When a landlord or property manager in Japan loses contact with a tenant, three questions come first: is this actually yonige (夜逃げ, literally "fleeing in the night" — a tenant who has vanished, leaving both the unit and the rent behind), when can the belongings inside legally be touched, and what will the final bill look like. This is a distinctly Japanese problem with a distinctly Japanese legal answer. Unlike jurisdictions where a landlord can change the locks after notice, post a formal eviction notice, or in some cases re-enter directly, Japanese law channels every step of retaking a vacant unit through a court enforcement officer's procedure and gives the landlord no lawful shortcut of their own — not even once abandonment looks certain. This article is written for owners and management companies watching rent payments stop, and lays out, from primary Japanese sources current as of August 2026, what a yonige unit actually looks like, how abandoned belongings can lawfully be cleared, and what the real damages and timeline look like in yen, with the source of every figure shown line by line.
Here is the conclusion up front. Whether a unit has been abandoned yonige-style is judged on three signals: mail piling up uncollected, electricity and gas meters stopped, and the condition of what has been left behind. And even once yonige looks certain, the landlord still cannot let themselves in with a spare key or dispose of what is inside. Japanese law hands the actual retaking of possession entirely to a court enforcement officer's procedure (Civil Execution Act, Article 168, Paragraph 1) and gives the landlord no lawful means of self-help — a sharp contrast with markets where a landlord may, after notice, re-enter or dispose of abandoned property directly. The correct order to act in is: confirm the tenant's safety and whereabouts, build a written record, terminate the lease, and only then begin the legal process for repossession.
Key points of this article
- In the ¥80,000–¥120,000 (approx. USD 533–800) monthly rent band, the median loss per case is ¥356,000 (approx. USD 2,373), the average is ¥500,000 (approx. USD 3,333), and the highest recorded case reached ¥4,186,000 (approx. USD 27,907) (MLIT survey, 20,886 cases aggregated).
- From the start of arrears to completed handover, the average is 4.5 months for a negotiated surrender, 7.3 months once a judgment is finalized, and 9.1 months if the case runs all the way to forced enforcement.
- In cases that reach forced enforcement, unpaid rent averages 9.7 months' worth, and the special costs incurred just to carry out the enforcement average ¥507,000 (approx. USD 3,380).
- Once the enforcement officer issues formal notice of handover, the surrender deadline is, in principle, one month from that notice (Civil Execution Act, Article 168-2, Paragraph 2). Belongings left behind are handed by the enforcement officer to the tenant or their agent, and may be sold if that is not possible (same Act, Article 168, Paragraph 5).
- As of 2026, landlords have three layers of protection available: setting a guarantee cap amount for joint guarantors (Civil Code, Article 465-2), choosing between 123 registered rent-guarantee companies and 12 certified rent-guarantee companies, and the Model Contract Clauses for Handling Abandoned Property.
What a Yonige Unit Looks Like: 12 Warning Signs Before and After Discovery
A yonige departure rarely happens overnight. In most cases, the pattern of rent payments and communication starts changing months earlier. This section separates the signs a landlord can observe from outside before a unit is confirmed abandoned from the characteristics typically found inside once possession is recovered. For an owner used to a US or UK rental market, where a missed payment usually triggers a fairly standardized notice-to-quit process within weeks, the open-ended, multi-month drift described below can be the first surprise: Japanese practice leaves substantial room for judgment calls before any formal step is taken.
Six Signs Visible From Outside Before Discovery
The first thing to shift is the payment pattern. Rent that used to arrive on the due date starts slipping toward month-end, then arrives only partially, and eventually stops altogether. At this stage there is no way to distinguish a simple cash-flow problem from the start of a yonige departure — the distinction only becomes clear once the tenant stops responding to contact at all.
The next thing to check is physical change around the building. Mail sitting untouched in the mailbox for several days, electricity or gas meters that have stopped turning, a bicycle missing from the designated rack, or a car missing from a contracted parking space — all of these can be confirmed from common areas without entering the unit, and a dated photograph of each is useful evidence later in the process.
Six Characteristics Found Inside the Unit
Once the unit can be inspected as part of the handover process, what typically marks a yonige case is the imbalance between what was taken and what was left behind. Only the items that are genuinely troublesome to replace — a bank passbook, a personal seal (印鑑, inkan, the registered stamp that functions in Japan roughly the way a signature does in most English-speaking countries), a health insurance card, a passport — are gone. Furniture, appliances, and bedding are left in place. Only some of the clothing is missing. The refrigerator has not been emptied. None of this looks like a planned move; it looks like someone left in a hurry with only what they judged essential.
Conversely, if most of the belongings have been moved out and the key has been left in the mailbox, the tenant may well have intended to surrender the unit. Even so, it is risky to treat the mere presence of a returned key as proof the lease has ended. Keep a written record confirming the situation, and still work through the formal steps to terminate the lease.
If unopened mail has piled up inside the unit, checking the senders can help gauge how realistic recovery is. A stack of demand letters from banks or debt-collection agencies points to multiple debts in the background — a situation where, even after winning a judgment, actually collecting the money is likely to be difficult.
