New Circular Removes Real Estate Transaction Bans Imposed by Security Forces

On January 28, the General Directorate of Cadastral Affairs issued its Circular No. 57, which provides for the removal of seizure notices, bans on disposal, and restrictions of disposal placed on properties belonging to opposition figures issued during the Assad regime by the “Intelligence Branch”. The circular stated that the branch is not legally authorised to impose these restrictions.

The circular came in response to Letter No. 1117 calling for the removal of those notices, which the Ministry of Defence sent on January 11 to the Ministry of Local Administration and Environment, which in turn referred it to the Directorate of Cadastral Affairs on January 19.

Circular No. 57 did not rely on Decree No. 16 of 2025, which stipulated the cancellation of precautionary seizure decisions between 2012 and 2024, in accordance with the provisions of the Law on the Powers of the Judicial Police No. 63 of 2012. This points to duality and a lack of organisation in the process of lifting notices and seizures that were imposed under unjust security decisions during the Assad regime. The Ministry of Defence’s Letter No. 1117 provided for the lifting of seizure notices that had already been addressed by Decree No. 16 without mentioning it. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Defence’s letter added the notices of ban on disposal and restriction of disposal, which were not mentioned in Decree No. 16 of 2025.

The Ministry of Defence’s letter named only the “Intelligence Branch”, which most likely refers to the Military Intelligence Branch (Military Security) as it is affiliated with the Ministry. By contrast, Decree No. 16 of 2025 covered all notices issued by the Ministry of Finance, based on instructions from the security services.

A “ban on disposal” notice is a precautionary restriction placed on the property record in the Land Registry to prevent the owner from carrying out any disposition of the property – such as sale, mortgage, or gift – before that notice is removed. Such a notice is imposed pursuant to a judicial ruling or pursuant to a law. Ban on disposal includes several types: a mortgage notice; real estate insurance in favour of state-owned banks pursuant to Decree No. 31 of 2005 relating to the Real Estate Bank; a ban on disposal pursuant to the Agrarian Reform Law No. 161 of 1958; and a ban on disposal related to the freezing of funds pursuant to the Anti-Terrorism Law No. 19 of 2012.

As for a “restriction of disposal” notice, it is a precautionary measure placed temporarily on a person’s properties to ensure the collection of debts or financial obligations owed by them to the state. This notice does not prevent the owner from benefiting from their property or leasing it, but it prevents them from disposing of it and transferring its ownership. This notice is recorded in a register within the Disposal Directorate. That means it is not entered on the property record itself. The source of this notice is often the Finance Directorate or the municipal council, in response to requests from the security services.

Decree No. 16 of 2025 was supposed to include the cancellation of seizure notices, bans on disposal, and restrictions of disposal, with the issuance of implementing instructions for each of those cases, instead of issuing a new letter from the Ministry of Defence to regulate these cases. This may cause confusion for those harmed by these notices, due to the multiplicity of legal references – decrees, letters, and circulars -issued to address the same situation. This leads to uncertainty in identifying the legal basis governing their case and the authority they should approach to have that notice struck off.

Even with Decree No. 16 of 2025 and the Ministry of Defence’s Letter No. 1117, there are still no implementing instructions and no clear procedures for lifting those notices. This increases the suffering of those affected, as it requires them to travel to Damascus and follow up with the central Directorate of Cadastral Affairs, other official departments, and branches of the security services to remove those notices. Addressing these complications requires issuing implementing instructions that specify clear procedures for the process of lifting notices, and restricting this to a single body as far as possible to simplify matters for those affected.