Security Order Halts Property Transactions for Assad-Linked Families

On November 22, the Lattakia governorate Information Branch sent a letter to the Internal Security Branch to prevent and stop any transaction undertaken by members of families affiliated with the Assad regime. The letter (No. 1040) –  listed the following families: Al-Assad, Marai, Shalish, Jaqmoq, Jaber, Kanaan, Makhlouf, Deeb, Maarouf and Khayr Bek.

Letter No. 1040 requested the Directorates of Cadastral Affairs and Finance in the governorate to refer any applications for the disposal of real estate property submitted by any person belonging to those families to the Information Branch, to undergo personal investigation. In turn, the Internal Security Command sent Letter No. 973 on November 24 to the Directorate of Finance, attaching the Information Branch’s letter No. 1040, for proper implementation.

It is unclear what is the legal basis of  letter No. 1040, as the transitional government has not issued any decree or decision permitting any security body to take similar measures. The letter imposes a procedure that lies somewhere between restraint on disposal, precautionary seizure, and requirement of prior security approval, without explicitly stating any of these measures.

Security approval and the ‘no-objection’ document

The Information Branch’s Letter No. 1040 appears problematic because it continues the trajectory followed since the fall of the Assad regime in December 2024, when real estate ownership transfers were subjected to various procedural changes.

Initially, all forms of ownership transfer were suspended, whether through direct sale (“faragha”) in the Land Registry, or judicial sale under a lawsuit to confirm a sale, or by a notarised power of attorney. This was to prevent supporters of the former regime from disposing of their properties, according to official statements.

Later, permission was granted for real estate transactions and some of the restrictive measures imposed by the transitional administration were removed. However, the requirement to obtain security approval remained in place until it was abolished in July 2025 under Ministry of Finance Circular No. 135, which replaced it with a “no-objection document for completing the real estate transaction” as a condition for obtaining the financial clearance required to conduct the faragha in the Land Registry.

The requirement to obtain the “no-objection document” was imposed to ensure that there were no precautionary seizure annotations or restraints on disposal for a given property, and that the property owner was not among the supporters of the Assad regime who were prohibited from disposing of their properties, according to official justifications. The “no-objection document” became necessary when conducting a faragha transaction and for obtaining financial clearance. However, this path differs from what is outlined in the Information Branch’s letter No. 1040, which pre-emptively identifies families whose members are prohibited from conducting any transaction without undergoing a personal security investigation.

Precautionary seizure

Letter No. 1040 did not impose precautionary seizure annotations on the property records of real estate owned by members of the above families, nor did it rely on the powers of the judicial police. Under the Assad regime, security agencies had the authority to request that the Ministry of Finance and the Directorate of Cadastral Affairs place precautionary seizure annotations, under the Law on Judicial Police Powers issued by Decree No. 63 of 2012.

Decree No. 16, issued on May 11, 2025, cancelled precautionary seizure decisions issued based on the instructions of security agencies to the Ministry of Finance between 2012 and 2024, in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 63 of 2012, without abolishing Law No. 63 itself.

Restraint on disposal

At first glance, the Information Branch’s letter No. 1040 appears similar to restraints on disposal, which restrict a property owner from undertaking any action (sale, mortgage, gift, or transfer of ownership) without obtaining prior security approval. However, the problem here is that imposing a restraint measure must rely on pre-existing laws that permit such imposition.

For example, Law No. 39 of 1986 prevents individuals allocated housing in social housing projects from disposing of their units until at least 15 years have passed since allocation, and after completing payment of the required installments. Likewise, the Forestry Law No. 39 of 2023 and its executive instructions required placing a restraint on disposal for privately owned burned forest lands. This annotation cannot be removed without the approval of the Ministry of Agriculture.

Conclusion

Letter No. 1040 reflects a departure from the legal logic applied even under the Assad regime, as it shifts from targeting individuals to targeting families as a single unit. This shift embodies a logic of collective punishment based on lineage and family affiliation, rather than on individual legal action. Although the transitional administration attempted to replace traditional security approvals with the no-objection document, letter No. 1040 reproduces those approvals in a broader and stricter form by creating pre-determined family lists that must undergo personal “security” investigation.

However, there is no legal basis for punishing families or depriving them of property rights because of the actions of some of their members, which renders the letter a step that falls outside, and contradicts, the procedures associated with transitional justice. More dangerously, it opens the door to repeating this model with other groups and expanding the scope of punishment to levels that may undermine the principles of equality before the law and restore security agencies to a central role in managing civilian life. Therefore, this situation must be addressed legislatively and judicially, ensuring that any restriction on property rights is issued solely by a judicial authority and based on proven individual responsibility, and not on the basis of family, sectarian, regional, or political affiliation.