[Checklist] 12 Warning Signs and the Action to Take at Each Stage
| # | Sign / Characteristic | How to Confirm | Action to Take at That Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Payment pattern shifts from on-time → month-end → partial payment | Line up 6 months of payment records | Call to check the situation; log the date, time, and content |
| 2 | No answer, no callback | Call multiple times, varying the time of day and day of week | Log the date/time and outcome of every call individually |
| 3 | Mailbox overflowing, contents untouched for several days | Visual check from outside; photograph with a date stamp | If untouched for 3+ days, contact the emergency contact |
| 4 | Electricity/gas meters have stopped | Visual check, to the extent visible from common areas | Possible absence or move-out; switch to a safety/welfare check |
| 5 | Bicycle missing from the rack, car missing from contracted parking | Cross-check the lease ledger against the current situation | If asking neighboring tenants, do so without disclosing the arrears |
| 6 | Emergency contact/employer unreachable, or the number has changed | Call each contact listed in the lease, in order | Contact the joint guarantor or guarantee company, framed as a safety check |
| 7 | Only items troublesome to reissue (passbook, seal, insurance card) are missing | Confirmed during the handover process | May indicate a planned departure; begin preparing for litigation |
| 8 | Only daily essentials taken; furniture and appliances left behind | Same as above | Arrange an estimate of the volume and weight of the abandoned property |
| 9 | Refrigerator contents left unemptied | Same as above | Prioritize measures to prevent pests and odor from spreading |
| 10 | Garbage bags piled up inside (hoarder-house condition) | Same as above | First confirm the split between general and industrial waste categories |
| 11 | Unopened mail piled up inside | Check the senders | A sign of multiple debts; use it to gauge recovery prospects |
| 12 | Key left in the mailbox | Visual confirmation; photograph and keep the image | Do not assume the lease has ended; keep a written record instead |
The Order of Checks That Keeps You From Mistaking Illness, Accident, or Death for Yonige
This is the single most important fork in the road in practice. Losing contact with a tenant is not the same thing as yonige. According to National Police Agency (警察庁, NPA) statistics, 82,563 missing-person reports were filed in Japan in 2024, and the largest single cause category was illness-related, at 23,663 people (28.7% of the total) — of which 18,121 (21.9% of the total) involved dementia. Family-related causes came next at 12,466 (15.1%), followed by business or employment-related causes at 6,722 (8.1%). In other words, the single most common reason someone goes silent is not financial flight — it is a health emergency. This is worth pausing on for a reader used to markets where an unresponsive tenant is treated primarily as a collections problem: in Japan, the working assumption should start as a welfare check, not a debt case.
For that reason, the order of operations is: check on safety first, raise the arrears second. Even when contacting the emergency contact or the employer, open with the fact that you cannot reach the tenant — not with the rent. If there is any real possibility the tenant has collapsed inside the unit, contact the police before anything else. This sequencing protects the tenant's privacy, and it also protects the landlord: it becomes evidence, later, against any claim that a rent collection amounted to harassment.
How Much a Yonige Case Actually Costs: Damages by Rent Band
Benchmark figures for the damages come from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (国土交通省, MLIT) — specifically its "Reference Material on Guarantee Cap Amounts," which aggregates 20,886 cases from 13 rent-guarantee companies. "Damages" here means the total a guarantee company paid out to the landlord — covering rent, common-area fees, management fees, parking fees, lease-renewal fees, removal costs for abandoned belongings, repair costs, and penalty fees — minus whatever the guarantee company was later able to recover from the tenant. It is a net, real-world loss figure, not a gross claim amount.
[Data Table] Damages by Rent Band (Median, Average, Maximum)
| Rent Band | Median | Average | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|
| Under ¥40,000 (approx. under USD 267) | ¥115,000 (approx. USD 767) | ¥177,000 (approx. USD 1,180) | ¥1,784,000 (approx. USD 11,893) |
| ¥40,000–¥80,000 (approx. USD 267–533) | ¥190,000 (approx. USD 1,267) | ¥282,000 (approx. USD 1,880) | ¥3,460,000 (approx. USD 23,067) |
| ¥80,000–¥120,000 (approx. USD 533–800) | ¥356,000 (approx. USD 2,373) | ¥500,000 (approx. USD 3,333) | ¥4,186,000 (approx. USD 27,907) |
| ¥120,000–¥160,000 (approx. USD 800–1,067) | ¥499,000 (approx. USD 3,327) | ¥712,000 (approx. USD 4,747) | ¥3,693,000 (approx. USD 24,620) |
| ¥160,000–¥200,000 (approx. USD 1,067–1,333) | ¥648,000 (approx. USD 4,320) | ¥973,000 (approx. USD 6,487) | ¥4,785,000 (approx. USD 31,900) |
| ¥200,000–¥300,000 (approx. USD 1,333–2,000) | ¥858,000 (approx. USD 5,720) | ¥1,262,000 (approx. USD 8,413) | ¥6,068,000 (approx. USD 40,453) |
| ¥300,000–¥400,000 (approx. USD 2,000–2,667) | ¥1,045,000 (approx. USD 6,967) | ¥1,568,000 (approx. USD 10,453) | ¥8,874,000 (approx. USD 59,160) |
| ¥400,000 and above (approx. USD 2,667+) | ¥2,700,000 (approx. USD 18,000) | ¥4,373,000 (approx. USD 29,153) | ¥24,453,000 (approx. USD 163,020) |
Source: MLIT Housing Bureau, Comprehensive Housing Maintenance Division, "Reference Material on Guarantee Cap Amounts" (March 30, 2018). Aggregated from 13 registered rent-guarantee companies, 20,886 cases. All USD conversions in this article use an illustrative rate of approx. ¥150 = USD 1 as of August 2026 — treat them as orders of magnitude, not a live exchange rate, and check a current rate before using any figure in a financial decision.
Where the Damages Come From: What Actually Drives the Number Up
What deserves attention is the gap between the median and the maximum. In the ¥80,000–¥120,000 band, the median is ¥356,000 (approx. USD 2,373) against a maximum of ¥4,186,000 (approx. USD 27,907) — roughly a 12x spread. Treating this band's rent as around ¥100,000, a typical case lands at roughly 3–4 months' rent, while a case that drags on can jump an entire order of magnitude. For a US or UK landlord used to security deposits capped at one or two months' rent, that spread — and the fact that a single bad case can run to forty months' rent — is itself the headline number.
Three factors drive that spread: unpaid rent compounds the longer the handover takes; removal costs rise sharply with the volume of abandoned belongings; and where garbage has accumulated or fixtures are damaged, ordinary genjō kaifuku (原状回復, the Japanese practice of restoring a unit to its pre-tenancy condition at move-out, covered further below) is not enough — specialist cleaning or fixture replacement becomes necessary. Acting early, and shortening the number of months to handover, translates directly into smaller losses.
How Many Months From the Start of Arrears to Completed Handover
Benchmark timelines come from the same MLIT reference material, drawing on a survey of 120 member companies of the Japan Association of Rental Housing Management (日本賃貸住宅管理協会, managing roughly 590,000 units combined), asked to model how a hypothetical batch of 1,000 rent-arrears cases would branch out over time.
