precautionary_seizure – Syria Report

Posts

Social Insurance Body Willing ‘to Seize Everything’ to Recover Debt

06-08-2024/in HLP, News /by Rand Shamaa

The Syrian authorities continue their practice of making provisional seizures a routine procedure that any public institution or entity can impose on its debtors, rather than limiting it to judicial action. This time, the General Organisation for Social Insurance (GOSI), also known as the Social Security Organisation, is targeting with provisional seizures those who failed to pay taxes and fines due to GOSI, despite a clear law granting them a deadline until the end of this year to pay.

After a ten-day grace period that ended in mid-July, the Rural Damascus branch of the GOSI began imposing travel bans and administrative seizures on the assets and properties of 6,383 traders and industrialists from the private sector due to delays in paying GOSI the monthly instalments for workers officially registered in their establishments. An administrative seizure is a precautionary asset seizure that some ministries and their institutions can impose without judicial oversight.

The GOSI, which falls under the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour, has a board of directors and a general manager, with its headquarters in Damascus and branches in the governorates. The GOSI requires mandatory insurance for workers and employees in both the public and private sectors to protect their rights in cases of disability, old age, and risks. By the end of 2020, the number of workers registered with GOSI reached 1.03 million in the public sector and 850,000 in the private sector.

Since 2021, the general administration of the GOSI has demanded all its branches take immediate and urgent measures to collect its debts. Between 2021 and June 2024, 15,138 administrative seizure decisions were reached in favour of GOSI, and 7,160 warnings were issued, according to an article published by Qasioun newspaper (mouthpiece of the People’s Will Party) on June 6. The newspaper also reported that GOSI’s debts amounted to SYP 216.7 billion from public entities and SYP 26 billion from the private sector by the end of 2020.

The Director General of GOSI, Jaafar Al-Skaf, told the official Tishreen newspaper on July 2, that the measures taken against those who fail to pay their debts to GOSI begin with travel bans and the imposition of administrative seizures on their properties. These administrative seizure decisions are then disseminated through the national system for provisional seizure orders. To lift the administrative seizure, the debts, along with fines amounting to 6 percent and interest on delayed payments, must be paid. In a departure from all institutional and legal norms, Mr Al-Skaf said: “We will seize everything to recover our debts.” He threatened that if these debts were not paid, the provisional seizure would be turned into an executive seizure, and the properties would be sold at public auctions.

The grace period, warnings, and subsequent administrative seizure and travel ban procedures directed at those who fail to pay their instalments and fines are entirely at odds with Law No. 13 of 2024. This law, issued by the President in April, grants applicants to GOSI an exemption from interest, fines, and additional amounts if they pay their dues by the end of this year. The grace period provided by Law No. 13 of 2024 for late payers to settle their dues without penalties does not end until December 31, 2024.

Social Insurance Law No. 92 of 1959 and its amendments, which govern the operation of GOSI, grants GOSI the right to exercise the powers conferred on the competent financial authorities under the Public Funds Collection Law against delinquent applicants.

According to Law No. 92 of 1959, insurance is mandatory for both the employer and the worker, and any agreement to the contrary is not permitted. The main resources of social insurance funds come from contributions paid jointly by the employer and the worker, or solely by the employer. The contributions owed to GOSI by the employer and the worker are distributed as follows: the worker pays 7 percent of their monthly wage, while the employer pays 14 percent of the wages of their workers for old age, disability, and death insurance, and 3 percent of the wages of their workers for work injury insurance.

Explained: Seizing Assets of Defendants Convicted in Absentia

23-07-2024/in Analysis & Features, HLP /by Rand Shamaa

On October 11, 2023, the Second Criminal Court in Damascus issued a judgment against Palestinian-Syrian Oussama Ahmed Majdalawi, convicting him of the felony of possessing drugs with the intent to use. He was sentenced to three years in prison, fined SYP 500,000 and subjected to civil forfeiture, in accordance with Articles 328 and 329 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Since he remains at large, the court ordered the seizure of his assets and properties.

