must be terminated even during the period during which interception is authorized as stated in a warrant for interception.

Article 20(1)A public prosecutor or judicial police officer may, upon the permission of a judge, intercept all communications that take place during the period designated by a public prosecutor or judicial police officer within the period during which interception is authorized as stated in a warrant for interception (excluding the period after the termination of the implementation of interception under the provisions of the preceding Article) (when, at the end of the period thus designated, the implementation of interception may be continued under the provisions of Article 18, including the relevant period during which interception may be continued; hereinafter the period thus designated is referred to as the "designated period") by means of ordering a communication manager, etc. to encrypt the original signals (limited to signals transmitting the content of the communications) by using conversion codes provided under the provisions of Article 9, item (i) and to temporarily store the encrypted signals made through the encryption. With regard to the implementation of interception in this case, the provisions of Article 13 do not apply.

(2)When conducting interception under the provisions of the preceding paragraph, a public prosecutor or judicial police officer is to order a communication manager, etc. to encrypt the original signals transmitting the information on the dates and times of commencement and termination of conversations during the designated period by using conversion codes prescribed in that paragraph and to temporarily store the encrypted signals made through the encryption.

(3)When conducting interception under the provisions of paragraph (1), a public prosecutor or judicial police officer may ask a communication manager, etc. to store information of telephone numbers, etc. of the other parties to the communications subject to interception under the provisions of paragraph (1) until the procedures referred to in paragraph (7) of the following Article are completed for the purpose of using them for the procedures referred to in that paragraph.In this case, the provisions of the second sentence of Article 17, paragraph (2) apply mutatis mutandis.

(4)When a communication manager, etc. cannot store information of the telephone numbers, etc. referred to in the preceding paragraph, a public prosecutor or judicial police officer may request a carrier, etc. that can store the information to store the information until the procedures referred to in paragraph (7) of the following Article are completed after informing the carrier, etc. of the fact that the request is made for the purpose of using the information for the procedures referred to in that paragraph.In this case, the provisions of the second sentence of Article 17, paragraph (3) apply mutatis mutandis.

(5)A public prosecutor and judicial police officer must not enter the place of implementation of interception during the designated period.

(6)A public prosecutor and judicial police officer may not conduct the implementation of interception except by the method prescribed in paragraph (1) during the designated period.

(7)The restoration of the communications intercepted under the provisions of paragraph (1) through decryption must not be conducted except for cases prescribed in paragraph (1) of the following Article.

Article 21(1)When having conducted interception under the provisions of paragraph (1) of the preceding Article, a public prosecutor or judicial police officer may order a communication manager, etc. to decrypt encrypted signals that are temporarily stored under the provisions of that paragraph by using corresponding conversion codes provided under the provisions of Article 9, item (i), and thereby restore the communications intercepted under the provisions of that paragraph, and simultaneously reproduce the restored communications as prescribed in paragraphs (3) through (6) at the place of the implementation of interception (when the place of the implementation of interception during a period other than the designated period has been specified, at that place). With regard to the implementation of reproduction (meaning to reproduce communications, to confirm the status of temporal storage in a manner to enable instant reproduction with regard to the recording medium used for the temporal storage, and to decrypt encrypted signals; the same applies hereinafter) in this case, the provisions of Articles 11 through 13 apply mutatis mutandis.

(2)When conducting the implementation of reproduction under the provisions of the preceding paragraph, a public prosecutor or judicial police officer is to order a communication manager, etc. to decrypt encrypted signals that are temporarily stored under the provisions of paragraph (2) of the preceding Article by using corresponding conversion codes prescribed in the preceding paragraph, and thereby to restore the original signals transmitting the information on the dates and times of commencement and termination of conversations encrypted under the provisions of paragraph (2) of the preceding Article.

(3)Out of the restored communications through decryption under the provisions of paragraph (1), a public prosecutor or judicial police officer may reproduce communications falling under communications to be intercepted and may also reproduce communications for which it is not clear whether they fall under the communications to be intercepted only to the minimum extent necessary for judging whether they fall under the communications to be intercepted.

(4)Out of the communications restored through decryption under the provisions of paragraph (1), a public prosecutor or judicial police officer may reproduce all of the communications for which it is impossible to make a judgment as to whether they fall under the communications to be intercepted as it is difficult to know the content thereof at the time of reproduction, because they are in a foreign language or use ciphers or other methods that make it impossible to instantly restore the content thereof.In this case, a judgment as to whether they fall under the communications to be intercepted must be made promptly thereafter.