[Data Table] How 1,000 Arrears Cases Branch, and the Average Months Elapsed
| Stage | Average Months Elapsed | Cases per 1,000 | Average Unpaid Rent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1-month mark: full amount recovered | 1 month | 942.9 cases | — |
| 1-month mark: partial recovery (installments, etc.) | 1 month | 30.1 cases | — |
| 1-month mark: nothing recovered | 1 month | 27.0 cases | — |
| Negotiated-surrender proposal made | avg. 3.1 months | — | — |
| Handover lawsuit filed | avg. 4.0 months | 3.8 cases | — |
| Handover completed via negotiated surrender | avg. 4.5 months | 8.5 cases | 4.1 months' rent |
| Handover completed via finalized judgment | avg. 7.3 months | 0.7 cases | 7.2 months' rent |
| Finalized judgment + completed forced enforcement | avg. 9.1 months | 0.8 cases | 9.7 months' rent |
Source: same MLIT reference material (survey of 120 Japan Association of Rental Housing Management member companies, managing approx. 590,000 units). For cases that reach forced enforcement, the special costs incurred specifically to carry out the enforcement average ¥507,000 (approx. USD 3,380).
Two Things This Table Actually Tells You
The first is that 94% of arrears are recovered in full within one month. A landlord does not need to brace for the worst the moment a payment is missed. The real concern is the remaining 5.7% — and specifically the 27.0 cases per 1,000 where nothing has been recovered even after a month. That is the pool from which yonige and long-running cases are drawn.
The second is that the method of handover changes the size of the unpaid-rent bill dramatically. A negotiated surrender leaves 4.1 months' rent unpaid; going all the way to forced enforcement more than doubles that, to 9.7 months. At ¥80,000 rent, that is roughly ¥328,000 (approx. USD 2,187) versus roughly ¥776,000 (approx. USD 5,173) — and forced enforcement adds another ¥507,000 (approx. USD 3,380) in enforcement costs on top. Whether a case can be steered into a negotiated surrender is, in other words, the single biggest fork in how much money is ultimately lost. Compare this to a jurisdiction with a fixed statutory notice period and a largely administrative eviction process: in Japan, the negotiation window itself is where most of the money is won or lost. For the early-stage playbook, including how to draft the demand letter, see How to Respond to Rent Arrears and Send a Content-Certified Demand Letter.
The First 7 Days When Yonige Is Suspected
What needs to happen in the first seven days is a safety check and the start of a written record. Skip either of those and move straight to legal proceedings, and a later court may find there is no way to prove the landlord actually exhausted reasonable demand efforts before escalating — undermining the case.
The Order of Contact, and How to Keep the Record
Contact should proceed in this order: the tenant directly, the emergency contact, the employer, and then the joint guarantor (連帯保証人, rentai hoshōnin — an individual who is personally, jointly and severally liable for the tenant's obligations, a role with no exact equivalent in most US or UK leases) or the guarantee company. With every one of these contacts, lead with a safety check, and keep any mention of the arrears to a minimum.
There is a rough benchmark for how much documentation is enough. In the MLIT survey cited above, the average recovery effort per case was 2.7 phone calls, 1.2 written notices, and 0.6 site visits. In cases where nothing at all was recovered, that rose to 3.5 phone calls, 1.9 written notices, and 1.6 site visits — the harder a case is to collect, the more contact attempts pile up. Treat three-plus calls, roughly two written notices, and one to two site visits as a working benchmark. For every attempt, log four items on one line: date and time, who was contacted, the method used, and the outcome. Sending the written notice as naiyō-shōmei yūbin (内容証明郵便, a certified-content mail service unique to Japan Post that proves both exactly what was written and, combined with delivery confirmation, that it was received — functionally closer to a notarized proof-of-service letter than an ordinary certified letter) closes the gap: it proves not just that a notice was sent, but exactly what it said and that it arrived.
[Comparison Table] What Is Permitted and What Is Not
| Action | Permitted? | Reason / Legal Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Demanding payment by phone, letter, or visit, and recording it | Permitted | Exercise of the contractual right to claim rent |
| Visually checking and photographing the mailbox, exterior, and meters | Permitted | External confirmation from common areas |
| Checking on the tenant's safety with the emergency contact or joint guarantor | Permitted | Contacting parties listed in the lease |
| Requesting subrogated payment from the guarantee company | Permitted | Procedure under the guarantee agreement |
| Entering with a spare key | Not permitted | Violates the tenant's possession; risks a criminal trespass charge |
| Rekeying to lock the tenant out | Not permitted | Handover is carried out only through the enforcement officer's procedure (Civil Execution Act, Art. 168, Para. 1); risks a damages claim against the landlord |
| Disposing of or selling the abandoned belongings | Not permitted | Ownership remains with the tenant; risks charges of property damage or embezzlement |
| Posting a notice about the arrears on the door or a shared noticeboard | Not permitted | Risks defamation or invasion of privacy |
| Telling the employer about the arrears | Avoid | Goes beyond a safety check and risks invasion of privacy |
Avoid rekeying the unit or disposing of belongings no matter how obvious the situation looks. The moment a landlord takes matters into their own hands, the roles flip: the party trying to recover money becomes the party facing a damages claim. This is the single most counter-intuitive point for owners coming from jurisdictions with landlord self-help remedies, and it is worth internalizing before anything else in this article.
How Abandoned Belongings Can Lawfully Be Cleared: Legal Basis and Practical Steps
Clearing the abandoned belongings only becomes lawful after three stages: terminating the lease, obtaining a title of obligation (債務名義, saimu meigi — the formal legal document, typically a final judgment, that authorizes enforcement) for handover, and forced enforcement itself. Here is each stage in order.
From Lease Termination to Forced Enforcement
First, the lease is terminated after formal demand. Three months of arrears is commonly cited as a rule of thumb, but it is not a period fixed by statute. Whether termination is legally valid turns on whether the relationship of trust between the parties (信頼関係, shinrai kankei — a doctrine unique to Japanese landlord-tenant law that requires more than a technical breach before termination is upheld) can be said to have broken down. Courts weigh not just how long the arrears have run, but how the tenant responded to demands, their history of past arrears, and whether they can be reached at all. A case where contact has vanished entirely, as in yonige, is a fact pattern where a breakdown of trust is comparatively easy to establish. For a reader used to at-will or fixed-notice termination regimes, this doctrine is itself a piece of Japan-specific legal architecture worth understanding before assuming a US-style 3-day or 30-day notice period applies here.
