
Wakaresaseya: private agents hired to end relationships - pseudolus
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200731-the-saboteurs-you-can-hire-to-end-your-relationship
======
keiferski
Ironically this industry seems to only have come under scrutiny _because_ the
hired gun wasn't professional enough and/or took his job far too seriously,
depending on your perspective.

 _In 2010, Takeshi Kuwabara was sentenced for the murder of his lover, Rie
Isohata. What captured the world’s imagination was not the tragedy itself, but
the fact that Kuwabara was a wakaresaseya – a professional hired by Isohata’s
husband to break up their marriage._

 _Once Isohata learned of the deception, she angrily attempted to break off
the relationship with Kuwabara. Unwilling to let her go, he strangled her with
a piece of string. The following year, he was sentenced to 15 years in
prison._

There is definitely a dark rom-com movie script to be made from this story.

Edit: I just remembered, there is an old Italian film which has a similar
plot. It's called _Divorce, Italian Style_ and is about a man who wants to
divorce his wife, but can't due to the local laws. He spends the movie trying
to get his wife to take a lover, so that he can shoot her "in a rage of
jealousy" and get a reduced sentence for manslaughter. It's pretty funny, I
highly recommend it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_Italian_Style](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_Italian_Style)

~~~
nolok
I can't help but think that at the other end of that spectrum lies the british
infiltrated cop that once he got his mark arrested left the girl he was with
undercover and the kid they had together, without any support, and with his
former associates fully knowing, with the british court saying she didn't
deserve any child support or anything.

I don't know where the line is or how it should be done, but I know as much as
I know anything that it's not the proper solution if it ends with "and some
innocent bystander live was (temporarily) ruined in the process".

(I used that exemple because it's the one I always remember as the court case
marked my mind, but I'm sure most countries have an equivalent)

~~~
gwidhehe
Do you have a link where I can learn more about this case? I've never heard of
it before.

~~~
padraic7a
[https://www.spycops.co.uk/](https://www.spycops.co.uk/)

"At least 20 of the undercover officers deceived women into intimate, sexual
relationships.

The women had no idea that they were having relationships with men who were
police spies. Some of the undercover officers had relationships with more than
one woman during their undercover missions.

After the existence of the covert operation began to be exposed in 2010, the
women grouped together and successfully took legal action against the police.
So far, the police have paid compensation to at least 12 women who were
deceived by the undercover officers."

"

------
castevictim
This is quite common in India, but the twist being they are not hired by those
in relationship but their parents! Usually due to caste differences.

Here is an interview of one such agency by Niel Patel in his Indian startup
show, where she(founder) proudly claims to end relationships on behalf of
clients(parents). If you thought that was awful, wait till she tells at the
end 'There are no regulations for Private Investigative Agencies in India' !
(Neil just laughs it off).

[0][https://www.indianstartupshow.com/episodes/akriti](https://www.indianstartupshow.com/episodes/akriti)

------
jccc
Kinda seems like the real purpose of this saboteur service isn't so much to
engineer the end of your relationship so you don't have to, or just to acquire
legal proof so the law will let you two divorce, but rather to engineer the
end in such a way that it financially advantages the employer of the saboteur.

She cheated on me, so I get to keep the house.

The headline and framing of the story hides the
greed/selfishness/manipulation/exploitation.

(Of course, the bigger part of the actual event is the murder, but the story
minimizes that too.)

~~~
philwelch
In cultures without no-fault divorce, manufacturing fault like this is
sometimes necessary for the divorce to happen at all, regardless of the
eventual settlements.

