4

Does 総会屋 refer to only one person who extorts companies or does it refer to a group of people who are dedicated to extorting companies?

I'm translating the next sentence, and I have doubts about how to translate 総会屋.

► 自らが、暴力団員による不当な行為の防止等に関する法律第2条第二号に規定する暴力団、暴力団関係企業、総会屋若しくはこれらに準ずる者又はその構成員(以下総称して「反社会的勢力」という。)ではないこと。

My attempt:

► Not being a member or an associated party to an organized criminal group, a company related to organized criminal groups or a group engaged in extortion or blackmail of companies (sōkaiya) (hereinafter all considered as "antisocial forces") , in conformity with ...

0
6

総会屋 can refer to both a person and a group of people:

総会屋

株主としての権利行使を濫用することで会社等から不当に金品を収受、または要求する者および組織を指す。

反社会的勢力 refers to both, too:

反社会的勢力

暴力や威力、または詐欺的手法を駆使した不当な要求行為により経済的利益を追求する集団又は個人の総称である

But in your sentence, 総会屋 is used as a group name because it's clearly used with other group names (暴力団, 暴力団関係企業), followed by 又はその構成員. If I read this correctly, this 自ら by itself can be either a person or an organization:

暴力団、暴力団関係企業、総会屋若しくはこれらに準ずる者...
暴力団, 暴力団関係企業, 総会屋 and similar entities...

...又はその構成員
...or members of such entities

Note that 者 in legal contexts can refer to an organization. And where did "associated party" come from in your translation? I think neither これらに準ずる者 nor 構成員 means that.

8
  • Thank you so much for your answer! It helped a lot. The "associated party" came from my interpretation of これらに準ずる者, which now I realize it was wrong. – Rick Nov 20 '20 at 16:02
  • What do you think of this translation? --> Not being an organized criminal group (bōryokudan), a company related to organized criminal groups, a group engaged in extortion or blackmail of companies (sōkaiya), or another similar entity, nor a member of such entities (hereinafter all considered as "antisocial forces"), in conformity with ... – Rick Nov 20 '20 at 16:03
  • 1
    @Rick Looks much better to me now, but what does "in conformity with" correspond to? – naruto Nov 20 '20 at 17:14
  • 1
    @Rick “As defined in 2条二号” should be the simplest but there may be a better way to say this in legal contexts... – naruto Nov 20 '20 at 17:41
  • 2
    @Rick, FWIW, I'm accustomed to seeing "as stipulated by/in" or "as defined by/in" for に規定する, depending on context. – Eiríkr Útlendi Nov 20 '20 at 18:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.