Next, the landlord files a building-handover lawsuit and obtains a judgment. Once it is finalized, the landlord submits a written application for real-estate handover (eviction) enforcement to the enforcement officer attached to the district court with jurisdiction over the property's location. In principle, the enforcement officer consults with the creditor and sets the enforcement start date within two weeks of the application. For the full arc from litigation to enforcement, see From Rent Arrears to Forced Eviction: The Full Legal Procedure.
One Month From Notice of Handover to the Surrender Deadline — and Transfers of Possession Are Barred After Notice
On the enforcement start date, the enforcement officer visits the property, and if the tenant's possession can be confirmed, issues formal notice of handover setting a surrender deadline. That deadline is, in principle, one month from the date notice is given (Civil Execution Act, Article 168-2, Paragraph 2). The enforcement officer sets a scheduled enforcement date within that deadline, and ordinarily encourages voluntary surrender up until the day before. After notice has been given, the tenant is barred from transferring possession of the property to anyone else (same Article, Paragraph 5). Even if possession is transferred anyway, enforcement can still proceed against the new occupant until the surrender deadline passes (same Article, Paragraph 6) — a provision specifically designed to close off possession-transfer as a way of obstructing enforcement. There is no "self-help eviction" shortcut anywhere in this sequence; every date on this timeline is set by the court officer, not the landlord.
[Comparison Table] What Can and Cannot Be Done on the Notice Date and the Enforcement Date
| Stage | Permitted | Not Permitted | Legal Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice of handover (carried out on-site by the enforcement officer) | Set the surrender deadline and urge handover; post a public notice | Forcibly remove belongings that same day | Civil Execution Act, Art. 168-2, Para. 1 & 3 |
| From the notice date to the surrender deadline | Wait for voluntary surrender; set a scheduled enforcement date. Extension is possible only with the enforcement court's permission | Extending the surrender deadline without permission (in principle, one month from the notice date) | Same Act, Art. 168-2, Para. 2 & 4 |
| Transfer of possession after notice | Enforcement can proceed against a new occupant until the surrender deadline | The tenant transferring possession to a third party to evade enforcement | Same Act, Art. 168-2, Para. 5 & 6 |
| Enforcement date (the enforcement itself) | The enforcement officer releases the tenant's possession and grants possession to the landlord; may open a locked door | The landlord freely disposing of non-real-estate personal property | Same Act, Art. 168, Para. 1 & 4 |
| Non-real-estate personal property (belongings, etc.) | Handed to the tenant or their agent; may be sold if that is not possible | Disposing of it without either handing it over or selling it | Same Act, Art. 168, Para. 5 |
| Personal property neither handed over nor sold | Held in custody by the enforcement officer (custody costs count as enforcement costs) | — | Same Act, Art. 168, Para. 6 & 7 |
| Proceeds of sale | The remainder, after deducting sale and custody costs, is deposited with the court | The landlord unilaterally applying it to unpaid rent | Same Act, Art. 168, Para. 8 |
The point worth underscoring here is that sale proceeds are deposited with the court, not paid directly to the landlord. Selling off the tenant's belongings does not automatically offset the unpaid rent — recovering that money still requires a separate debt-collection process.
[Worked Example] An ¥80,000-Rent 1K Unit in Hoarder Condition, Taken All the Way to Forced Enforcement
Here is what the numbers add up to. This is a worked estimate for an ¥80,000-rent (approx. USD 533) 1K unit (a one-room-plus-kitchenette layout, Japan's standard compact rental format) where garbage has accumulated inside, a judgment was obtained, and the case was carried through to forced enforcement. The source of every figure is shown line by line.
| Cost Item | Amount | Source of the Figure |
|---|---|---|
| Unpaid rent | ¥776,000 (approx. USD 5,173) | ¥80,000 × 9.7 months (MLIT survey; average months of unpaid rent when forced enforcement completes) |
| Costs of carrying out forced enforcement | ¥507,000 (approx. USD 3,380) | MLIT survey; average enforcement cost of ¥507,000 |
| Incineration disposal fee for the abandoned belongings | ¥35,000 (approx. USD 233) | ¥17.5/kg × 2,000kg. The unit price is the business-category general-waste processing fee of the Tokyo 23 Special Wards Clean Association (東京二十三区清掃一部事務組合), effective for waste brought in from October 1, 2023. The weight figure is a placeholder assumption |
| Filing fee for the lawsuit | ¥10,500 (approx. USD 70) | Claim-amount bracket of ¥800,000, paper filing (Courts of Japan, "Court Fee Quick-Reference Table") |
| Issuance of a simple writ of execution | ¥300 (approx. USD 2) | ¥300 per copy (same fee table) |
| Restoration and lost rent during the post-handover marketing period | ¥240,000 (approx. USD 1,600) | ¥80,000 × 3 months. The vacancy period is a placeholder assumption |
| Subtotal (items that can be assigned a figure) | ¥1,568,800 (approx. USD 10,459) | — |
| Labor for collection, sorting, and removal | Quote required | No published primary-source unit price exists; confirm with quotes from multiple contractors |
| Restoration cost (after splitting tenant-borne and landlord-borne portions) | Quote required | Deductions for normal wear and age-related deterioration follow MLIT's "Guidelines on Disputes over Restoration to Original Condition" |
| Advance deposit for handover enforcement | Varies by court | Confirm with the enforcement officer's office where the application is filed. Any remaining balance is refunded once the case closes (no revenue stamps or postage required) |
| Legal fees | Quote required | Varies by the firm retained |
Two cautions on reading this table. First, do not double-count the ¥776,000 (approx. USD 5,173) in unpaid rent against the lost rent from the vacancy period — the 9.7 months of arrears is already captured as unpaid rent, so only the post-handover period can be added as additional lost opportunity. Second, this worked total may look inconsistent with the rent-band damages figure cited earlier (an average of ¥500,000 in the ¥80,000–¥120,000 band). That is because the MLIT damages figure is the residual after a guarantee company has already sought and recovered from the tenant — a different scope entirely. The total cash an owner without a guarantee company actually has to front is likely to feel closer to this line-by-line build-up than to the net damages figure.
How Far Does a "Waiver of Ownership" Clause for Abandoned Property Actually Go?
Many Japanese leases include a special clause stating that any personal property left behind after handover is deemed to have had its ownership waived. Where the tenant surrenders the unit voluntarily and their intent to abandon the property can be confirmed, this clause functions as a legitimate basis for disposal.