(5)When the restored communications through decryption under the provisions of paragraph (1) contain the communications prescribed in Article 15, a public prosecutor or judicial police officer may reproduce those communications.

(6)The provisions of Article 16 apply mutatis mutandis to the case where the restored communications through decryption under the provisions of paragraph (1) are reproduced.

(7)With regard to communications intercepted under the provisions of paragraph (1) of the preceding Article, when they fall under communications to be intercepted or communications that may be reproduced under the provisions of paragraph (5), or when it is found that it will contribute to making a judgment as to whether they fall under the communications to be intercepted under the provisions of paragraph (3) or (4), a public prosecutor or judicial police officer may receive disclosure of the telephone numbers, etc. of the other parties to the relevant communications out of the telephone numbers, etc. whose storage has been asked for under the provisions of paragraph (3) of that Article or has been requested under the provisions of paragraph (4) of that Article.In this case, the provisions of the second sentence of Article 17, paragraph (1) apply mutatis mutandis.

(8)When the implementation of reproduction under the provisions of paragraph (1) has not been terminated within the period during which interception is authorized as stated in a warrant for interception, it must be terminated as promptly as possible after the end of the period during which interception is authorized as stated in the warrant for interception.

(9)When the grounds or necessity for interception have ceased to exist, even during the period during which interception is authorized as stated in a warrant for interception, the implementation of reproduction under the provisions of paragraph (1) must not be commenced if it has yet to be commenced and must be terminated if it has been commenced; provided, however, that the implementation of reproduction may be conducted with regard to the encrypted signals that have temporarily been stored by the time when the grounds or necessity for interception cease to exist, only in the case where the grounds or necessity for interception have ceased to exist due to the facts that a circumstance sufficient to suspect that communications falling under communications to be intercepted will take place has ceased to exist, that the means of communication subject to the implementation of interception as stated in the warrant for interception has ceased to be the one used by the suspect under a contract with a carrier, etc., or the one sufficiently suspected to be used for communications by criminals falling under communications to be intercepted.

Article 22(1)When decryption under the provisions of paragraph (1) of the preceding Article is completed, a communication manager, etc. must immediately delete all of the encrypted signals temporarily stored under the provisions of Article 20, paragraph (1). The same applies to the encrypted signals temporarily stored under the provisions of Article 20, paragraph (2) in the case where decryption under the provisions of paragraph (2) of the preceding Article is completed.

(2)When the implementation of reproduction under the provisions of paragraph (1) of the preceding Article is terminated or the commencement of the implementation of reproduction has come to be prohibited under the provisions of paragraph (9) of that Article, if there are any encrypted signals temporarily stored under the provisions of Article 20, paragraphs (1) and (2) that have yet to be decrypted under the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of the preceding Article, a public prosecutor or judicial police officer must immediately order a communication manager, etc. to delete all those encrypted signals.

Article 23(1)A public prosecutor or judicial police officer may, upon the permission of a judge, order a communication manager, etc. to encrypt the original signals (limited to signals transmitting the content of the communications) by using conversion codes provided under the provisions of Article 9, item (ii), (a) with regard to all communications that take place during the implementation of interception, and to transmit the encrypted signals made through the encryption to a specified computer installed at the place of the implementation of interception, and thereby intercept those communications in any of the following manners. With regard to the implementation of interception in this case, the provisions of Article 13 do not apply, and with regard to interception under the provisions of item (ii), the provisions of Article 20, paragraphs (3) and (4) apply mutatis mutandis:

(2)The specified computer prescribed in the preceding paragraph means a computer that has all of the following functions:

(3)When a warrant for interception contains the statement to the effect that the permission referred to in paragraph (1) is granted, a public prosecutor and judicial police officer cannot conduct the implementation of interception except by the method prescribed in that paragraph.

