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:

1. 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.
2. If the defendant is on trial while in custody before the Criminal Court but manages to escape before the judgment is issued.
3. 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.