Elderly Sister Accused of Welfare Fraud After Leaving Brother’s Body in Garbage-Filled Home for 3 Years

He’s stuck and can’t move

The first trial of Yoshiko Nitta (71, age at arrest)—accused of abandoning the corpse of her elderly brother by leaving it in their home—was held on October 28 at the Tokyo District Court.

According to the indictment, a ward office employee reported that they were unable to contact a welfare recipient, and when police officers rushed to the home, they found a body on the second floor of Nitta’s residence.

“In May this year, the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Fukagawa Station arrested Nitta on suspicion of abandoning a body after she left the body of her elderly brother in the house. The corpse was found lying face-down among piles of garbage.

Nitta lived with her brother, and both received welfare benefits. At the time of her arrest, she reportedly said, ‘The last time I saw him alive was about three years ago. I realized he had died in the room, but I left him there.’” (National news desk reporter)

Nitta entered the courtroom wearing a black tracksuit. The roots of her hair, about one-third from the scalp, had turned gray, suggesting a long detention period. She sat down without expression after being guided by a female correctional officer.

A police officer who had rushed to the scene on the day of the incident testified as a witness, describing the discovery of the body in vivid detail. The contents of the testimony in court were roughly as follows:

In May of this year, a welfare staff member from the ward office contacted police, saying:

“We can’t reach this person. He lives with his sister, but whenever we try to check on the brother’s safety, she dodges the question.”

When police visited the residence with the ward staff, Nitta gave vague answers about her brother’s whereabouts:

“He went to the eye doctor.”

“He’s somewhere else.”

When the officer told her, “We need to confirm his safety,” Nitta responded with an incomprehensible statement:

“He’s stuck and can’t move.”

Suspicious of her incoherent behavior, the officer opened the front door to check inside—only to be met with a shocking sight.

“The house was overflowing with garbage. There was literally no place to step.”

(Officer’s courtroom testimony; all quotes in brackets below are from the same testimony)

Climbing the stairs—where only one person could barely pass—he reached a room on the right.

“Trash was piled up to about an adult man’s waist, so the door wouldn’t open. Inside, the TV was on, and there was a strong smell of decay. Based on experience, I thought someone might have died.”

The officer tried to open the door, but the garbage blocked it. The wooden door only creaked, making it impossible to see inside. He called for backup. While waiting, he urged Nitta:

“It’s better if you say it yourself.”

But she said nothing.

When additional officers arrived, they broke down the door with a crowbar. Inside the garbage-filled room, they found a skeletal body, deteriorated to the point where the skull was clearly visible.

Consultations related to the elderly are flat to gradually increasing

As Nitta listened to the police officer’s testimony, she occasionally shook her head or made small nodding gestures. At times she muttered to herself in a low voice, but her words were inaudible.

We spoke with Kenshō Masaki, representative attorney of Your Ace Law Firm, who is knowledgeable about welfare-related legal issues (all quotes below are from Attorney Masaki):

“The statutory penalty for abandoning a corpse is up to three years of imprisonment.

In cases where the body is left at home and it’s a first offense, if the defendant clearly shows remorse, the sentence may be suspended. However, the longer the body is left, the more malicious it is considered. And if the person continued receiving welfare payments after the death, indicating a financial motive, fraud charges may be added, making imprisonment more likely.”

He continues: “Courts evaluate multiple factors: How long the body was left and how it was concealed. Whether the defendant delayed reporting the death despite being able to. Circumstances involving mental state, caregiving burden, or social isolation. Whether there was a financial motive

In this case, the outcome will depend largely on whether it is judged as long-term abandonment and whether fraud is established.

If fraud is recognized and combined charges apply, the statutory maximum becomes 1.5 times the fraud penalty—meaning up to 15 years.”

In this case, whether Nitta had criminal responsibility (mental capacity) will also be an important point.
If she is judged to lack such capacity, what happens to welfare payments she may have wrongfully received?

Attorney Masaki explains: “Criminal responsibility (insanity/diminished capacity) and the return or collection of welfare payments are separate matters.

If fraudulent receipt is recognized, Welfare Law Article 78 allows for collection (with up to 40% additional charges in malicious cases).
If it’s simply an overpayment, Article 63 requires repayment.

Who is billed depends on factors such as: Who received the welfare payment after the recipient’s death. Who withdrew the funds. Whether deception was involved. Whether any third party gained illicit benefits

Therefore, ‘No criminal capacity = no repayment’ does not apply.

However, physical/mental condition and degree of hardship affect the collection method, such as payment plans, postponement, or reduction.”

Cases involving suspicion of fraudulent welfare receipt are likely to continue increasing.

“There are limited nationwide statistics, so we cannot make definitive claims.

However, due to rising prices, increasing numbers of elderly living alone, and more seniors requiring care, the general view from the field is that consultations related to the elderly are flat to slowly increasing.

Many municipalities are seeing a rising trend in welfare applications, and the proportion of single-elderly or elderly-couple households remains high.

At the service counters, cases often involve overlapping issues: finances, housing, medical needs, caregiving, and debt. Strengthening home-visit monitoring systems and support for proxy applications through community support centers is increasingly important.”

Intentional welfare fraud must never be tolerated—but this case is a stark reminder that issues surrounding isolated, struggling elderly households are not someone else’s problem.