(4)When having conducted interception under the provisions of paragraph (1), item (ii), a public prosecutor or judicial police officer may restore communications intercepted under the provisions of paragraph (1), item (ii) by decrypting encrypted signals temporarily stored under the provisions of that item by using a specified computer (meaning the specified computer prescribed in paragraph (2); the same applies in paragraph (6) and Article 26, paragraph (1)) and by using corresponding conversion codes provided under the provisions of Article 9, item (ii), (b), and may simultaneously reproduce the restored communications in accordance with the provisions of Article 21, paragraphs (3) through (6), at the place of the implementation of interception. With regard to the implementation of reproduction in this case, the provisions of Articles 11 and 12 and Article 21, paragraphs (7) through (9) apply mutatis mutandis.

(5)The restoration of communications intercepted under the provisions of paragraph (1), item (ii) through decryption must not be conducted except for the case under the provisions of the preceding paragraph.

(6)With regard to encrypted signals temporarily stored under the provisions of paragraph (1), item (ii), if there are any encrypted signals, other than those automatically deleted with a function of a specified computer, that have not been decrypted under the provisions of paragraph (4) at the time when the implementation of reproduction under the provisions of that paragraph is terminated or when the commencement of the implementation of reproduction has come to be prohibited under the provisions of Article 21, paragraph (9) as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to paragraph (4), a public prosecutor or judicial police officer must immediately delete all of those encrypted signals.

Article 24(1)Intercepted communications (in the case of the interception under the provisions of Article 20, paragraph (1), communications reproduced under the provisions of Article 21, paragraph (1)) must all be recorded in a recording medium using an audio recording or any other appropriate method in accordance with the nature of communications.In this case, it is permitted to simultaneously record them in another recording medium by the same method for the purpose of using them for the procedures referred to in Article 29, paragraph (3) or (4).

(2)When the implementation of interception (in the case of the implementation of interception under the provisions of Article 20, paragraph (1), the implementation of reproduction under the provisions of Article 21, paragraph (1)) is suspended or terminated, recording in the recording medium being used at that time must be terminated.

Article 25(1)When the implementation of interception has been suspended or terminated, an observer must be asked to promptly seal the recording medium (excluding the recording medium prescribed in the following paragraph) in which recording has been made under the provisions of the first sentence of paragraph (1) of the preceding Article. The same applies when a recording medium is replaced during the implementation of interception or otherwise recording in a recording medium has been terminated.

(2)With regard to a recording medium in which communications reproduced under the provisions of Article 21, paragraph (1) have been recorded under the provisions of the first sentence of paragraph (1) of the preceding Article, an observer must be asked to promptly seal it when the implementation of reproduction has been suspended or terminated. The same applies when a recording medium is replaced during the implementation of reproduction or otherwise recording in a recording medium has been terminated.

(3)With regard to the recording media referred to in the preceding two paragraphs, their copies may be made for the purpose of using them for the procedures referred to in Article 29, paragraph (3) or (4) before asking an observer to seal them, except for a case where there are any recording media in which recording has been made under the provisions of the second sentence of paragraph (1) of the preceding Article.

(4)A recording medium sealed by an observer must be submitted to a judge of a court to which the judge who issued the relevant warrant for interception belongs, without delay.

Article 26(1)Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding two Articles, when having conducted interception under the provisions of Article 23, paragraph (1), all of the intercepted communications (in the case of the interception under the provisions of item (ii) of that paragraph, communications reproduced under the provisions of Article 23, paragraph (4); hereinafter the same applies in this paragraph and the following paragraph) must be encrypted and recorded in a recording medium, and also the dates and times of commencement and termination of conversations that took place during the implementation of interception, the dates and times of commencement and termination of intercepted communications, and other particulars specified by Cabinet Order must be encrypted and recorded in the relevant recording medium, by using a specified computer and conversion codes provided under the provisions of Article 9, item (ii), (b).

(2)In the case referred to in the preceding paragraph, the intercepted communications and the particulars prescribed in the preceding paragraph are to be all recorded in another recording medium simultaneously for the purpose of using them for the procedures referred to in Article 29, paragraph (3) or (4).

(3)When the implementation of interception under the provisions of Article 23, paragraph (1) (in the case of the implementation of interception under the provisions of item (ii) of that paragraph, the implementation of reproduction under the provisions of paragraph (4) of that Article) is suspended or terminated, recording in the recording medium being used at that time must be terminated.

(4)A recording medium in which recording has been made under the provisions of paragraph (1) must be submitted to the judge prescribed in paragraph (4) of the preceding Article without delay after the termination of the implementation of interception (when there are any encrypted signals temporarily stored under the provisions of Article 23, paragraph (1), item (ii) that have not been decrypted under the provisions of paragraph (4) of that Article at the time of terminating the implementation of interception, after the termination of the implementation of reproduction).