But in a yonige case, where the tenant cannot be reached and their intent cannot be confirmed, relying on this clause alone to justify disposal is unwise. If the tenant — or an heir — later surfaces and asserts ownership, the validity of the clause itself becomes the dispute. Treat the clause as a way to reduce future disputes, not as a substitute for the enforcement procedure. A landlord who disposes of belongings on the strength of a lease clause alone, with no court enforcement officer involved, is taking on real legal exposure — this is not a jurisdiction where a written notice period by itself extinguishes the tenant's property rights.
Four Ways to Recover Unpaid Rent: Fees, Timelines, and Claim Caps
Alongside the handover process, the landlord also has to choose how to pursue the unpaid rent itself. As of May 21, 2026, online filing (electronic petitions) became available alongside paper filing, and the postage costs that previously had to be paid separately were folded into the filing fee itself. The figures in the tables below already include the postage-equivalent amount.
[Comparison Table] Payment Demand Order, Small Claims, Ordinary Litigation, and Forced Enforcement
| Method | Where to File | Claim Cap | Filing Fee (Paper) | Typical Timeline | Best Suited For | Caution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Payment demand order (支払督促, shiharai tokusoku — a simplified, filing-only court procedure with no hearing, unique to Japan's Code of Civil Procedure, with no exact US or UK equivalent) | Summary court with jurisdiction over the other party's address | No cap (monetary claims) | ¥5,700 for a ¥600,000 claim; ¥7,700 for ¥1,000,000 | Short, if uncontested | The other party is unlikely to contest and their whereabouts are known | If the tenant objects, the case moves to ordinary litigation and the fee difference must be paid |
| Small claims litigation (少額訴訟, shōgaku soshō) | In principle, the summary court with jurisdiction over the other party's address | ¥600,000 (approx. USD 4,000) or less | ¥8,500 for a ¥600,000 claim | In principle, a single hearing | Arrears of ¥600,000 or less, with evidence that can be examined on the spot | Limited to 10 uses per person per year at the same court; no appeal, only an objection |
| Ordinary litigation | Summary court (claims up to ¥1,400,000) or district court | No cap | ¥12,500 for a ¥1,000,000 claim; ¥17,500 for ¥2,000,000 | Several months | Combining a building-handover claim with unpaid rent | Handover does not happen until the judgment is finalized |
| Forced enforcement of building handover | Enforcement officer at the district court with jurisdiction over the property | — | Advance deposit (varies by court; no revenue stamps or postage required) | Start date set within 2 weeks of filing; 1 month from notice to the surrender deadline | A title of obligation exists and the tenant will not surrender voluntarily | The creditor or their agent must attend the enforcement in person |
[Data Table] Filing Fees by Claim Amount (as of 2026)
| Claim Amount | Lawsuit Filing (Paper) | Lawsuit Filing (Electronic) | Payment Demand Order (Paper) | Payment Demand Order (Electronic) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ¥300,000 (approx. USD 2,000) | ¥5,500 (approx. USD 37) | ¥4,400 (approx. USD 29) | ¥4,200 (approx. USD 28) | ¥4,000 (approx. USD 27) |
| ¥600,000 (approx. USD 4,000) | ¥8,500 (approx. USD 57) | ¥7,400 (approx. USD 49) | ¥5,700 (approx. USD 38) | ¥5,500 (approx. USD 37) |
| ¥800,000 (approx. USD 5,333) | ¥10,500 (approx. USD 70) | ¥9,400 (approx. USD 63) | ¥6,700 (approx. USD 45) | ¥6,500 (approx. USD 43) |
| ¥1,000,000 (approx. USD 6,667) | ¥12,500 (approx. USD 83) | ¥11,400 (approx. USD 76) | ¥7,700 (approx. USD 51) | ¥7,500 (approx. USD 50) |
| ¥2,000,000 (approx. USD 13,333) | ¥17,500 (approx. USD 117) | ¥16,400 (approx. USD 109) | ¥10,200 (approx. USD 68) | ¥10,000 (approx. USD 67) |
| ¥3,000,000 (approx. USD 20,000) | ¥22,500 (approx. USD 150) | ¥21,400 (approx. USD 143) | ¥12,700 (approx. USD 85) | ¥12,500 (approx. USD 83) |
Source: Courts of Japan, "Court Fee Quick-Reference Table" (civil and administrative litigation column). Where there are two or more defendants, an additional ¥2,000 (approx. USD 13) is added for each defendant beyond the first.
The filing fees themselves are small next to the scale of the damages involved. What actually determines the right method is not cost, but whether the other party is likely to contest the claim and whether their whereabouts are known. It is possible to proceed with litigation even when the tenant's location is unknown, but expect that a judgment obtained that way is unlikely to translate into actual recovery.
Do Rent Arrears and Abandoned Property Ever Expire? Reading Civil Code Articles 166 and 169
The statute of limitations comes down to two numbers. The claim is extinguished by prescription (消滅時効, shōmetsu jikō) at whichever comes first: 5 years from when the creditor became aware they could exercise the right, or 10 years from when the right became exercisable (Civil Code, Article 166, Paragraph 1). Because a landlord knows they can claim rent the moment each month's due date arrives, the working assumption in practice is that the 5-year clock runs separately for each month's rent.
How Winning a Final Judgment Resets the Clock to 10 Years
A right that has been finalized by a final judgment — or by something with the same legal effect as one — carries a 10-year prescription period (Civil Code, Article 169, Paragraph 1). A court-recorded settlement (和解調書) or mediation record (調停調書) is treated the same way. So even if the tenant has no assets at the moment, obtaining a judgment preserves a 10-year window to enforce it if their circumstances change later. Winning the judgment is, by itself, a way of keeping the possibility of recovery alive for the future — worth doing even against a debtor who currently looks judgment-proof.
What People Actually Mean by "Statute of Limitations on Abandoned Property"
The phrase "statute of limitations on abandoned property," commonly seen in Japanese search results, actually conflates two separate issues.
The first is the prescription period on the monetary debt of unpaid rent — 5 or 10 years, as described above. The second is the separate question of who owns the abandoned belongings, and ownership does not pass to the landlord automatically through the mere passage of time. There is no rule under which simply leaving belongings alone long enough makes them lawful to dispose of. The only party that benefits from the passage of time is the tenant. That asymmetry is exactly why deciding, in advance, when to act is so important — waiting does not create any legal opening; it only adds to the eventual bill.