------
Hitton
Similar services exist even in Europe. I remember reading about it some time
ago and managed to find it.
[https://www.alibinamieru.sk/](https://www.alibinamieru.sk/) They provide
multiple of services including: fake alibi for cheaters, testing fidelity of
your partner, breaking up relationship by seducing someone (either lover of
cheating partner when you want to end their relationship or directly the
partner when for instance parents of the second partner want to prove that the
chosen one is no good etc.) It's hard to say how popular the service really is
though.

~~~
WrtCdEvrydy
> It's hard to say how popular the service really is though.

If it was popular, wouldn't they try to hide how popular it is? ;)

------
nikol_w
This is an article describing exactly what (a certain type of) private
detectives do in Japan, Europe, North America, and other places, and using a
word in a different language, 'wakaresaseya' in order to depict it as a
strange and novel 'Japanese phenomenon'.

~~~
lalaland1125
There is no need for this in the US because the legal system here fully
supports no fault divorces.

~~~
sukilot
"No fault" is useless when there are children. The US has people who hire
killers to murder their spouse in order to obtain custody of their children.

~~~
lalaland1125
Adultery doesn't affect custody battles in the US (at least in the vast
majority of states). There is no benefit in getting your spouse to cheat on
someone.

~~~
btilly
Not the vast majority of states.

The list isWisconsin, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Nebraska, Montana, Missouri,
Minnesota, Michigan, Kentucky, Kansas, Iowa, Indiana, Hawaii, Florida,
Colorado and California. In other states there are no fault divorces
available, but you can also file a divorce based on various faults, including
adultery.

------
S_A_P
Can someone give more context here? Is there some burden of proof required to
divorce in Japan? From the article it looks like most are attached to private
detective agencies as well. Is this because without evidence of infidelity you
have to pay alimony/some other spousal support? Or is there no equivalent of
'we just don't like each other anymore'?

~~~
stupidcar
The UK too has only just introduced the concept of "no-fault divorce":
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-
fault_divorce#United_Kingdo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-
fault_divorce#United_Kingdom)

Previously couples had to apportion blame for the marriage breakdown, which
encouraged it to be an adversarial and rancorous process.

~~~
mellosouls
This makes it sound like no fault divorce is a good thing.

No doubt there are positives but it's difficult to see how it isn't just
another step along the path of the trivialising of marriage.

Perhaps we should be looking at other approaches to the problem of unhappy
marriages, in particular the due diligence of people in choosing their
partners - especially when there are children involved or intended.

I'm not suggesting a method or solution, just pointing out making divorce
easier is not universally considered a good thing or moral win.

~~~
bluedevil2k
> trivialising of marriage

Maybe we've taken marriage too seriously for hundreds/thousands of years, and
we're finally progressing as a global society to realize that till-death-do-
us-part might be too big of a commitment for some 20-somethings. After all,
what's _really_ the difference between being married and living with your
significant other besides some laws that are based on the old views of
marriage.

(Granted, with kids things get tricky, but making sure parents stick around
and help raise kids to me seems rather independent on whether a couple was
married or not - seems more to do with someone's inner beliefs)

~~~
thrden
Even if we set aside any potential spiritual, or child-rearing value. Marriage
is a very important institution in helping people achieve economic mobility,
it increases your household income significantly, as well as seriously
reducing your cost of living. Anecdotally, my cost of living was drastically
reduced when my girlfriend and I moved in together (thereby splitting a 1BR),
however given that we aren't married we individually have to save a good
amount of money in cash accounts in case of a breakup. If we were married, we
could reduce our cash savings by 50% and instead invest that money into the
open market. Moreover, we would be far more likely to take care of the other
financially if one went to school if we were married. Marriage, and the
commitment it entails changes the attitudes of individuals towards each other
by ensuring that we can plan for a combined future. all that exists outside of
societally constructed benefits like joint taxation and healthcare.

~~~
bluedevil2k
But all your examples of "planning for the future as a married couple" could
immediately be for naught if one of you decides to divorce. No different than
if your girlfriend decides to move out. Economic mobility could be achieved
with an official document saying "You're Married" or without it. It's about
the commitment to each other, a commitment that can be as strong or as weak as
the two people are willing to make it.

~~~
mellosouls
_But all your examples of "planning for the future as a married couple" could
immediately be for naught if one of you decides to divorce. No different than
if your girlfriend decides to move out._

Marriage is _not_ girlfriend/boyfriend.

It's far more serious, and making it a commitment to be contemplated deeply
before entering - and not easily breakable - is the whole point of
highlighting the problem of trivialising it.