Article 27(1)A public prosecutor or judicial police officer must submit a document stating the following particulars to the judge prescribed in Article 25, paragraph (4) without delay after the termination of the implementation of interception. The same applies when a public prosecutor or judicial police officer files a request for the extension of the period during which interception is authorized under the provisions of Article 7:

(2)Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph, when a public prosecutor or judicial police officer has conducted the implementation of interception under the provisions of Article 23, paragraph (1), item (i), the public prosecutor or judicial police officer must submit a document stating the following matters to the judge prescribed in Article 25, paragraph (4) without delay after the termination of the implementation of interception. The same applies when a public prosecutor or judicial police officer files a request for the extension of the period during which interception is authorized under the provisions of Article 7 after conducting the implementation of interception under the provisions of that item:

(3)A judge who has received a document submitted as prescribed in the preceding two paragraphs is to examine whether the communications referred to in paragraph (1), item (vi) or item (iv) of the preceding paragraph fall under the communications prescribed in Article 15, and when the judge finds that they do not fall under the communications prescribed in Article 15, the judge is to revoke the dispositions of interception of the relevant communications.In this case, the provisions of Article 33, paragraphs (3), (5) and (6) apply mutatis mutandis.

Article 28(1)Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of the preceding Article, if the period of conducting the implementation of interception contains a period during which the implementation of interception under the provisions of Article 20, paragraph (1) was conducted, a public prosecutor or judicial police officer must submit to the judge prescribed in Article 25, paragraph (4) a document stating the particulars set forth in the items of paragraph (1) of the preceding Article for a period other than the relevant period and the following particulars for the period during which the implementation of interception under the provisions of Article 20, paragraph (1) was conducted, respectively, without delay after the termination of the implementation of interception (when there are any encrypted signals temporarily stored under the provisions of Article 20, paragraph (1) that have not been decrypted under the provisions of Article 21, paragraph (1) at the time of terminating the implementation of interception, after the termination of the implementation of reproduction). The same applies when a public prosecutor or judicial police officer files a request for the extension of the period during which interception is authorized under the provisions of Article 7 after conducting interception under the provisions of Article 20, paragraph (1):

(2)Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2) of the preceding Article, if the period of conducting the implementation of interception contains a period during which the implementation of interception under the provisions of Article 23, paragraph (1), item (ii) was conducted, a public prosecutor or judicial police officer must submit to the judge prescribed in Article 25, paragraph (4) a document stating the particulars set forth in the items of paragraph (2) of the preceding Article for a period other than the relevant period and the following particulars for the period during which the implementation of interception under the provisions of Article 23, paragraph (1), item (ii) was conducted, respectively, without delay after the termination of the implementation of interception (when there are any encrypted signals temporarily stored under the provisions of that item that have not been decrypted under the provisions of Article 23, paragraph (4) at the time of terminating the implementation of interception, after the termination of the implementation of reproduction). The same applies when a public prosecutor or judicial police officer files a request for the extension of the period during which interception is authorized under the provisions of Article 7 after conducting interception under the provisions of that item:

(3)A judge who has received a document submitted as prescribed in the preceding two paragraphs is to examine whether the communications referred to in paragraph (1), item (vi) or paragraph (2), item (iv) of the preceding Article, or paragraph (1), item (ix), or item (vi) of the preceding paragraph fall under the communications prescribed in Article 15, and when the judge finds that they do not fall under the communications prescribed in Article 15, the judge is to revoke the dispositions for interception or reproduction for the relevant communications.In this case, the provisions of Article 33, paragraphs (3), (5) and (6) apply mutatis mutandis.

Article 29(1)Each time a public prosecutor or judicial police officer has suspended or terminated the implementation of interception (excluding the implementation of interception under the provisions of Article 20, paragraph (1) or Article 23, paragraph (1), item (ii); hereinafter the same applies in this paragraph), the public prosecutor or judicial police officer must promptly prepare a copy of record for the purpose of using the content of the intercepted communications in criminal procedures. The same applies when a recording medium is replaced during the implementation of interception or otherwise recording in a recording medium has been terminated.

