This paper studied the reality of the fidelityguarantee (Mimoto-Hosho) in Japan based onempirical research.In 2012, a questionnaire survey of Japanesecompanies on the fidelity guarantee was conductedwith a questionnaire sent out to 3,545listed companies and 4,313 non-listed companies.Among the 7,858 companies, a total of 925companies returned the questionnaire on time.Part (6) of the paper analyzed three questionsfrom the questionnaire.No. 21: What kind of role does your companyexpect of fidelity guarantors?No. 22: Do you consider that the fidelityguarantee contract should be treated asan invalid contract?No. 23: For whom can you sign a fidelityguarantee contract?About half of the companies expected theguarantor to play the role of a moral guide preventingillegal acts by the employee, to act asjoint surety to pay for damages by the employee,and to be a contact person in case ofemergency. A little less than 20% of the companiesdidn’t expect the guarantors to act as jointsurety. Every company had different and mixedexpectations for the contract.About the validity of the fidelity guaranteecontract, 44.9% of the persons in charge atcompanies replied that they couldn’t decide theanswer, and 33.6% of them answered that it isbetter to keep the status quo. In contrast,20.4% were of the opinion that the contractshould be invalidated.In many cases, the family of the employee becomesthe fidelity guarantor. In such cases, theperson cannot say no easily when asked to be afidelity guarantor for a family member. Moreover,they rarely have a clear understanding ofthe obligations of the fidelity guarantee contract.Therefore, they are substantially restrictedfrom the freedom of contract.This work was supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI)Grant Number 23730088, 26380112.