Ordinary Syrians Caught in Government’s Effort to Prevent Assad Figures from Accessing Properties

On August 28, the transitional government’s Ministry of Justice issued Circular No. 283 referring real estate sale registration lawsuits to the Public Prosecutor’s Office. This measure has raised practical and legal concerns about its consistency with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and its implications for litigants’ interests and the administration of justice.

The new circular instructed heads of judicial administrations in all governorates to require civil courts to send copies of case files related to real estate sale registration to the Public Prosecutor’s Office if the judge suspects that the property in question is owned by one of the “former regime figures” against whom legal measures have been taken for embezzlement of public funds or illicit enrichment.

The circular stated that the referral decision to the Public Prosecutor’s Office must explicitly cite “protection of public funds from abuse and smuggling” as the justification.

It also clarified that referrals to the Public Prosecutor’s Office would remain in effect until the issuance of official lists of individuals prohibited from disposing of their property. The circular further directed public prosecutors to expedite the review of these cases to provide the necessary legal arguments to ensure “justice and proper application of the law.”

Circular No. 283 was issued following a proposal submitted by the head of the civil courts in Damascus to the head of the Damascus judiciary, who subsequently referred it to the Minister of Justice. The proposal called for the Public Prosecutor’s involvement in lawsuits concerning property sale registrations before the Damascus First Instance Civil Courts to prevent the smuggling of movable and immovable assets belonging to “former regime figures.” The Ministry of Justice adopted this proposal and issued the directive to all judicial administrations across the governorates.

The circular justifies referring real estate sale registration lawsuits to the Public Prosecutor’s Office based on Articles 124 and 125 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 1 of 2016).

Article 124 defines the types of cases in which the Public Prosecutor must intervene, including those concerning “public administration, personal status, persons lacking or with diminished legal capacity, absentees, charitable endowments, donations and bequests designated for charity, determination of jurisdiction, challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction, and cases involving recusal or litigation against judges, bankruptcy, and preventive settlements.” No Syrian jurisprudence offers a clear interpretation of “public administration,” nor is it evident whether there has been precedent for Public Prosecutor involvement in cases concerning public funds under this legal provision.

Article 125 allows courts to refer case files to the Public Prosecutor if they involve issues of public order or morality. While the article does not define which public order cases justify such referral, safeguarding public funds may fall under this category according to the prevailing view in legal doctrine.

It can therefore be argued that Article 124 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 1 of 2016) does not provide a legal basis for referring property sale cases to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, as it does not explicitly include the protection of public funds. The use of Article 124 in this circular thus constitutes a stretching of legal texts.

It would be preferable to expedite the issuance of official lists of those prohibited from disposing of their property, rather than resorting to controversial interpretations of the law. Such practices risk setting a precedent for manipulating legal provisions to achieve desired outcomes, even at the expense of sound legal reasoning.

Moreover, protecting public funds does not justify complicating judicial procedures, delaying rulings, or harming property buyers’ interests by prolonging the transfer of ownership. Judges at the civil courts handling property sale registration cases are now expected to determine whether a property sale is an attempt to conceal assets or harm public funds. However, this verification falls squarely within the jurisdiction of criminal judges, who investigate criminal facts and evaluate available evidence. This process may take considerable time, causing procedural delays, especially as the Public Prosecutor’s Office, once involved, may expand its investigations to prove that the case concerns smuggling property belonging to members or affiliates of the Assad regime.

Instead of referring these cases to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, more flexible approaches could be adopted to balance safeguarding public funds with protecting buyers’ and sellers’ interests. One approach would be to place disposal restraints on the property records of individuals suspected of acquiring wealth unlawfully during the Assad regime era. Prospective buyers could then check the property’s legal status, and courts would refuse to transfer ownership if such a restriction was present.

Another proposed solution would be for the court handling the registration case to conduct preliminary verification by requesting information from the Land Registry and the Finance Directorate regarding the property owner’s legal status and any disputes over the property. This would eliminate the need for referral to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, avoiding additional procedural complications and delays that harm buyers’ rights.