>you're supposed to be banned from profiting from any crimes you did ("Son of Sam law") Not sure where you got this from? AFAIK that's a purely state level thi

>you're supposed to be banned from profiting from any crimes you did ("Son of Sam law") Not sure where you got this from? AFAIK that's a purely state level thing, and the first law that tried that in a broad way was unanimously struck down by SCOTUS as an unconstitutional violation of the 1A. And for good reason, when you step back and remember that "crime" itself can be very broad. It wasn't that long ago that homosexual acts could still be a felony in the US. There is a strong public interest in certain criminals sharing details of what they did with journalists after the fact too. New much more limited laws have passed that I think is still up, but the ones I can think of at least are specifically about compensating victims. IIRC the mechanism is to notify and then let them sue in civil court for a longer window. I don't think any of that would apply to purely government criminal action though for somebody who has already served their sentence and paid any fines. You might be confusing those laws with conditions attached to federal plea bargains in certain kinds of serious cases (national security stuff like terrorism). Since those are individualized "voluntary agreements" [0] specific to a given case they can include things the government couldn't do as blanket laws or even necessarily win as penalties in court at all, and I know there have been agreements that included turning over any and all profits from publishing deals to the US government. But those AFAIK are the exception, not the rule. And they wouldn't have any applicability here either. Also, there doesn't need to be any special law for victims who have successfully sued in civil court and won a damages award to then go after whatever assets the criminal has or gets down the road to cover it. This might as a practical matter "eliminate profits": if a family of a murder victim won $10m, defendant could only pay $1m, and then the defendant gets a $7m movie deal later, court may award all of the defendant's interest to the family to help satisfy the original judgement. But again, I don't think the Japanese government has any such cause here. ---- 0: scare quotes around voluntary agreements since there is a lot of reasonable debate about overuse/abuse of plea bargains by US prosecutors. But at least legally they're pretty wide open for now.