(2)Each time a public prosecutor or judicial police officer has suspended or terminated the implementation of reproduction, the public prosecutor or judicial police officer must promptly prepare a copy of record for the purpose of using the content of the reproduced communications in criminal procedures. The same applies when a recording medium is replaced during the implementation of reproduction or otherwise recording in a recording medium has been terminated.

(3)The record prescribed in paragraph (1) is to be prepared by deleting records of communications other than the following communications from the recording medium in which recording has been made under the provisions of the second sentence of Article 24, paragraph (1) or Article 26, paragraph (2) or a copy of the recording medium set forth in Article 25, paragraph (1) that has been made under the provisions of paragraph (3) of that Article:

(4)The record prescribed in paragraph (2) is to be prepared by deleting records of communications other than the following communications from the recording medium in which recording has been made under the provisions of the second sentence of Article 24, paragraph (1) or Article 26, paragraph (2) or a copy of the recording medium set forth in Article 25, paragraph (2) that has been made under the provisions of paragraph (3) of that Article:

(5)When the communications set forth in paragraph (3), item (ii) or item (ii) of the preceding paragraph are found not to fall under communications to be intercepted and the communications prescribed in Article 15, a record of those communications and a record of the communications set forth in paragraph (3), item (iv) or item (iv) of the preceding paragraph that pertains to those communications must be deleted from the record prescribed in paragraph (1) or the record prescribed in paragraph (2) (hereinafter, collectively referred to as an "interception record"); provided, however, that this does not apply when any of the communications set forth in paragraph (3), items (i) through (iii) or items (i) through (iii) of the preceding paragraph took place on the same occasion of conversations as those communications.

(6)When a public prosecutor or judicial police officer has prepared an interception record, and when there are any recording media in which intercepted communications (including communications reproduced under the provisions of Article 21, paragraph (1) or Article 23, paragraph (4) and communications restored through decryption under these provisions; the same applies in the following paragraph) are recorded or a copy, etc. (meaning a copy or other article and document recording the whole or part of the content of the record as it is; the same applies hereinafter) thereof, other than the recording medium that the public prosecutor or judicial police officer had submitted to a judge under the provisions of Article 25, paragraph (4) or Article 26, paragraph (4) (hereinafter referred to as the "original record of interception"), all those records must be deleted. The same applies when any records have been deleted from an interception record under the provisions of the preceding paragraph and there still are other copies, etc. of those records.

(7)With regard to intercepted communications other than those recorded in an interception record, a public prosecutor or judicial police officer must not disclose the content thereof to third parties or use the content thereof. The same applies even after a public prosecutor or judicial police officer has left their position.

Article 30(1)A public prosecutor or judicial police officer must give a written notice stating the fact that an interception record has been prepared and the following matters to the parties to the communications recorded in the interception record:

(2)A notice referred to in the preceding paragraph must be given within 30 days after the termination of the implementation of interception except for the case where the parties to the communications cannot be identified or their whereabouts are not known; provided, however, that when a judge of a district court finds that there is a risk that the investigation will be hindered, the judge may extend the period during which a notice must be given under the provisions of this paragraph by specifying a period not exceeding 60 days upon a request by a public prosecutor or judicial police officer.

(3)In the case where the parties to the communications have been identified or their whereabouts have come to be known after the lapse of the period prescribed in the main clause of the preceding paragraph, a public prosecutor or judicial police officer must promptly give a notice referred to in paragraph (1) to the parties to the communications.In this case, the provisions of the proviso to the preceding paragraph apply mutatis mutandis.

Article 31The parties to the communications who have received a notice referred to in paragraph (1) of the preceding Article may hear, inspect or copy the part of the interception record that pertains to the relevant communications.

Article 32(1)In the case where a party to the communications recorded in an interception record has heard, inspected or copied the part of the interception record that pertains to the relevant communications as prescribed in the preceding Article, and when a judge who keeps the original record of interception (hereinafter referred to as a "judge keeping the original record") finds it necessary for confirming the accuracy of the interception record or otherwise finds that there are justifiable grounds, the judge must permit hearing, inspection or copying of the part of the original record of interception that corresponds to the relevant communications upon a request by the party to the communications.

(2)When a judge keeping the original record finds it necessary for confirming the content of the intercepted communications (in the case of interception under the provisions of Article 20, paragraph (1) or Article 23, paragraph (1), item (ii), communications reproduced under the provisions of Article 21, paragraph (1) or Article 23, paragraph (4)) or otherwise finds that there are justifiable grounds, the judge must permit hearing, inspection or copying of the part of the original record of interception that pertains to the relevant communications upon a request by a party to the communications other than the communications recorded in an interception record.

