INSIGHTS｜EMPLOYMENT & COMPLIANCE
Akira Kaneko, Attorney at Law (Kaneko Law Office)
Key takeaways
- The Act Partially Amending the Whistleblower Protection Act (Act No. 62 of 2025) takes effect on December 1, 2026.
- Dismissing or disciplining a person because of a whistleblowing report becomes a criminal offense. A company can be fined up to JPY 30 million.
- A dismissal or disciplinary action within one year after a report will be presumed to have been taken because of the report.
- The amended Act expressly prohibits “obstructing reports,” such as asking a person to agree not to make a report, and “searching for whistleblowers,” meaning attempts to identify who made a report.
- Freelancers working for a company under a service contract are added to the persons protected.
Contents
- Introduction
- 1. The amendment at a glance
- 2. Criminal penalties for dismissal and discipline, and the shift in the burden of proof
- 3. Prohibitions on obstructing reports and searching for whistleblowers
- 4. Coverage of freelancers
- 5. Stronger enforcement of the obligation to establish a reporting system
- 6. What to check before the Act takes effect
- Conclusion
Introduction
Japan’s Whistleblower Protection Act protects workers and others who report legal violations and other misconduct at their companies from dismissal and other detrimental treatment. The amending act, enacted on June 4, 2025 and promulgated on June 11, 2025, strengthens the protection of whistleblowers and the effectiveness of companies’ systems for handling reports.
Ahead of its entry into force, this article explains the main changes and what companies should check now.
1. The amendment at a glance
| Item | Summary |
|---|---|
| Criminal penalties for dismissal and discipline | A person who dismisses or disciplines a whistleblower because of a report faces imprisonment of up to six months or a fine of up to JPY 300,000. A company faces a fine of up to JPY 30 million |
| Shift in the burden of proof | A dismissal or disciplinary action within one year after a report is presumed to have been taken because of the report |
| Prohibition on obstructing reports | Asking a person, without justifiable grounds, to agree not to make a report, and similar conduct, is prohibited. Agreements made in breach are void |
| Prohibition on searching for whistleblowers | Any act intended to identify a whistleblower, without justifiable grounds, is prohibited |
| Protection of freelancers | Freelancers in a service contract relationship with the company (including those whose relationship ended within the past year) become protected persons |
| Stronger enforcement of the obligation to establish a reporting system | New powers to collect reports, conduct on-site inspections and issue orders against companies that fail to designate persons in charge of handling reports. The obligation to inform workers of the reporting system is made explicit |
2. Criminal penalties for dismissal and discipline, and the shift in the burden of proof
Before the amendment, a dismissal because of a whistleblowing report was already void, but the person who dismissed the whistleblower faced no criminal penalty. The amended Act provides that a person who dismisses or disciplines a whistleblower because of a report may be sentenced to imprisonment of up to six months or a fine of up to JPY 300,000. Under the dual liability provision, the company may also be fined up to JPY 30 million.
The burden of proof in civil litigation also shifts. A dismissal or disciplinary action taken within one year after the date of the report is presumed to have been taken because of the report. When a company considers disciplinary or other action against a whistleblower, it should therefore be able to show, with objective records, that the grounds for the action are unrelated to the report.
3. Prohibitions on obstructing reports and searching for whistleblowers
(1) Obstructing reports
A company must not, without justifiable grounds, obstruct whistleblowing reports, for example by asking workers or others to agree not to make a report, or by telling them that they will be treated detrimentally if they do. Any agreement or other arrangement made in breach of this rule is void.
(2) Searching for whistleblowers
A company must not, without justifiable grounds, ask a person to disclose whether he or she is the whistleblower, or take any other action intended to identify the whistleblower. Because trying to find out who made the report is itself prohibited, companies should make sure that the staff and managers involved understand how investigations must be conducted after a report is received.
4. Coverage of freelancers
The amended Act adds freelancers who work for a company under a service contract (“specified entrusted business operators” under Japan’s Freelance Act) to the persons protected as whistleblowers. This includes freelancers whose service relationship ended within the past year. Terminating a service contract or otherwise treating a freelancer detrimentally because of a report is prohibited.
5. Stronger enforcement of the obligation to establish a reporting system
Companies that regularly employ more than 300 workers must designate persons in charge of handling whistleblowing reports and establish a system for handling reports. Companies with 300 or fewer workers must make efforts to do so.
The amended Act allows the authorities to collect reports from, conduct on-site inspections of and issue orders to companies that breach the obligation to designate such persons, and introduces penalties for refusing to report and for breaching an order. It also makes explicit that the obligation to establish a reporting system includes informing workers and others about that system.
6. What to check before the Act takes effect
- Review your internal whistleblowing rules: Reflect the prohibitions on searching for whistleblowers and obstructing reports, and the treatment of freelancers.
- Designate persons in charge and inform employees: Companies with more than 300 workers should confirm that persons in charge have been properly designated and remind employees and others that the reporting channel exists.
- Train managers: Make sure managers understand that searching for whistleblowers is prohibited, and that dismissing or disciplining a whistleblower because of a report may lead to criminal penalties.
- Keep records of disciplinary procedures: When taking disciplinary action, record the grounds for the action and how the decision was reached.
Conclusion
With this amendment, mishandling a whistleblowing report is no longer only a matter of civil disputes; it can also lead to criminal penalties. We recommend reviewing your internal rules and practices before the Act takes effect.
CONSULTATION
Kaneko Law Office advises companies, in English and Japanese, on internal whistleblowing rules, outsourced reporting channels and investigations after a report is received.
This article provides general information based on laws and published materials as of November 2026. It is not legal advice on any specific matter.