When Yonige Leaves Behind a Hoarder-Condition Unit
When a tenant disappears leaving garbage piled up inside, it is worth setting realistic expectations up front about how far local government will actually get involved. Here are the figures from the Ministry of the Environment's FY2024 survey.
[Data Table] The Actual Extent of Municipal Involvement
| Item | Figure |
|---|---|
| Municipalities that identified at least one hoarder-house case in the last 5 fiscal years | 672 (38.6% of 1,741 valid responses) |
| Total number of identified cases | 6,054 |
| Of which resolved | 2,437 (a 40.3% resolution rate) |
| Cases still open as of the survey | 3,617 |
| Municipalities that have enacted an ordinance specifically for this purpose | 90 (5.2% of 1,741) |
| Removal cost borne by: the resident | 50.9% (87 municipalities) |
| Removal cost borne by: no one (no cost incurred) | 28.1% (48 municipalities) |
| Removal cost borne by: the municipality | 20.5% (35 municipalities) |
| Removal cost borne by: the prefecture | 0.6% (1 municipality) |
Source: Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Regeneration and Resource Circulation Bureau, Waste Management Division, "FY2024 Survey Report on 'Hoarder Houses'" (March 2025). The cost-burden figures are based on 171 valid responses.
What These Numbers Actually Mean for an Owner
Only 5.2% of municipalities have enacted a relevant ordinance, and in 50.9% of cases the removal cost falls on the resident. In other words, scenarios where the municipality steps in and pays for removal — government-代執行 (daishikkō, administrative substitute execution) style — are the exception rather than the rule, and inside a private rental unit, an even bigger exception. Owners should budget for the cost themselves rather than expect local government to cover it. This is a meaningful contrast with jurisdictions that have dedicated statutory hoarding-intervention programs at the municipal or county level; in Japan, that infrastructure exists in only a small minority of municipalities.
There is, however, more room to hope for welfare-side involvement. A Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Administrative Evaluation Bureau survey (published August 28, 2024) covering 181 cases known to 30 municipalities (62 resolved, 119 unresolved) found that roughly 70% of the residents involved were dealing with health or economic challenges — needing long-term care, living with dementia, or managing a mental illness — and that some cases were resolved through welfare or financial support coordinated across multiple agencies. That said, in roughly 30% of the unresolved cases, the resident insisted the accumulated items had value and refused to let them be removed. While contact with the tenant is still possible, consulting the municipality's welfare division or the local Community General Support Center (地域包括支援センター, chiiki hōkatsu shien sentā — Japan's neighborhood-level hub for elder and social-welfare support) can be the move that breaks the deadlock. For the step-by-step practical response once accumulation is confirmed, see Hoarder Tenants in Apartments: How to Handle the Move-Out Process.
What Happens When a Public-Assistance Recipient Disappears
For a tenant receiving seikatsu hogo (生活保護, Japan's public livelihood-protection welfare system, roughly analogous to combined housing and income assistance in other countries), there is one built-in safeguard: direct payment of the housing-assistance portion, known as dairi nōfu.
Direct Payment of Housing Assistance (Public Assistance Act, Article 37-2)
Article 37-2 of the Public Assistance Act (生活保護法) sets out a special method of providing benefits, under which housing assistance and similar payments can be made directly on the recipient's behalf, rather than to them. This is called dairi nōfu (代理納付, direct/proxy payment), and under it, the rent-equivalent amount is paid straight from the local welfare office (福祉事務所, fukushi jimusho) to the landlord. Operational details are set out in a director-level notice from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (厚生労働省, MHLW), most recently amended July 5, 2024 (Shaenho-hatsu No. 0705-1).
Where dairi nōfu is in place, the rent portion keeps arriving regardless of the recipient's own household finances, so arrears become much less likely to begin with. It is worth raising the question of dairi nōfu eligibility with the relevant welfare office either at move-in or the moment the first signs of arrears appear — this is one of the few structural protections available to a landlord before a problem starts, rather than after.
What the Welfare Office Will and Will Not Tell You
What the welfare office can tell you is the procedural side — whether dairi nōfu can apply and how to set it up. Whether a specific tenant receives benefits at all, or details of their individual circumstances, counts as personal information and will not be disclosed without their consent. Opening with "can you tell me if this person is a recipient" will not get you anywhere. Reframing the question as "I'd like to discuss setting up dairi nōfu" is far more likely to get the conversation moving.
How to Prevent Yonige in the First Place: Combining the Tools Available as of 2026
Given the numbers covered so far, the goal of prevention is clear: how much of the several-hundred-thousand-to-several-million-yen loss per case can be shifted away from the owner at the contract stage. As of 2026, there are three layers of tools available.
[Comparison Table] Three Layers of Guarantee
| Perspective | Joint Guarantor Only | Registered Rent-Guarantee Companies (123) | Certified Rent-Guarantee Companies (12) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recovery prospects | Depends entirely on the guarantor's personal assets; capped at the guarantee cap amount | Advance payment available within the scope of the guarantee agreement | Same as at left, plus access to insurance from the Japan Housing Finance Agency (JHF, 住宅金融支援機構) |
| Compensation mechanism | — | Depends on each company's individual terms | Compensation rate of 70–90%; insured items are unpaid rent and restoration costs. Premium rate chosen per case from 4 tiers |
| Acceptance of vulnerable tenants (要配慮者, yō-hairyo-sha — a legal category covering elderly, disabled, low-income, and single-parent households, among others, that Japanese housing policy specifically aims to make it easier to house) | Tenants unable to secure a guarantor find it hard to rent at all | At each company's discretion | May not refuse to guarantee a resident of supportive housing without a legitimate reason / cannot require the emergency contact to be an individual / cannot make a guarantor a condition of the guarantee |
| Government oversight | None | Registration system under the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism | Compliance orders, reporting requirements, on-site inspections, and public revocation of certification |
| Is a guarantee cap amount required? | Yes — without one, the guarantee agreement is void | No — as a corporate guarantee, the individual root-guarantee rules do not apply | Same as at left |
| Legal basis | Civil Code, Article 465-2 | Rent-Guarantee Company Registration System | Housing Safety Net Act, Chapter 7 (Articles 72–80) |
As of March 31, 2026, there are 123 registered companies; as of July 31, 2026, there are 12 certified companies. Because certified companies meet the acceptance standards for vulnerable tenants, they are worth considering specifically for properties where owners are weighing applications from single elderly tenants or foreign-national tenants. For the level and structure of guarantee fees, see What Rent Guarantee Companies Do and How Their Screening Works.
