Justice and Finance Ministry Decisions Reveal Selective Approach to Property Restitution

Syria’s transitional administration issued a series of ministerial decisions and a presidential decree between May and June, which reflect its partial and selective approach to addressing the legacy of housing, land and property violations under the Assad regime. 

These decisions pertain to the cancellation of certain effects of judicial rulings previously issued by special courts that involved property confiscation. These steps ostensibly rely on the constitutional declaration for the transitional phase, but they remain limited in scope and lack a comprehensive legislative framework, focusing only on specific individuals. This perpetuates the absence of equality before the law.

This article follows the sequence of those decisions and analyses their legal and procedural content, beginning with Justice Ministry Decision No. 682/L, followed by Finance Ministry Decision No. 100/T, and culminating with Presidential Decree No. 121 and subsequent executive decisions.

Justice Ministry Decision No. 682

On May 12, the Ministry of Justice issued Decision No. 682 cancelling the effects of rulings through which movable and immovable property was confiscated from certain convicted individuals by exceptional courts. The decision included a list of these individuals, but did not specify why they were chosen over others. Decision No. 682 was not officially published, but leaked information and details later clarified in Finance Ministry Decision No. 100, shed light on its content and scope.

Decision No. 682 contained legal gaps and violations. It focused on rulings issued by exceptional courts – such as the Antiterrorism Court –  which do not adhere to standard legal procedures. Yet the list included named individuals tried by the Criminal Court, such as members of the Anzrawati family. The Criminal Court is not exceptional, but a regular court that follows the procedural code set forth in Syrian Criminal Procedure Law No. 112 of 1950.

Cancelling the effects of rulings issued by exceptional courts should not be done through ministerial decisions targeting specific individuals without justification for their special status. Thousands of individuals convicted by the Antiterrorism Court were not included in Decision No. 682. Thus, the decision undermines the principle of equality before the law, leaving similar cases unaddressed, potentially compelling the convicted to resort to personal connections to obtain similar decisions. Additionally, such cancellations should be enacted through legislation, not merely administrative decisions, and only by the legislative authority after its election, per the constitutional declaration for the transitional phase. Law is the proper mechanism for implementing constitutional principles, following the hierarchy of norms – from the constitution to laws, then decisions and regulations – to avoid legal contradictions and ensure legal stability.

The most notable example of this selectivity was the Anzrawati family, who were mistakenly included in the list of exceptional court cases, despite having been tried in the Criminal Court.

The Anzrawati Family

Justice Ministry Decision No. 682, in Article 84, cancelled the “effects of rulings issued by exceptional courts” against Mahmoud, Bassam, Bassim, Ahmad, and Waseem Anzrawati. They are the sons of Mohammad Raslan Anzrawati, from two different mothers. 

It is worth noting here that ministerial decisions do not usually contain such a large number of articles, unlike laws. However, the Finance Ministry referred to “Article 84” in the Ministry of Justice’s decision.

The family owns the company Katakit. In 2013, the assets of Mahmoud Anzrawati were frozen on charges of “supporting terrorism, attempting to destabilise the country, and inciting sedition.”

A freeze was imposed on the movable and immovable properties of Mahmoud Anzrawati and three others, on grounds of their “proven involvement in terrorist acts targeting the country,” according to Finance Ministry Decision No. 1508/W, published in Issue 29, Part 2 of the Official Gazette, July 2017. In January 2019, the freeze was extended to include all family members – Bassam, Bassim, Ahmad, and Waseem – as well as their wives and children, and their companies inside and outside Syria, including Katakit and Anzrawati Brothers.

Under Bachar Al-Assad’s rule, terrorism charges or administrative pretexts were often used to settle scores or take over profitable companies, without real legal defence due to the judiciary’s corruption and subordination to the regime. This explains the existence of multiple precautionary seizure rulings followed by cancellations through understandings, agreements, or bribes.

To correct the error in Decision No. 682, the Finance Ministry took a subsequent step that contradicted the Justice Ministry, clarifying the limits of its own executive powers.

Finance Ministry Decision No. 100

In an attempt to rectify the Justice Ministry’s error in Decision No. 682 – where the Anzrawati family was incorrectly described as victims of exceptional courts – the Finance Ministry issued Decision No. 100 on June 29. It stated that Article 84 of Justice Ministry Decision No. 682, which cancels rulings confiscating the properties of Mahmoud, Bassam, Bassim, Ahmad, and Waseem Anzrawati, pertains to rulings issued by the First Criminal Court, Case No. 25505 of 2022. That case resulted in the confiscation of their movable and immovable property, including their companies – most notably Katakit for Food Industries Development – and several real estate assets registered in the family’s name.

Finance Ministry Decision No. 100 also clarified that the ministry had been managing and investing the confiscated assets under Law No. 26 of 2023, which regulates the disposal of confiscated assets through final judicial rulings. Thus, the ministry is responsible for enforcing Justice Ministry Decision No. 682, which cancels property confiscation rulings for those listed by name. Law No. 26 of 2023 governs the management, investment, and transfer of ownership of confiscated assets through final judicial rulings, whether by criminal or antiterrorism courts, under all applicable previous laws.

