Buddhist statue stolen from Japanese temple returned from South Korea
A 14th century Korean Buddhist statue stolen from a Japanese temple nearly 13 years ago has been returned after a long legal battle between Japan and South Korea over its ownership that had further strained sensitive ties between the two Asian neighbours.
Dozens of temple members and local residents standing by the roadside applauded to welcome the statue as a truck carrying a wooden container with it arrived at Kannonji, a temple on Japan's western island of Tsushima.
The statue is expected to be kept at a local museum following a ceremony at the temple later in the day.
The gilt bronze statue Bodhisatva – worshipped for mercy and compassion – is depicted in a sitting position and measures about 20in in height.
It has been designated a cultural asset of the region and was one of two statues stolen in 2012 from Kannonji by thieves who were looking to sell them in South Korea.
The South Korean government had returned the other statue to the Japanese temple soon after the authorities recovered it from the thieves, who were arrested and charged.
But the Bodhisatva became trapped in legal dispute after Buseoksa, a South Korean temple in the western coastal city of Seosan, filed a lawsuit, claiming it was the rightful owner.
South Korea's Supreme Court in 2023 ruled in favour of the Japanese temple, ordering the South Korean temple to return the statue.
After all the paperwork was completed in January, the statue remained on a 100-day loan to the South Korean temple for a farewell exhibit.
The temple in South Korea said it was saddened by the statue's return and insisted it was the rightful owner.
'All our faithful … feel like crying,' Woonou, the temple's chief monk, told The Associated Press over the phone.
He insisted that Japan 'plundered' the statue from Korea and deserves 'international condemnation'.
Sekko Tanaka, a former head monk at Kannonji, told reporters that the handover ceremony at the South Korean temple on Saturday was 'truly amicable and we shook hands'.
'A calm after a storm,' he said, adding that he felt relieved to see the dispute resolved while he is still alive.
Mr Tanaka said he hoped South Koreans would visit Tsushima and discover its centuries-old cultural ties with Korea, though there will now be higher security around the statue.
Japan and South Korea have long had disputes over Japanese atrocities during its 1910-1945 colonisation of the Korean Peninsula, though their ties improved due to shared concern over regional security.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The FBI Raided This Innocent Georgia Family's Home. The Supreme Court Just Revived Their Lawsuit.
It's been almost eight years since an FBI SWAT team arrived at Curtrina Martin and Toi Cliatt's home, detonated a flash grenade inside, ripped the door off, and stormed into the couple's bedroom with guns drawn. Agents handcuffed Cliatt at gunpoint, and Martin, who had tried to barricade herself inside of her closet, says she fell on a rack amid the mayhem. But law enforcement would not find who they were looking for there, because that suspect, Joseph Riley, lived in a nearby house on a different street. The issue is still a relevant one for Martin and Cliatt, along with Martin's son, Gabe—who was 7 years old at the time of the raid—as the group has fought for years, unsuccessfully, for the right to sue the government over the break-in. The Supreme Court on Thursday resurrected that lawsuit, unanimously ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had settled on a faulty analysis when it barred Martin and Cliatt from suing in April 2024. But the plaintiffs' legal battle is still far from over. "If federal officers raid the wrong house, causing property damage and assaulting innocent occupants, may the homeowners sue the government for damages?" wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch. "The answer is not as obvious as it might be." The issue before the Court did not pertain to immunity for any individual law enforcement agent, whom the 11th Circuit shielded from liability in its decision last year. The justices instead considered if the lower court had erred when it also blocked the lawsuit from proceeding under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the law that allows individuals to bring certain state-law tort claims against the federal government for damages caused by federal workers acting within the scope of their employment. There are many exceptions to the FTCA, however, that allow the feds to evade such claims—a microcosm of the convoluted maze plaintiffs must navigate to sue the government. One of those, the intentional tort exception, dooms suits that allege intentional wrongdoing, including assault, battery, false imprisonment, and false arrest, among several others. Yet the FTCA also contains a law enforcement proviso—essentially an exception to the exception—that permits claims to get around that carve-out when the misconduct in question is committed by "investigative or law enforcement officers." Notably here, Congress passed that addition in the 1970s in response to two highly publicized wrong-house raids. The 11th Circuit accordingly observed that the