Nominal Business Risk and the Legal Nature of the BM Visa

A foreigner opening a company purely "for the box" to get a director's visa, without real activity, can potentially be treated as a violation of residency rules — a legal risk requiring a lawyer's advice. The scheme of "a foreigner opens a nominal business only for the visa while actually working remotely for a foreign company" is considered risky and potentially unlawful — immigration checks whether the business is real, including visiting the office and reviewing the business plan; if the business is not developing, the visa conditions are not met and renewal is denied. Japan generally takes a strict view of "fake" or nominal business activity — both the company and the visa can be revoked if this is discovered. If a director on a Business Manager visa continues to personally act as a party to an external services contract rather than through the company, this can be viewed as "outside entrepreneurial activity" not permitted under the business-manager status and create problems at visa renewal — it is recommended to re-issue the contract entirely in the company's name. If someone on a work visa other than BM is in fact performing director functions — managing the company rather than only doing specialized work, such as programming — this is illegal and can lead to visa-renewal refusal or deportation; immigration checks this closely at renewal. A confirmed counterexample: an employee on an engineering visa owns 45% of a company but in practice only performs programmer functions, not director functions — the visa has been renewed repeatedly, including in record time. On the legal nature of the BM visa: participants debated whether it is essentially an "investment visa" (it was created in 2014 based on a revision of the earlier "Investment Management visa" law) — formally, under the law, it is not a visa for investment but a visa "for working as a business manager"; the Japanese Ministry of Justice's official wording, quoted in the chat, states that "investment by foreigners is not a requirement... it is not a visa that can be obtained by investing." Renewing the BM visa typically requires showing profitability or sufficient funding for roughly the first two years after launch — if the business does not turn a profit, renewal can be refused (unverified, compiled from public sources). On the October 2025 reform process, chat participants organized to submit public comments on the proposed BM-visa rule changes through the official e-Gov platform during the 30-day comment window. Recommendations from participants experienced in activism: keep zero emotional language, stick to facts and logic, cite specific laws and regulations precisely, keep a polite tone without excessive flattery, clearly separate facts from opinions, and include constructive proposals rather than only criticism. A legal constraint noted: foreign nationals are advised against directly instructing others on the content of official comments, given Japan's law restricting foreign nationals' influence on policy — better to state a personal opinion and encourage others to do the same independently, without a single shared template (risk of being seen as a "bot attack"). By practice, in Japanese public consultations a large volume of detailed comments can extend the comment period; the responsible ministry must respond in writing to comments as a whole (not individually); there is no precedent of a bill being withdrawn purely due to public comments, though amendments have resulted from them. The consultation on the new BM rules collected 702 comments (for comparison, some Japanese laws have drawn up to roughly 10,000 comments). The government formally answered only part of the questions raised (on staff headcount and the impact on residents and startup visas) but did not substantively address the mismatch between the one-year visa term and the size of required investment, the 10-million-yen tax ceiling, or whether retained earnings could count instead of net capital (promised for future guidance). The official response explicitly confirmed that sole proprietors (kojin jigyonushi) can obtain the keiei kanri (BM) status, not only corporate entities — the capital-requirement wording was specifically adjusted to make this clear.