Mr Majdalawi is not the first to be tried in absentia and have his property seized; thousands of such judgments against fugitives from the law are published in the Official Gazette. What is noteworthy in Majdalawi’s case is that he is not convicted of “terrorism,” possession of smuggled goods with intent to trade, or possession of drugs with intent to traffic, which are the most frequent charges in such cases. Instead, his charge is possession of drugs with the intent to use, which highlights the regime is willing to go to seize properties. The Syrian law, in accordance with the provisions of Article 329, allows the seizure of the property of a person convicted in absentia of any felony of a criminal nature.

A felony is defined as any serious crime designated as such by the Penal Code, carrying a minimum sentence of three years imprisonment. Article 328 of the Criminal Code stipulates that the judgment against a fugitive requires their property to be managed according to the procedures for managing absentee property and not handed over to them or their rightful heirs, such as their children, until the in absentia judgment is overturned. Article 329 involves the procedures for publishing the summary of the judgment and notifying the Land Registry and the General Commission for the Management and Protection of State Properties (GCMPST).

Syrian law does not allow a lawyer to represent a defendant in absentia, whether the charge is a felony or a misdemeanor. The defendant must personally appear before the court and attend all sessions until the judgment is issued, after which a lawyer may accompany them for representation. A defendant is considered a fugitive from the law and is tried and sentenced in absentia under the following circumstances:

If the defendant cannot be apprehended after the referral judge issues a decision to transfer the case to the Criminal Court for an in absentia trial. The referral judge is the higher authority over the investigating judge, handling cases concluded by the investigating judge to decide either to dismiss the case or issue an indictment and refer the defendant to the Criminal Court.
If the defendant is on trial while in custody before the Criminal Court but manages to escape before the judgment is issued.
If the defendant is released by the Criminal Court but then fails to attend subsequent sessions.

In the aforementioned cases, the Criminal Court takes measures against the fugitive as a means of pressuring them to surrender. These measures include stripping them of civil rights such as voting, standing for elections, engaging in real estate transactions, registering civil status events, and obtaining personal documents. Additionally, the court prevents the fugitive from disposing of their property by having the Attorney General send a letter to the Land Registry to place a precautionary seizure mark on their properties.

After the trial concludes and an in absentia judgment is issued for the committed felony, the defendant’s assets and properties remain seized as long as they remain at large. This precautionary seizure does not mean that ownership transfers to the state or that the assets are directly confiscated. Instead, the Sharia court appoints a guardian to manage the defendant’s assets and properties without the right to sell them. The management of the absentee’s assets falls under the jurisdiction of the Sharia judge according to Personal Status Law No. 59 of 1953, which is not within the authority of the Criminal Court, which prosecutes criminal offenses.

The convicted person can reclaim their assets if the in absentia judgment is overturned. This judgment is nullified only after the defendant is acquitted in a retrial following their capture or voluntary surrender. At that point, all judicial procedures issued in absentia, including the asset seizure, are annulled, and the properties are returned to the defendant by the guardian.

However, if the convicted person remains a fugitive, their assets and properties are not seized indefinitely. In this case, the judgment expires after the statute of limitations, as specified in Article 162 of Penal Code No. 148 of 1949.

The statute of limitations is 25 years for crimes of premeditated murder or drug trafficking, which are punishable by death or life imprisonment. For severe felonies punishable by temporary imprisonment, the statute of limitations is double the sentence duration, with a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of 20 years. For instance, if an in absentia judgment imposes a temporary imprisonment of seven years, the statute of limitations would be 14 years.

For less severe criminal cases, the statute of limitations is always 10 years. For example, if the Criminal Court sentences an absent defendant to 3 years in prison for the felony of drug possession with intent to use, based on Article 43 of Drug Law No. 2 of 1993, the statute of limitations in this case would be 10 years.

The statute of limitations is calculated from the date the judgment is issued. However, it can be interrupted if the convicted person is apprehended or if the court takes any judicial action against the convicted person, such as searching their home or issuing a warrant for their arrest. In such cases, the statute of limitations is reset and begins anew.

