Law: the differentiated religion in the constitutional right to religious freedom

This chapter examines these religious fraud regulations from a comparative legal perspective. All three jurisdictions have a similar approach to religious freedom: conception of false religions to prop up a religious hierarchy. This chapter analyses the constitutionality of these state interventions. China’s religious fraud regulations are constitutional given China’s illiberal constitution. Taiwan’s religious sexual fraud criminalization and some of its religious property fraud criminalization is unconstitutional. Hong Kong’s religious sexual fraud criminalization and Chinese Temples Ordinance is unconstitutional. This chapter proposes alternative measures: sexual offences focusing on threat or vulnerability; regulation applicable to all charity. This chapter diagnoses the perceived legal benefits arising from designating a religion as false: negating religious freedom; compelling state interest. This chapter contextualizes religious fraud regulation with other disparate treatment of religions to advance a conceptual framework that integrates religious fraud regulations into the general literature on religious freedom. This framework highlights the role religious fraud plays in sustaining the religious hierarchy of a jurisdiction. This framework also cautions against the unfortunately common practices of leaving out religious fraud regulations during general assessment of religious freedom.