proviso would allow Martin and Cliatt's intentional tort claims to survive the exception. The court killed those claims anyway. It cited the Supremacy Clause, which the judges said protected the government from liability if its employees' actions had "some nexus with furthering federal policy and [could] reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law." Not so, said the Supreme Court. Somewhat surprisingly, that put it in agreement with the government—which, prior to oral arguments, conceded the 11th Circuit's conclusion there was incorrect, and that it did not care to defend it. "We find the government's concession commendable and correct," writes Gorsuch. "The FTCA does not permit the Eleventh Circuit's Supremacy Clause defense." Arguably the bigger question before the Court pertained to a different FTCA carve-out: the discretionary function exception, which, true to its name, precludes claims from proceeding if the alleged misconduct came from a duty that involves discretion. The 11th Circuit dismissed Martin and Cliatt's claims alleging negligent wrongdoing—distinctive under the law from intentional torts—writing that "the FBI did not have stringent policies or procedures in place that dictate how agents are to prepare for warrant executions." Lawrence Guerra, a former FBI special agent and the leader of the raid, thus had discretion, the judges said. But the 11th Circuit took its discretionary analysis a step further, ruling that, for acts of wrongdoing that have intentionality, the law enforcement proviso trumps the discretionary exception outright. The justices rejected that. "The law enforcement proviso…overrides only the intentional-tort exception in that subsection," the Court said, "not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions." So where does that leave Martin and Cliatt? "On remand, the 11th Circuit will need to decide whether raiding the wrong house is a 'discretionary function,'" says Patrick Jaicomo, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, who represented the pair. Jaicomo was hoping the Court would address that very confusion. The plaintiffs "call on us to determine whether and under what circumstances the discretionary-function exception bars suits for wrong-house raids and similar misconduct," writes Gorsuch. "Unless we take up that further question, they worry, the Eleventh Circuit on remand may take too broad a view of the exception and dismiss their claims again. After all, the plaintiffs observe, in the past that court has suggested that the discretionary-function exception bars any claim 'unless a source of federal law "specifically prescribes" a course of conduct' and thus deprives an official of all discretion." The Supreme Court, however, ultimately opted for a narrow approach, though the justices acknowledged "that important questions surround whether and under what circumstances that exception may ever foreclose a suit like this one." In a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, said there are no such circumstances when considering the fact pattern presented in Martin and Cliatt's suit. "Like driving, executing a warrant always involves some measure of discretion," she wrote. "Yet it is hard to see how Guerra's conduct in this case, including his allegedly negligent choice to use his personal GPS and his failure to check the street sign or house number on the mailbox before breaking down Martin's door and terrorizing the home's occupants, involved the kind of policy judgments that the discretionary-function exception was designed to protect." That would seem like the right conclusion, particularly when considering the genesis of that law enforcement proviso, which Congress enacted to give recourse to victims who suffered at the hands of near-identical misconduct. Those lawmakers clearly did not think the discretionary exception would doom their claims. That the law was meant to protect people like Martin, Cliatt, and Martin's son is why a bipartisan group of lawmakers—including Sens. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), Ron Wyden (D–Ore.), and Cynthia Lummis (R–Wyo.), along with Reps. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), Nikema Williams (D–Ga.), and Harriet Hageman (R–Wyo.)—had urged the Court to take up their case. Sotomayor's description of Guerra's negligence is also salient and was the subject of one of the more interesting exchanges when the Supreme Court heard the case. Arguing for the Justice Department, Frederick Liu, assistant to the solicitor general, said it was too much for Martin and Cliatt to expect "that the officer should have checked the house number on the mailbox." "Yeah, you might look at the address of the house before you knock down the door," Gorsuch responded. Liu countered that such a decision "is filled with policy tradeoffs." "Really?" Gorsuch replied. The post The FBI Raided This Innocent Georgia Family's Home. The Supreme Court Just Revived Their Lawsuit. appeared first on
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Long Island sicko, 18, allegedly raped two 11-year-old boys he met on Snapchat, brushed off abuse as a prank: DA