Once the statute of limitations is complete, the criminal judgment is nullified, the penalty is not enforced, and retrial is not permitted. At this point, the convicted person has the right to request the court to lift the precautionary seizure on their properties in the real estate registry, return their seized funds, and release the guardian, who must then provide an account of their management of the convicted person’s assets and properties.

Furthermore, the seizure of a convicted person’s properties in absentia does not affect the rights of others. If a judgment for seizure is issued on the defendant’s assets, including inherited property where they share ownership with others, the court can impose a precautionary seizure only on the defendant’s share as determined by the inheritance certificate. One of the heirs may file a lawsuit for partition in the Civil Reconciliation Court in their area against the other heirs, including the guardian representing the convicted person in absentia. The guardian then manages the convicted person’s share as part of their duties.

New Decision Excludes Non-compliant Contractors from Engaging with Public Authorities

02-07-2024/in HLP, News /by Rand Shamaa

On March 14, the Syrian Prime Minister issued Decision No. 11 outlining the mechanism for issuing exclusion decisions against any investor or contractor found to have violated the terms of contracts made with public authorities. Exclusion means preventing the investor or contractor from obtaining contracts to execute projects with public authorities for the duration of the exclusion period.

Decision No. 11 of 2024 does not explicitly mention construction contractors, but they are implicitly included under the category of contractors. A contractor is someone who enters into a contract with a public authority to meet its needs in various fields, while a construction contractor is a specialist in construction works registered with the Construction Contractors Syndicate.

According to the decision, the exclusion measure is applied if a final judicial ruling, an oversight report, or a final arbitration decision establishes a violation of contract terms. Subsequently, the relevant ministry submits a request for exclusion to the Prime Minister’s Office. The exclusion decision is then issued solely by the Prime Minister’s Office, stating the reasons and duration of the exclusion. Before Decision No. 11 of 2024, ministers had the authority to issue exclusion decisions for contractors who violated contract terms with their ministries, under Law No. 51 of 2004 concerning the public contract system and its executive instructions.

The contractual relationships between contractors, construction contractors, and investors with public authorities are governed by Law No. 51 of 2004 concerning the public contract system, its amendments, and its executive instructions. There are six methods of contracting between the parties: direct purchase, tender, request for proposals, competition, negotiated contract, and execution of works on trust.

Law No. 51 of 2004 did not expand on the penalties resulting from breaches of contracts, instead designating the administrative judiciary as the competent authority to resolve disputes related to contracts with public authorities. The law also allowed for arbitration in disputes, following the procedures used in administrative judiciary. It permitted the selection of a specific arbitration body for foreign contracts.

Law No. 51 did not regulate the contractual relationship between contractors and the private sector. Therefore, it is notable that Prime Ministerial Decision No. 11 of2024 also stipulates the exclusion of contractors who violate the terms of contracts with private sector establishments, institutions, or companies. However, the text of Decision No. 11 does not clarify the mechanism for excluding contractors in this case or the legal basis for it.

Additionally, under Decision No. 11 of 2024, exclusion decisions must be published in the Official Gazette and through the National System for Precautionary Seizure Orders (NSPSO), an electronic system that covers all precautionary measures, such as precautionary seizure, compulsory insurance, and other measures that restrict property transactions. These measures are issued by competent authorities as precautionary steps to protect public funds. After the issuance of final judicial rulings that are not subject to appeal and include the confiscation of the convicted parties’ assets, the Ministry of Justice circulates these rulings through the NSPSO, enabling their conversion from precautionary to executive seizure. The aim of using the NSPSO is to replace paper circulars with electronic ones, facilitating their accessibility to relevant authorities.

According to Decision No. 11 of 2024, the seizure of the contractor’s or investor’s property through the NSPSO will be automatic upon the issuance of the exclusion decision by the Prime Minister. However, the relationship between precautionary seizure and exclusion decisions, even if based on a final judicial ruling, oversight report, or final arbitration ruling proving contract violations, is unclear. A breach of contract terms does not automatically warrant precautionary seizure. Therefore, there is no direct connection between exclusion decisions and precautionary seizure.