(3)When a judge keeping the original record finds it necessary for proving or disproving of the facts of the crime or confirming the accuracy of an interception record or otherwise finds that there are justifiable grounds with regard to the case for which interception has been conducted, the judge may permit hearing, inspection or copying of the part of the original record of interception that the judge finds necessary upon a request by a public prosecutor or judicial police officer; provided, however, that copying is limited to the part pertaining to the following communications (excluding communications recorded in an interception record):

(4)Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph, in the case where there is a judicial decision that ordered deletion of a record pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (3) of the following Article (including the case as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 27, paragraph (3) and Article 28, paragraph (3); hereinafter the same applies in this paragraph), a request for permission for copying under the provisions of the preceding paragraph may be filed only if those communications pertaining to the record whose deletion was ordered are newly found to fall under the communications set forth in item (i) or (ii) of the preceding paragraph for which there is no other appropriate method of proof to be used in lieu thereof, with regard only to the part of the original record of interception that pertains to the relevant communications and communications that took place on the same occasion of conversations as those communications; provided, however, that this request may not be filed if the judicial decision ordered deletion of the record of these communications on the grounds that the case falls under paragraph (3), item (ii) of the following Article.

(5)With regard to a case under public prosecution for which a request for examination of an interception record or a copy, etc. thereof has been filed by a public prosecutor, when a judge keeping the original record finds it necessary for the defense of the accused or for confirming the accuracy of the interception record, or otherwise finds that there are justifiable grounds, the judge may permit hearing, inspection or copying of the part of the original record of interception that the judge finds necessary upon a request by the accused or their defense counsel; provided, however, that copying of the part pertaining to the communications to which the accused is not the party is permitted only in the case where there is a consent of one of the parties to the relevant communications.

(6)A copy made by a public prosecutor or judicial police officer under the provisions of paragraph (3) is deemed to be an interception record.In this case, with regard to the application of the provisions of Article 30, the term "and the following matters" in paragraph (1) of that Article is replaced with ", the following particulars, the fact that copying under the provisions of Article 32, paragraph (3) has been permitted, and the date of the permission" and the term "after the termination of the implementation of interception" in paragraph (2) of that Article is replaced with "after making a copy".

(7)Hearing, inspection or copying must not be permitted for the original record of interception except for cases under the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (5); provided, however, that this does not apply in the case where a court or judge, as prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure, finds it necessary for proceedings or a judicial decision concerning a case under public prosecution for which a request for examination of an interception record or a copy, etc. thereof has been filed by a public prosecutor or a criminal case relating to interception, and examines the part of the original record of interception that the court or judge finds necessary.

Article 33(1)A person who is dissatisfied with a judicial decision rendered by a judge in relation to communications interception may file a request for revocation or modification of the judicial decision with the court to which the judge concerned belongs.

(2)A person who is dissatisfied with dispositions taken by a public prosecutor or public prosecutor's assistant officer in relation to interception or reproduction of communications may file a request for revocation or modification of the dispositions (including the termination of the implementation of interception or the implementation of reproduction; hereinafter the same applies in this paragraph) with the district court having jurisdiction over the location of the public prosecutors office to which the public prosecutor or public prosecutor's assistant officer belongs, and a person who is dissatisfied with dispositions taken by a judicial police official in relation to interception or reproduction of communications may file a request for revocation or modification of the dispositions with the district court having jurisdiction over the place where the official executes their duties.

(3)When a court finds that the case falls under any of the following items upon revoking measures of interception or reproduction based on a request referred to in the preceding paragraph, the court must order a public prosecutor or judicial police officer to delete: out of the interception record (excluding a record deemed to be an interception record under the provisions of paragraph (6) of the preceding Article; hereinafter the same applies in this paragraph) and a copy, etc. thereof that the public prosecutor or judicial police officer keeps, the record of communications pertaining to the relevant dispositions of interception or reproduction and the record of communications that took place on the same occasion of conversations as those communications, and encrypted signals temporarily stored in relation to the relevant dispositions of interception; provided, however, that this does not apply when a court finds that the case falls under item (iii) and finds it inappropriate to order the deletion of the record:

(4)When permission for copying referred to in paragraph (3) of the preceding Article has been revoked, a public prosecutor or judicial police officer must delete: out of the record deemed to be an interception record under the provisions of paragraph (6) of that Article (including a copy, etc. thereof) that the public prosecutor or judicial police officer keeps, the part pertaining to the revoked permission.