~~~
bluedevil2k
> It's far more serious, and making it a commitment to be contemplated deeply
> before entering - and not easily breakable

Marriage is rooted in religion, for better or worse, and these thoughts about
making marriage some unbreakable for-life bond are based on religious beliefs
hundreds of years old. Catholics couldn't divorce, ever! We live in a more
enlightened age, one where religious thoughts have less to do with forging our
societal beliefs. Can't we progress with our thoughts on marriage as well?
Marriage for life would mean for many an unhappy and unfulfilling life.
Perhaps a life of violence or depression. Is that we want to force people
into? A life without choice, a life without happiness?

~~~
com2kid
> Marriage is rooted in religion, for better or worse,

Around a billion people, give or take, in China would disagree with you.

Heck Japan isn't exactly a religious country.

With a few exceptions, the concept of marriage coincides with agricultural
societies.

~~~
bluedevil2k
What's the Chinese view on divorce? (Genuine question, I have no idea)

~~~
com2kid
Not 100% sure, just know through a few friends that it seems very shameful for
both parties involves.

Also, parents invest a _lot_ in their child's marriage, e.g. downpayment for a
house, car, etc, for their child (singular!), so that adds even more pressure
to "make things work".

------
01100011
How about a service which will marry an ex spouse? I'd _gladly_ pay $40,000 to
anyone who successfully marries my ex and terminates my alimony payments.

~~~
blaser-waffle
But then how will they get out of alimony later? Hire another one?

~~~
abhgh
Just when I thought I'd seen all manner of pyramid schemes...

------
Mountain_Skies
Wonder if the companies are sometimes hired by a third party wanting to break
up someone else's marriage or would that be outside the realm of possibility
in Japanese culture?

~~~
WrtCdEvrydy
Apparently in the US there's a couple of companies that will hire an
attractive woman to take you to a bar, get you drunk and attempt to get you to
take them home in your car so you get a DUI and makes it easier for divorces
not to go your way.

If you're getting divorced, wait until it finalizes no matter how hot she is.

~~~
sukilot
In many states you can get a legal separation before you divorce.

~~~
thaumasiotes
The threat was getting a DUI, not getting caught committing adultery.

------
burtonator
> Meanwhile, a colleague of Kuwabara’s photographed them in a love hotel, and
> Isohata’s husband used these photographs as evidence for a divorce. (Such
> evidence is needed when a Japanese divorce is contested.)

unintended consequences... policy decisions have real world implications.
Marriage should not be a slave contract.

------
dhosek
The classic Astaire-Rogers film, _The Gay Divorcee_ , turns on a not-that-
different practice that was common in England in order to get a divorce where
a professional co-respondent would be hired to enable a divorce on the grounds
of adultery. I turned up this article on non-fictional uses of co-respondents:
[http://www.queensilver.org/gstory2.htm](http://www.queensilver.org/gstory2.htm)

------
elliekelly
I can’t believe how little it costs for all the effort involved. _Four_ people
and _four_ months to sabotage a relationship for <$15,000?

~~~
sukilot
It's not 4 months of full time work. It can be one email per day.

------
raxxorrax
Marriage counseling is an honest profession.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
> Marriage counseling is an honest profession.

I'm genuinely curious how many of these relationships could actually be
salvaged by good counseling, once they've reached the point where someone is
willing to hire a saboteur.

~~~
vmception
> once they've reached the point where someone is willing to hire a saboteur

they probably haven't reached that point, compared to other societies, their
law just makes evidence a requirement if the divorce is contested.

so the incentives are misaligned for different behavior.