There are two types of precautionary seizure: judicial and administrative. Judicial precautionary seizure is issued by ordinary courts based on personal lawsuits or official entities with a financial basis or results in financial consequences, such as cases of debt and tax evasion. Administrative precautionary seizure can be imposed by certain ministries under Decree No. 12 of 1953. This includes the precautionary seizure of the property of municipal employees, officials overseeing municipal affairs, and employees in all state departments and public institutions, to secure compensation for losses and damages caused to public funds. The property of employees’ spouses can also be seized.

Under Legislative Decree No. 177 of 1969, administrative precautionary seizure can be imposed on the property of non-employees and their spouses. In 2022, the Minister of Public Works and Housing, following a proposal from the Construction Contractors Syndicate, requested the Ministry of Finance (in letter No. 2968, referencing the Syndicate’s letter No. 264) to exempt the monthly financial statements due to contractors even if the contractor is subject to precautionary seizure. These monthly statements are the payments due to the contractor from public authorities for completed stages of work. This exemption ensures that contractors can continue to fulfill their contracts with public authorities, even if their property is under precautionary seizure, whether due to issues related to the same contract or previous contracts. Failure to pay these statements would halt the contractor’s work, preventing public authorities from suing them since they would be responsible for the non-performance.

Additionally, the Construction Contractors Syndicate‘s Regulation No. 9 of 2014 outlined five reasons for excluding a contractor from the syndicate, four of which are related to conduct: breaching professional ethics, undermining the dignity of a syndicate member, failing to perform syndicate duties, and not informing the syndicate of ongoing work. The fifth reason is wasting public funds, which was not clearly defined in Law No. 9 of 2014. Exclusion from the syndicate prevents a contractor from working in both the public and private sectors, as they lose the official status required to practice the profession.

The Construction Contractors Syndicate can issue exclusion decisions through its Disciplinary Council, composed of the branch head, a judge appointed by the Minister of Justice, and a syndicate member. The council can revoke a contractor’s membership. In both cases, exclusion and revocation, the contractor cannot enter into contracts with public authorities until the exclusion period ends or they regain their syndicate membership.

Dozens of Properties in Zakia, Rural Damascus Hit with Precautionary Seizure

14-05-2024/in HLP, News /by Rand Shamaa

In March, the Ministry of Finance issued precautionary seizure orders on the properties of dozens of individuals from Zakia, a town in the Rural Damascus governorate. These orders appear to be aimed at punishing entire families, in response to armed confrontations that occurred in August 2023 between some family members and local armed groups affiliated with the Fourth Division, the regime’s most influential force.

Zakia, part of the Kisweh, a Damascus suburb located south of the capital, borders the governorates of Daraa and Quneitra. Before 2011, the town had a population of around 20,000. Since the 1990s, many of its youth have migrated to Lebanon to work in construction. Zakia is known for its Shamsin and Tuffaha bakeries, which have branches in Aleppo and Damascus as well as in Lebanon. Due to close kinship ties and intermarriage in the region, residents of Zakia also own properties in neighbouring villages and towns such as Shaqhab, Ayn Al-Sawda, Ayn Al-Bayda, Deir Khabiya, and Manshiyat Khan Al-Sheeh. They also own properties, although to a lesser extent, in Kanaker, Sasa, Mazraat Al-Nafoor and Hawsh Al-Nafoor.

From 2012 to 2016, Zakia was under the control of the armed opposition, primarily by the Liwaa Al-Adiyat. A reconciliation agreement with the regime included the surrender of the opposition’s arms, the settlement of their statuses, and the forced displacement of those who rejected the agreement, without regime forces entering the town. Dozens of opposition fighters who refused forced displacement remained in the town. This gave the reconciliation in the area a unique character, which continued to result in tensions with regime forces that infiltrated the town by forming local militias loyal to them. Currently, Zakia’s population is approximately 40,000, including displaced persons from nearby areas where the regime restricts the return of residents, such as Darayya.