An 18-year-old Long Island sicko allegedly raped two 11-year-old boys he met on Snapchat – and brushed off the sick abuse as a prank or dare, prosecutors said. Bradley Schioppa, under the user name 'paxonhotsg5,' allegedly joined a Snapchat conversation set up for 11-year-old boys in the Smithtown area back in April, the Suffolk County DA's office said. The boys assumed Schioppa was around their own age, and did not question his participation in the chat, the DA's office said. Bradley Schioppa, 18, allegedly raped two 11-year-old boys he met through Snapchat, prosecutors said. Suffolk County District Attorneys Office It wasn't until Schioppa started showing up in person at spots where the boys gathered – including Robert A. Brady Park in Smithtown – that they realized he was older, prosecutors said. He drove the boys around in his car, bought them snacks and soft drinks and played prank games with them, according to authorities. But during their outings, Schioppa allegedly sexually abused one of the boys in the Brady Park bathroom, and the other in the restroom of a Smithtown CVS, prosecutors said. In both cases, he allegedly framed the abuse as a prank or dare that the boys would be paid for, authorities said. In May 2025, the mother of one of the boys discovered messages between Schioppa and her son, prosecutors said. When she questioned her pre-teen son, he revealed the alleged abuse. Schioppa framed the abuse as a prank or dare, prosecutors said. Ascannio – Police then launched an investigation and ultimately arrested Schioppa, of Bay Shore, on May 21. Schioppa was arraigned Tuesday on an indictment charging him with first-degree rape, second-degree sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child. Acting Supreme Court Justice Karen M. Wilutis ordered him held on $450,000 cash, $900,000 bond or $4.5 million partially secured bond. He is due back in court on July 8 and could spend 25 years behind bars if convicted on the top count. 'This defendant is accused of committing horrific acts against two innocent children,' District Attorney Raymond A. Tierney said in a statement. 'These charges reflect the seriousness of the alleged conduct. Protecting our most vulnerable residents, especially children, remains my highest priority. We will pursue this case with the full force of the law to deliver the justice these children deserve.' Investigators are now looking to determine whether Schioppa had any other victims. Authorities are urging anyone whose child may have messaged or communicated with Schioppa via his Snapchat account 'paxonhotsg5,' or otherwise, to contact the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office at 631-852-2555 or the Suffolk County Police Department Special Victims Section at 631-852-6531.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Woman arrested after trying to break into BTS member Jung Kook's Seoul home
A Chinese woman was arrested for allegedly trying to break into BTS member Jung Kook's home in Seoul on Wednesday (11 June). The unnamed woman is in her thirties and is accused of trying to enter the K-pop star's home in Seoul's Yongsan district by repeatedly entering different combinations into his keypad door lock around 11.20pm local time, the police said. The police detained her at the scene after reports of her attempted trespassing attempts, reported Yonhap. She told the police that she had come to South Korea to see Jung Kook, real name Jeon Jung Kook, who was discharged from the military the same day after completing South Korea's 18-month mandatory military service. He was discharged alongside his bandmate Jimin, real name Park Ji Min, at a ceremony near their former unit in Yeoncheon. BTS, made up of members RM, Jin, Suga, J-Hope, Jimin, V, and Jung Kook, announced in 2022 they would be taking a break from group activities to focus on solo music, while each member completed their military service. Jin, the oldest member of the band and the first of them to enlist, was discharged in June 2024, followed by J-Hope in October. RM and V were discharged on Tuesday, leaving Suga as the only bandmate left to finish his military service. He is currently posted in a nonactive duty role due to a shoulder injury and is expected to complete his service on 21 June. While the group and their management label, BigHit Music, have repeatedly discouraged fans from attending the musicians' discharge ceremonies, hundreds of fans travelled to South Korea to attend Tuesday and Wednesday's ceremonies. Additionally, the discharge of the BTS members coincides with Festa, the annual celebration of the group's debut anniversary, which has also seen a huge influx of fans heading to the country this year. Earlier this year, South Korean police summoned a Japanese woman in her fifties who was accused of sexual harassment for kissing BTS member Jin at a meet-and-greet event held a day after his discharge. The incident took place in Seoul on 13 June last year when Jin held an event, where he hugged 1,000 fans who had won a raffle, to celebrate both his discharge and the group's anniversary. The woman reportedly kissed Jin on the cheek when he leaned in to hug her. The musician looked visibly startled and turned his face away. 'My lips touched his neck. His skin was so soft,' the woman later wrote in a blog post, according to Yonhap.