------
giaour
There’s a great Taika Waititi movie about a relationship sabotage agency in
New Zealand:
[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6728096/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6728096/)

------
zw123456
Another really good way to ruin a relationship is to join a start up :)

------
flexie
This business is only relevant due to tragic laws making divorce difficult.

In Denmark, you can divorce by electronic signature and without any reason. If
both spouses agree, they can be divorced immediately. Immediate divorce is
also possible in case of

\- adultery,

\- two year physical separation due to disagreements violence,

\- sexual assault,

\- bigamy,

\- child abduction.

Otherwise, a 6 months separation period is needed.

In most divorce cases, no law suits are needed.

~~~
xxpor
>If both spouses agree, they can be divorced immediately.

Does this include an agreement on alimony/child support/custody? Or are there
automatic arrangements for that in Denmark?

That seems to be where things get nasty in the US for the most part. It's not
the literal divorce but the second order effects due to it.

------
dest
French movie on a similar topic: L'Arnacœur
[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1465487/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_20](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1465487/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_20)

------
petters
> Fees can go as high as 20 million yen (£145,000) if a client is a politician
> or a celebrity, requiring the highest level of secrecy.

Still seems very cheap?

------
djohnston
this reminds me of something i recently read about the parents of the first
Qin emperor, who were embroiled in a similar scandal, albeit without
passionate murder.

~~~
grumpitron
I recently listened to a series of podcasts where this was mentioned on Our
Fake History, though my recollection was that he seemed to think the story's
accuracy was questionable.

~~~
djohnston
interesting, i didn't dig too deep, but it seems totally plausible that a 2200
y.o. story of sexual intrigue could be fabricated

------
simonebrunozzi
I'm baffled that marriage laws are so weird, obtuse, and outdated, pretty much
in most of the world. In particular, but not limited to, property and wealth
subdivision.

------
known
It's all about money + hegemony

------
grillvogel
sounds like a sidequest from the Yakuza video games

------
xutopia
For the life of me I would think that this should be illegal somehow.

~~~
golergka
I don't.

These things are sad and immoral, on that we agree. However, government and
legality should not be arbiters of human morality; it's a huge and inefficient
and stupid mechanism that should only be used to solved issues that absolutely
cannot be solved without it and it's monopoly on violence.

This kind of thing is better solved by society itself, and, judging by slowly,
but steadily improving social norms, declining violence and improving human
rights all around the globe, it is.

~~~
sukilot
> government and legality should not be arbiters of human morality

Then what is the point of having government and legality at all?

~~~
balfirevic
> should only be used to solved issues that absolutely cannot be solved
> without it and it's monopoly on violence

------
xyst
TIL: murder in Japan is not a life sentence

~~~
kerkeslager
It's frequently not a life sentence in the US, and a "life sentence" in the US
is actually not a life sentence, as people can get out on parole in under two
decades (exact time varies by jurisdiction).

~~~
zelos
It is a "life sentence" really, as the offender is only released on parole and
is on licence for the rest of their life, so can be required to abide by
license conditions or be recalled to prison at any point. (assuming US law is
similar to the UK)

~~~
kerkeslager
That's a semantic argument.

I think when most people hear "life sentence" they think the person will spend
the rest of their life behind bars, so the phrase "life sentence" doesn't
clearly communicate what actually happens.

------
vstm
That's nothing. I can sabotage my relationships before they even start.

~~~
mcraiha
Have you given your TED talk already?

~~~
ineedasername
Giving a TED talk, replete with vague and over-simplified solutions to complex
problems all with a palpable sense of smug superiority... that by itself can
be enough to sabotage a relationship: "Oh no, no no no-- I will absolutely
break up with you if you give a TED talk about how a carbon tax is the
obviously perfect solution to racial injustice."

~~~
abnercoimbre
It really makes one wonder what is said between TED talk staff and the
presenter behind the curtain. Or did the first presenter ever simply did it
one way and now everyone copies it?