The precautionary seizure orders were assigned numbers 449 and 558. According to their annotations, these orders are based on the Law of Judicial Police Authority, issued under Legislative Decree No. 63 of 2012, Decree No. 208 of 2021 forming Hussein Arnous’ government, and Decree No. 1684 of 1977 which regulates the operations and structure of the Ministry of Finance. The annotations also mention a decision, numbered 573, issued on March 21, 2023, which delegates powers without specifying the issuing authority or the nature of these powers.

These precautionary seizure orders also reference two communications from the General Intelligence Directorate “State Security”; the first, numbered 2331 dated February 13, 2024, and the second, numbered 2943 dated February 25, 2024, both directed to Branch 285 of the General Intelligence Directorate headquartered in the security zone in the Kafr Sousseh neighbourhood of Damascus.

Under Law No. 63 of 2012, judicial police authorities can formally request the Minister of Finance to take precautionary measures on the properties of the accused during investigations of crimes against internal or external state security, and offences listed in the Anti-Terrorism Law No. 19 of 2012. This law also grants the Public Prosecutor and the investigating judge the right to impose such precautionary measures during the prosecution of the case, including travel bans, until a final judicial verdict is issued.

The seizure orders concluded with a statement indicating that the precautionary seizure of these properties was due to the individuals’ involvement in “ongoing events in the country.”

According to a correspondent for The Syria Report, these precautionary seizure orders affected dozens of former opponents accused of participating in armed clashes with local militias loyal to the regime, as well as their wives, children, and family members. Local estimates suggest these individuals own tens of hectares of agricultural land and about 200 traditional homes, with most properties officially registered in their names at the real estate authorities.

These lists included first and second-degree relatives of opposition members who participated in an armed clash that erupted in August 2023, with a local armed group led by Muawiya Taama, affiliated with the Fourth Division. First-degree relatives include parents, spouses, and children, while second-degree relatives encompass grandparents, siblings, and grandchildren. The clash was triggered by Mr Taama’s group assassinating a former fighter from the Liwaa Al-Adiyat, which resulted in the deaths of two members from Mr Taama’s group, the burning of the houses, and expulsion of some of its members from the city.

Interestingly, the lists also included names of individuals belonging to local groups under the Fourth Division who did not participate in the armed encounters, as well as some conscripts in mandatory or reserve military service from the town. According to our correspondent, Mr Taama, who remains banned from Zakia to this day, used his influence at the security office of the Fourth Division to include the names of his opponents and also his rivals from other loyalist armed groups on the precautionary seizure lists.

Our correspondent mentioned that a local Fourth Division group leader, whose name was on the list, accidentally discovered a precautionary seizure on one of his properties while trying to sell it and transfer ownership in the real estate registry. Upon discovering this, he approached the Fourth Division office near Sumeria, west of Damascus, where an officer informed him that the precautionary seizure was based on lists provided by Muawiya Taama and Mahmoud AbdulMawla Taama, another group leader of the Fourth Division in Zakia, to the division’s security office, a month after the August 2023 clash.

Notably, after the clash, a settlement was conducted at the end of December 2023 for those wanted in the city, including all participants in the confrontation with the Fourth Division group. This settlement was overseen by Branch 227, which is responsible for the city’s security and is part of the Military Intelligence Directorate, as well as by the Air Force Intelligence branch. This settlement was supposed to eliminate the pursuit of those who participated, but this did not happen.

Our correspondent reported that notable figures from the city contacted the heads of the security agencies responsible for the area, requesting them to lift the precautionary seizures which had been imposed as a form of collective punishment. These requests were made through the local branch of the Military Security Directorate and of the Baath Party, which conveyed the community leaders’ demands for lifting the seizures after the participants in the recent fighting had complied with the settlement. The heads of these agencies promised to work on this issue in the near future.

Explained: Damascus Eases Security Restrictions on Real Estate Transactions

02-04-2024/in Analysis & Features, HLP /by Rand Shamaa

A letter from the Office of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, No. 3039/1, issued on March 6, maintains the requirement for security approvals on certain real estate transactions “for the time being,” but has eased some of its other requirements and effects.