The constitutional declaration issued on March 13, 2025 had explicitly called for the cancellation of rulings issued by the Antiterrorism Court, including the restitution of property confiscated by those rulings. This forms the constitutional foundation upon which laws and decisions can establish executive mechanisms to return confiscated rights.

Nevertheless, a general legal framework remained absent until the issuance of Decree No. 121, which attempted to shift the process from individual cases to a central judicial committee.

Decree No. 121

On June 23, transitional president Ahmad Al-Sharaa issued Decree No. 121, based on the constitutional declaration, instructing the Justice Ministry to reconstitute a previous judicial committee tasked with reviewing appeals from individuals affected by emergency decrees and orders that had seized movable and immovable property under the state of emergency imposed during Assad’s rule.

This committee had been originally formed under Legislative Decree No. 56 of 2011 to review appeals from those affected by such emergency orders, which had been authorised by Legislative Decree No. 51 of 1962. The state of emergency was lifted in Syria by Legislative Decree No. 161, issued on April 21, 2011.

In early July, the Justice Ministry issued a statement explaining the background of Decree No. 121 of 2025. It noted that the Assad regime had exploited the state of emergency to issue arbitrary decrees and orders to seize property “for the benefit of powerful actors and the families of those in authority.” It added that post-2011 efforts by the regime to form appeal committees “were lacking independence and transparency.” In response to complaints from affected individuals who had previously been unable to file appeals, the decree tasked the Justice Ministry with reconstituting the judicial committee, granting it the power to reconsider previous decisions upon the submission of new evidence. This was framed as a response to grievances and a corrective measure for denying effective appeal mechanisms. The statement added that this measure is part of the ministry’s broader reform agenda, which includes “judicial reform, holding complicit judges accountable, restoring prosecutorial independence, and cancelling the effects of exceptional court rulings.”

To ensure swift implementation of the decree, the Justice Ministry reformed the committee, naming its members and defining their powers.

Justice Ministry Decision No. 975

Accordingly, the Justice Ministry issued Decision No. 975 on June 30, which reconstituted the judicial committee as follows: the Deputy President of the Court of Cassation as Chair, with members drawn from the Court of Cassation and the Syrian State Council. As a result, all individuals whose properties were confiscated can now submit requests to this committee to recover their properties, without the restriction to specific individuals, as was the case with Justice Ministry Decision No. 682.

Finance Ministry Decision No. 963

This course of action was reflected in subsequent finance decisions lifting asset freezes on a group of businessmen.

On July 2, the Finance Ministry issued two identical decisions based on a set of laws, chiefly Decree No. 16 of 2025, which cancelled asset freeze decisions issued by the Finance Ministry between 2012–2024, based on instructions from security agencies, in accordance with the Law on Judicial Police Powers No. 63 of 2012. 

The first decision, No. 963, lifted the freeze imposed by Decision No. 5588 on September 24c 2012, affecting the movable and immovable assets of 14 individuals, including four sons of Mohammad Raslan Al-Khayyat, among them Moataz. Moataz Al-Khayyat, a Syrian-born Qatari businessman, is the Chairman of Power International Holding (PIH) and UCC Holding. On May 29, he signed a memorandum of understanding, in his capacity as UCC Chairman, with the Syrian government for a USD 7 billion energy project to construct four gas power plants and one solar plant with a combined production capacity of up to 5,000 megawatts.

The second decision, issued the same day under the same heading but without a number, concerned a single person: Khaled Al-Mahamid. His assets had been frozen by Finance Ministry Decision No. 5588/W on 24 September 2012. Mr Mahamid is a Syrian-Emirati businessman, born in 1964 and originally from Daraa. He served as Deputy Chair of the Syrian Opposition Negotiations Commission and played a key role in the 2018 reconciliation process, maintaining close ties with the Russian side.

Towards a comprehensive HLP justice framework

The decisions by the Justice and Finance Ministries and Decree No. 121 show that the transitional administration is navigating a path between redressing property rights violations committed by the Assad regime and maintaining entrenched networks of influence. It has taken significant steps – such as constitutionally recognising the need to return confiscated property and reconstituting judicial committees – but limits the benefits to select groups, leaving thousands of affected individuals outside the scope of redress. The result is a selective path that fosters reliance on clientelism and undermines the principle of equality.

Therefore, issuing a comprehensive law by a freely and democratically elected legislative authority is essential to restore trust in the current judicial system. This law should be developed through a genuinely participatory process involving affected individuals and civil society organisations, to emphasise the rights-based dimension and restore public confidence.

Unless these piecemeal solutions are replaced with an integrated legislative reform that regulates the powers of committees and sets objective, transparent criteria for the restitution of confiscated rights, property ownership in Syria will remain subject to temporary arrangements and favouritism. Fear of confiscation or seizure will continue to loom over investors and residents alike, undermining the economic and social recovery efforts that require stable and just legal foundations.