How Many Months' Rent Should a Joint Guarantor's Cap Amount Be?
Under the Civil Code amendment that took effect in April 2020, any lease where an individual serves as a joint guarantor must specify a guarantee cap amount (極度額, kyokudogaku) — a guarantee agreement with no cap amount specified simply has no legal effect (Civil Code, Article 465-2, Paragraph 2). Landlords still using an older lease template may unknowingly be running an invalid guarantee. MLIT's "Standard Rental Housing Lease Agreement" (March 2018 edition, joint-guarantor type) includes a dedicated field for the cap amount, and it is worth checking that any template in current use includes the same field.
So how should the cap amount actually be set? MLIT states only that "setting a specific cap amount requires thorough discussion among the landlord, the joint guarantor, and other relevant parties" — it stops short of naming a figure. Two data points are useful as reference points.
| Benchmark | Figure | Rent-Month Equivalent |
|---|---|---|
| Average damages from rent-guarantee companies (¥40,000–¥80,000 band) | ¥282,000 (approx. USD 1,880) | approx. 7.1 months' rent at ¥40,000 rent, or approx. 3.5 months at ¥80,000 |
| Same (¥80,000–¥120,000 band) | ¥500,000 (approx. USD 3,333) | approx. 6.3 months' rent at ¥80,000 rent, or approx. 4.2 months at ¥120,000 |
| Same (¥120,000–¥160,000 band) | ¥712,000 (approx. USD 4,747) | approx. 5.9 months' rent at ¥120,000 rent, or approx. 4.5 months at ¥160,000 |
| Amount finalized as the guarantor's liability in court judgments | An average of 13.2 months' rent | minimum 2 months, median 12 months, maximum 33 months |
Source: MLIT, "Reference Material on Guarantee Cap Amounts." The judgment sample covers 91 cases (1 Supreme Court case, 90 Tokyo District Court cases); the total liability figure includes restoration costs and damages in addition to unpaid rent.
Working backward from average damages suggests roughly 4–7 months' rent; working from the average court judgment suggests 13.2 months. Actually setting the number means picking a point somewhere in that range. Set it too high and it becomes hard to find anyone willing to act as guarantor at all — so the realistic approach is to treat the cap amount as working in combination with a rent-guarantee company, not as the sole line of defense. See How the 2020 Civil Code Reform Changed Joint Guarantor Practice for more detail.
Model Contract Clauses for Abandoned Property, and the New Role of Certified Housing-Support Organizations
There is a way to prepare for the abandoned-property problem in advance, at the contract stage. In June 2021, MLIT and the Ministry of Justice jointly published the "Model Contract Clauses for Handling Abandoned Property" (残置物の処理等に関するモデル契約条項). The package separates a mandate agreement for lease-termination administration from a separate agreement delegating the handling of abandoned property, with article-by-article commentary. Four formats are published — a single agreement with one delegate handling both tasks, a version splitting the two tasks between separate delegates, and a sample special clause to fold into the lease itself — and a second edition of the practical guidebook was released in October 2025.
It is important not to misread the scope here. This model clause package is a template for post-death administrative mandates (死後事務委任契約) — designed to smoothly wind down the lease and clear belongings when a single tenant dies, not a tool that can be applied directly to a disappearance or yonige case. For a yonige case, as covered throughout this article, abandoned belongings still have to go through the enforcement procedure described above. This is a common point of confusion, and it is worth flagging explicitly so an owner does not mistakenly believe this clause offers a shortcut in a yonige scenario.
One more regulatory change is worth noting. The amended Housing Safety Net Act (住宅セーフティネット法) took effect on October 1, 2025, adding abandoned-property handling — commissioned directly by the tenant — to the scope of work certified housing-support organizations (居住支援法人, kyojū shien hōjin) are permitted to perform. MLIT has published a guide for drafting and obtaining approval for the required abandoned-property handling regulations. This, too, is designed around the scenario of a tenant's death, but for properties that accept single elderly tenants, appointing a certified housing-support organization as the delegate is now a genuine option to build into the lease from the start.
Deciding in Advance What to Do at 3, 7, and 30 Days of Arrears
Starting to think through the response only after arrears begin is what causes delay. In the survey cited earlier, only 27 out of 1,000 cases were still unrecovered at the one-month mark. The goal is to have the process set up so that, by the one-month mark, it is a mechanical checklist item to determine whether a given case has fallen into that 27-case group — not a judgment call made under time pressure.
- Day 3 of arrears: The person responsible for payment checks places one phone call. If unreachable, send a text message and log the date and time.
- Day 7 of arrears: Send a demand letter by ordinary mail. At the same time, check the mailbox and exterior and save photographs.
- Day 14 of arrears: Contact the emergency contact. If a guarantee company is under contract, confirm the reporting procedure at this point — many guarantee companies impose their own reporting deadlines.
- Day 30 of arrears: Send a demand via naiyō-shōmei yūbin with delivery confirmation. Check the status of utilities and cross-reference against the 12-item warning-sign checklist above.
- Day 60 of arrears: Decide whether to propose a negotiated surrender or begin preparing for litigation. The survey cited earlier put the average timing of a negotiated-surrender proposal at 3.1 months, but in a suspected yonige case, moving earlier than that average is the more effective approach.
Writing these five checkpoints into a management policy keeps the quality of the initial response consistent even as staff change. If management is outsourced, it is worth spelling out the reporting timeline for arrears explicitly in the property management agreement itself. See also Preventing the Most Common Tenant Problems in Rental Management for what to check at the contract stage.
What We Have Decided, as a Matter of Policy, in Our Own Management Practice
At INA&Associates, we have settled on three rules that govern how we actually run this process day to day.
First, every arrears contact opens with a check-in, not a demand. Using accusatory language before the situation is understood closes off the negotiated-surrender path — and as the numbers above show, negotiated surrender versus forced enforcement is the difference between 4.1 and 9.7 months of unpaid rent, more than double. Keeping the relationship workable is not a matter of being polite for its own sake; it is a matter of money.