Pre-approval from the security services is a condition for the notarisation of real estate sales and general power of attorney transactions performed before a notary public. This security approval is issued by the Political Security Division of the Ministry of Interior and is considered an unlawful restriction on the property’s ownership right.

The Political Security Division can grant or deny the security approval for the person concerned with the real estate transaction. Security approval can be denied for various reasons, such as if the person concerned is wanted for investigation or arrest by one of the branches of the security agencies. Technically, this security request is an illegal procedure, because it is not based on a search warrant issued by the judicial police for a clear charge. Instead, the request for investigation or arrest may just be a malicious report filed against the person by a security informant, or due to a name similarity, or even due to other restraints on Disposal of the person’s property. In the event of an absentia conviction for a felony on the person concerned, or by the Antiterrorism Court, the Ministry of Finance imposes a precautionary seizure on their movable and immovable properties.

Letter No. 3039/1, marked “confidential and urgent,” is directed to the Ministries of Interior, Public Works and Housing, Finance, Justice, Local Administration and Environment, and is based on another letter, number 054/3, issued on February 29 by the National Security Office, a body affiliated with the Presidential Palace.

The format of Letter No. 3039/1 is similar to internal official confidential correspondences, some of which were leaked to the media. These included the implementation of gradual restrictions on real estate transactions since the early months of the Syrian uprising in 2011. This began with circular No. 85 dated June 15, 2011 from the the General Directorate of Cadastral Affairs, which agreed with the content of a letter from the Office of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, i.e., the Prime Ministry, No. 1355 dated June 8, 2011, regarding the requirement for prior security approval on specific real estate transactions. The exact nature of these transactions was not clarified. However, the requirement for prior security approval on real estate sales and permanent lease contracts (known as furoogh contracts in Arabic), in all zoned and unzoned areas, was added through circular No. 463 from the the General Directorate of Cadastral Affairs issued on August 12, 2015, which agreed with the content of a letter from the Office of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers No. 4554 issued on August 4, 2015. Circular No. 463 stated that the purpose of requiring prior security approval was “to ensure the legal and security rights of citizens, and those wishing to sell their properties or transfer them to others.”

In September 2021, the Ministry of Justice issued Circular No. 30, which linked the issuance of a judicial mandate to manage the assets of absent or missing people to the condition of obtaining the necessary prior security approval. In August 2022, the Ministry of Justice issued Circular No. 22, making obtaining security approval a condition for completing procedures for death declaration cases in Sharia courts.

What is new in Letter No. 3039/1 is the emphasis on the Political Security Division to justify the reasons for not granting security approval, with the aim of “allowing citizens to review the relevant authorities and properly address their situations.” The letter also called on the Political Security Division to ensure that the procedure of refusal applies only to the concerned individual, without affecting their family; parents, spouse, and siblings. Prior to this, the Political Security Division would refuse to grant security approval to all relatives of the concerned individual.

Letter No. 3039/1 also stated that the decision to grant or deny security approval should be made within a timeframe not exceeding 48 hours.

In cases where security approval is denied for an individual who owns a share in a commonly owned property, this should not affect the shares of the other partners, who should still be able to sell their shares and proceed with the termination of the common property, with the restriction remaining only on the share of the individual concerned. Previously, the denial of security approval for one individual would halt all real estate transactions for all partners.

Furthermore, the denial of security approval for the individual concerned no longer affects the shares of others in profit-sharing and joint venture agreements. These contracts serve as investment agreements between the owners of a property and its investors, with rights and responsibilities for all parties defined by the profit-sharing or partnership agreement.

The same principle now applies in the case of voluntary partition, an agreement among all partners in a property to exit the state of common ownership and divide the property among themselves by mutual consent. If one of them objects, judicial partition can be pursued through a lawsuit to end the common ownership. The inability of one of the partners to obtain security approval no longer prevents the possibility of voluntary partition of the property and exiting the state of common ownership among partners. Previously, the denial of security approval for one of the partners would stop the entire voluntary partition process.