(5)A judicial decision to order the deletion of a record under the provisions of paragraph (3) or a judicial decision to revoke permission for copying under the provisions of the preceding paragraph does not preclude an interception record or a copy, etc. thereof from being used as evidence in the procedures relating to a case under public prosecution when the examination of evidence has already been conducted for the relevant interception record or a copy, etc. thereof in that case under public prosecution, as long as a decision to exclude from evidence has not been rendered.

(6)When a judicial decision prescribed in the provisions of the preceding paragraph has been rendered for an interception record for which the examination of evidence has already been conducted in a case under public prosecution, the relevant interception record is deemed to have been deleted based on a juridical decision referred to in paragraph (3) or under the provisions of paragraph (4) in applying Article 29, paragraph (7) in cases other than the case where the content of the interception record is to be made known to third parties or is to be used in the procedures relating to that case under public prosecution.

(7)Beyond what is provided for in this Act, procedures for appeal under the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) are to be governed by the procedures for requests referred to in Article 429, paragraph (1) and Article 430, paragraph (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Article 34(1)The original record of interception is to be kept until the day on which five years elapse from the day of the submission under the provisions of Article 25, paragraph (4) or Article 26, paragraph (4) or a day on which six months elapse from the day of the conclusion of a case under public prosecution in which an interception record or a copy, etc. thereof was examined as evidence, or the conclusion of a criminal case relating to interception, whichever comes the latest.

(2)When a judge keeping the original record finds it necessary, the judge may extend the period to keep the original record of interception referred to in the preceding paragraph.

Article 35A public prosecutor, public prosecutor's assistant officer, judicial police official, defense counsel, or other person who became involved in interception or reproduction of communications or who has learned the circumstances of interception or reproduction of communications or the content of the intercepted communications (including reproduced communications) in the course of duties must pay attention not to unduly harm the secrecy of communications and not to hinder investigations.

Article 36Every year, the national government is to make a report to the Diet on the number of requests for and issuance of warrants for interception, names of offenses pertaining to those requests for and issuance of warrants for interception, types of means of communication subject to interception, period of conducting the implementation of interception, the number of occasions of conversations during the implementation of interception, the number of occasions during which the communications set forth in paragraph (3), item (i) or (iii) or paragraph (4), item (i) or (iii) of Article 29 took place out of those occasions, in cases where the implementation of interception under the provisions of Article 20, paragraph (1) or Article 23, paragraph (1), item (i) or (ii) was conducted, to that effect, as well as the number of persons who were arrested in relation to cases for which interception was conducted, and also publicize these particulars; provided, however, that when reporting and publication of names of offenses may cause hindrance to investigations, the reporting and publication are to be made after the hindrance ceases to exist.

Article 37(1)A public employee who has the authority to conduct an investigation or examination to who has committed a crime referred to in Article 179, paragraph (1) of the Telecommunications Business Act (Act No. 86 of 1984) or Article 14, paragraph (1) of the Cable Telecommunications Act (Act No. 96 of 1953) in relation to the duties for the investigation or examination is to be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine of not more than one million yen.

(2)An attempt of the crime referred to in the preceding paragraph is to be punished.

(3)A person who has filed a complaint or an accusation for any of the crimes referred to in the preceding two paragraphs may file a request referred to in Article 262, paragraph (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if dissatisfied with a disposition by a public prosecutor not to prosecute the relevant crime.

Article 38Beyond what is specially provided for in this Act, procedures concerning communications interception are to be governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Article 39Beyond what is provided for in this Act, necessary particulars concerning the issuance of a warrant for interception, the extension of the period during which interception is authorized, sealing and submission of a recording medium, storage and other handling of the original record of interception, submission of a document stating the status of the implementation of interception, examination as to whether communications fall under the communications prescribed in Article 15, the extension of the period during which a notice must be given to the parties to the communications, hearing, inspection and copying of an interception record kept by a court, and procedures for filing an appeal are to be provided by Rules of the Supreme Court.