Second, we keep records on the assumption that someone else will need to read them later — date and time, who was contacted, the method used, and the outcome, every time. If the case ends up in litigation, this record is what proves reasonable demand efforts were exhausted.
Third, we do not take matters into our own hands in the difficult moments. Unlocking a door or moving belongings weakens the owner's legal position the instant it happens. We believe our people (人財, jinzai — a term we use deliberately in place of the more common 人材, treating our staff as an asset to be invested in rather than a resource to be consumed) are our greatest asset, and precisely because of that, we think it is part of a management company's job to build a system that keeps people from having to make that judgment call alone, under pressure, in the field. Telling an owner the real costs and downsides up front, in numbers, is what builds trust over the long run — which is the only kind of trust worth having in this business.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a Tenant Who Disappears Be Held Criminally Liable?
Moving out without paying rent is, on its own, generally treated as a civil breach of contract, not a criminal matter — a type of case unlikely to result in criminal charges in Japan. Recovery proceeds through a payment demand order, small claims (for ¥600,000 or less), or ordinary litigation. That said, if it can be proven that the tenant signed the lease with no intention of ever paying from the very start, a different legal characterization becomes possible. This is a genuinely contested area, so consult a lawyer about the specific facts of the case.
When Does It Become Lawful to Dispose of Abandoned Belongings?
Only after the lease has been terminated, a title of obligation for handover has been obtained (typically a judgment or a court-recorded settlement), and forced enforcement has begun. In forced enforcement, non-real-estate personal property is handed by the enforcement officer to the tenant or their agent, and can be sold if that is not possible (Civil Execution Act, Article 168, Paragraph 5). Property that is neither handed over nor sold is held by the enforcement officer, and any sale proceeds are deposited with the court after costs are deducted (same Act, Article 168, Paragraphs 6–8). Even where a lease clause waives the tenant's ownership, if their intent cannot be confirmed, it is safer to go through the formal procedure anyway.
How Many Days After Notice of Handover Before the Unit Is Actually Vacant?
The surrender deadline is, in principle, one month from the date notice of handover is given (Civil Execution Act, Article 168-2, Paragraph 2), and the enforcement officer sets a scheduled enforcement date within that window. Counting back further, the enforcement officer also consults with the creditor and sets the enforcement start date — when notice is given — within two weeks of the original application. All told, plan for roughly a month and a half from filing the enforcement application to the actual enforcement date.
What Is the Statute of Limitations on Unpaid Rent?
Whichever comes first of 5 years from when the landlord became aware they could claim, or 10 years from when the claim became exercisable (Civil Code, Article 166, Paragraph 1). The clock runs separately for each month's due date. A right finalized by a judgment, court settlement, or mediation record carries a 10-year prescription period instead (same Code, Article 169, Paragraph 1) — so obtaining a judgment, even against a currently asset-less tenant, preserves a 10-year window to enforce it later.
How Large Are Yonige Damages, Realistically?
According to the MLIT survey (20,886 cases), in the ¥80,000–¥120,000 rent band the median is ¥356,000 (approx. USD 2,373), the average is ¥500,000 (approx. USD 3,333), and the worst case reached ¥4,186,000 (approx. USD 27,907). Even in the under-¥40,000 band, the worst case reached ¥1,784,000 (approx. USD 11,893); in the ¥400,000-and-above band, the worst case reached ¥24,453,000 (approx. USD 163,020). These are net-of-recovery figures — the total cash an owner without a guarantee company actually has to front is this figure plus the average forced-enforcement cost of ¥507,000 (approx. USD 3,380) and lost rent during any post-handover vacancy.
Is Having a Joint Guarantor Enough on Its Own?
Not entirely. Under the Civil Code amendment that took effect in April 2020, an individual joint guarantee requires a stated cap amount, and without one the guarantee agreement has no legal effect at all (Civil Code, Article 465-2, Paragraph 2) — so the first thing to check on an older lease is whether that cap amount field was ever filled in. And because the guarantor is an individual, the underlying question of whether they actually have the assets to cover a claim never fully goes away. Pairing a joint guarantor with a rent-guarantee company is the more realistic setup.
Related Reading
- How to Choose a Property Management Company: 7 Points Owners Should Weigh
- What Is a Rent Guarantee Fee? Market Rates, Structure, and How to Reduce Costs
- Restoration Rules at Move-Out in Japan: What Every Owner Should Know
Sources and References
- MLIT Housing Bureau, Comprehensive Housing Maintenance Division, "Reference Material on Guarantee Cap Amounts" (March 30, 2018)
- Courts of Japan, "Court Fee Quick-Reference Table"
- Courts of Japan, "Real Estate Handover (Eviction) Enforcement"
- Courts of Japan, "Small Claims Litigation"
- e-Gov Japan Statute Search, "Civil Execution Act" (Articles 168, 168-2)
- e-Gov Japan Statute Search, "Civil Code" (Articles 166, 169, 465-2)
- e-Gov Japan Statute Search, "Public Assistance Act" (Article 37-2)
- Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW), Notice on Partial Amendment to "Matters to Note Regarding the Special Method of Providing Benefits Under Article 37-2 of the Public Assistance Act (Direct Payment of Housing Assistance)" (July 5, 2024, Shaenho-hatsu No. 0705-1)
- MLIT, "List of Registered Rent-Guarantee Companies" (as of March 31, 2026, 123 companies)
- MLIT, "List of Certified Rent-Guarantee Companies" (as of July 31, 2026, 12 companies)
- MLIT, "Certified Rent-Guarantee Company System"
- MLIT, "On the Act Partially Amending the Housing Safety Net Act, etc." (effective October 1, 2025)
- MLIT and Ministry of Justice, "Model Contract Clauses for Handling Abandoned Property"
- MLIT, "Standard Rental Housing Lease Agreement" (March 2018 edition, joint-guarantor type)
- MLIT, "Guidelines on Disputes over Restoration to Original Condition" (revised edition)
- Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Regeneration and Resource Circulation Bureau, Waste Management Division, "FY2024 Survey Report on 'Hoarder Houses'" (March 2025)
- Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Administrative Evaluation Bureau, "Survey on Countermeasures for 'Hoarder Houses' (Notice Based on Findings)" (August 28, 2024)
- Tokyo 23 Special Wards Clean Association, "Waste Disposal Fees"
- National Police Agency, Community Safety Bureau, "Status of Missing Person Reports Received in 2024" (June 2025)