Also, the refusal to grant security approval to the individual concerned is no longer an obstacle to the transfer of rights through inheritance to the rest of the heirs. This includes the inheritance of properties and real estate rights, such as the right to dispose of Amiri lands. It has become possible to proceed with the transfer of inheritance from the deceased to the heirs, even if one of them has not received security approval. Previously, the failure of one of the heirs to obtain security approval prevented the process of inheritance inventory.

In cases where a property is commonly owned by individuals, among whom some are unable to obtain security approval, within areas subjected to zoning, development, or urban planning laws, or real estate investment regulations, this is no longer considered an obstacle as per the new letter. It is now possible to include the property in the project, while maintaining a provisional seizure mark on the share of the individual concerned.

Explained: New Law for Managing Funds Confiscated via Judicial Rulings

05-12-2023/in Analysis & Features, HLP /by Rand Shamaa

The Parliament approved a bill on November 30 granting the Presidency of the Council of Ministers the authority to manage movable and immovable assets confiscated under final judicial rulings. The bill will now be sent to the President for ratification, issuance, and subsequent publication in the Official Gazette.

The bill stipulates that confiscating assets and properties must be based on a final, unappealable ruling. That is, if the judgement were appealable, the transfer of ownership from the defendant to the state cannot be executed.

The law has not yet been published. Official media only published some articles about it. According to the available information, the bill could target political opponents accused of “terrorism” in special courts. The assets of these accused are provisionally seized then confiscated under judgments issued by the Antiterrorism Court, established under Law No. 22 of 2012. This court has the authority to issue judgments, either in the presence or absence of the defendant, whereby it confiscates all movable and immovable properties of the defendant. The legal norms of litigation do not bind the Antiterrorism Court, and its judgments lack the necessary guarantees for fair trials.

This new law also could apply to verdicts issued by criminal courts that order the confiscation of movable and immovable assets, regardless of the nature of the case. This appears in harmony with the official statements that indicated that those convicted of corruption cases may be included in this law.

This new bill differentiates between properties located within and outside zoning plans in managing real estate assets. Within zoning plans, the responsibility of managing these properties lies with the Ministry of Finance, which also has the authority to manage movable assets, shares, or stakes in a company. The Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform will manage properties outside of zoning plans.

The law stipulates that the Prime Minister is empowered to issue a decision, upon the request of the relevant minister, to transfer the ownership of confiscated movable and immovable assets to public entities. If the beneficiary public entity is administrative, i.e., a public facility based on public service, such as a municipality or a government department, no fees, taxes, or other compensation are owed. If the beneficiary public entity is of an economic nature, i.e., a public sector company engaged in commercial, agricultural, industrial or financial activities, then a financial compensation has to be paid to the public treasury.

The Prime Minister can allocate a portion of seized properties to any public entity upon the request of the relevant minister.

The new law gives the Council of Ministers the authority to issue a special system or executive instructions based on the Ministers of Finance and Agriculture proposal. This will include defining the mechanism for managing, investing, transferring ownership and allocating these movable and immovable assets transferred to the state.

This new law applies retroactively, meaning it applies even if the confiscation occurred under judgments issued before the enactment of this law. The final article of the law states that “without prejudice to the rights accrued to others under the effective laws and without affecting them, the provisions of this law shall apply to movable and immovable assets confiscated under a final judicial ruling, whether the ruling was issued before or after the enactment of this law.” This contradicts a well-known principle in criminal law, which prohibits the retrospective application of criminal and penal provisions and requires immediate application to subsequent instances only.

Article 10, paragraph 1 of the Syrian Penal Code states: “Any new law that amends the method of executing a punishment in a way that changes its nature shall not apply to acts committed before its enforcement unless it is more favourable to the defendant or the convict.” This means that the retrospective effect of the new law in procedural matters is only permissible if it benefits the convict. However, the new law stipulates its retrospective application despite being against the interests of the convict.