Page 21 - MONACO LAW REVIEW 2025-2

MONACO LAW REVIEW | DECEMBER 2025 | SPECIAL REPORT
Thus, although evidentiary or asset-preservation seizures
do not need to be supported by a reasoned decision at the
time they are ordered, both factual and legal grounds must
be set out in the decision refusing to lift the seizure so that it
can be upheld. The diffi culty, depending on the stage of the
proceedings, lies in striking a fair balance between, on the
one hand, the defence’s right to receive suffi cient information
to enable it - and, where appropriate, the Court of Appeal - to
assess the lawfulness of the seizure, and, on the other hand,
the need to preserve the secrecy of the investigation by not
disclosing more information than is strictly necessary, so as
not to jeopardise ongoing inquiries.
II. Confi scation Seizure:
Article 596-1 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
Law No. 1.535 of 9 December 2022 on the seizure and
confiscation of the instruments and proceeds of crime
amended the wording of Article 596-1 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The provision, now found in Title X entitled “On
the seizure of assets liable to confiscation” (previously “On seizure in
matters of money laundering”), provides that “the seizure of assets
liable to confiscation may be ordered, after consultation with the
Public Prosecutor, by a reasoned decision of the Investigating Judge
or the trial court.”
The assets liable to a special seizure under Article 596-1 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure are those that may be confiscated
under Article 12 of the Criminal Code.
Read together, these provisions show that the sole purpose of
this type of seizure is to ensure, from the judicial investigation
stage onwards, the effective enforcement of confiscation orders.
Its evidentiary function has disappeared entirely, giving way
to a measure designed to safeguard assets with a view to their
possible confiscation. At the same time, the scope of assets
liable to confiscation has been considerably expanded, as it is
now possible to confiscate (and therefore, prior to that, to seize)
assets having no link with the offence, first where neither their
owner nor the convicted person is able to justify their origin, and
secondly through value-based seizures. These latter measures
are particularly suited to money-laundering proceedings, as
they enable the seizure of funds or assets - even if lawfully
acquired - for an amount equivalent to the illicit proceeds of the
predicate offence.
Orders for seizure issued by the Investigating Judge must be
reasoned and notified to the interested parties and to the Public
Prosecutor, and - in addition to service on the owners and on
any third parties holding or claiming rights over the asset,
where known - must be served upon them. In practice, such
orders are issued during the judicial investigation, once the
inquiries have progressed sufficiently to allow the authorities
to quantify the benefit derived from the predicate offence or to
trace the financial flows.
Given the complexity and deliberate opacity of the arrangements
devised by offenders in money-laundering cases, and the
international dimension that these files often present, seizures
are frequently carried out urgently at the opening of proceedings
on the basis of Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and
are then consolidated in the course of the judicial investigation
by orders issued under Article 596-1. The advantage of this
shift is that the seized assets may be retained throughout the
proceedings, until a final confiscation order is made at trial, the
text providing that “the seizure order shall remain in force for as
long as necessary to preserve the assets for their possible subsequent
confiscation”, unless an order lifting the seizure is issued.
Given the financial stakes - the total value of seizures ordered by
the three investigating chambers currently exceeds half a billion
euros - recent years have seen a proliferation of challenges
seeking to deprive the seizures of their effect, generating
increasingly time-consuming litigation for both the Investigating
Judges and the appellate court.
Parties or third parties to the proceedings may appeal both
the initial seizure order, within ten days of its notification
or service, and any orders made in response to applications
for full or partial release (lodged under the conditions laid
down in Article 105 of the Code of Criminal Procedure),
within fifteen days.
Finally, in the absence of a final confiscation order, the
lifting of the seizure ordered is automatic.
In conclusion, criminal seizures serve a dual purpose: the
preservation of evidence (seizure of objects or documents
necessary for the investigation) and the guarantee of the
effective enforcement of penalties (blocking of assets - bank
accounts, real estate, vehicles, etc. - in order to prevent their
destruction, concealment or disposal until their definitive
confiscation is ordered).
19