Page 22 - MONACO LAW REVIEW 2025-2

Asset Seizure: A Developing
Area of Case Law
Francis JULLEMIER-MILLASSEAU
Francis JULLEMIER-MILLASSEAU
First President of the Court of Appeal
First President of the Court of Appeal
Appeals Against Seizure Measures
It is the Court of Appeal sitting in camera that hears appeals
relating to asset seizures.
• Evidentiary seizure (Article 100 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure). An appeal must be lodged in accordance with
Article 105 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides
that “any person claiming a right over an object placed under
judicial control may request its return from the Investigating Judge
and lodge an appeal against the decision issued on that application
within fi fteen days of its notifi cation.”
• Application for the lifting of a seizure (Article 100 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure). The Investigating Judge must
rule by a reasoned order within two months. This decision
may be appealed within fi fteen days. If the judge has not ruled
within the two-month period, the applicant may, by simple
petition, refer the matter to the Court of Appeal sitting in
camera, which then rules in the judge’s place.
• Confi scation Seizure (article 596-1 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure). The seizure of assets liable to confi scation may
be ordered, after consultation with the Public Prosecutor,
by a reasoned decision of the Investigating Judge or the trial
court. The decision is notifi ed to the interested parties and
to the Public Prosecutor, and served on the owners and any
third parties holding or claiming rights over the asset, where
known. An appeal against the seizure order may be lodged
within ten days of notifi cation or service.
20
• Seizure during the preliminary investigation or in cases
of fl agrante delicto (Article 596-1 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure). Without prejudice to the opposition procedure
provided for in Article 37 of Law No. 1.362 of 3 August 2009,
as amended, the Public Prosecutor may order the provisional
seizure of assets liable to confi scation under the same
conditions. On pain of nullity, the Liberty and Custody Judge,
seized by petition from the Public Prosecutor within fi fteen
days from the seizure measure, must rule by a reasoned order
on whether to maintain or lift the seizure within fi ve days
of the petition. In all cases, where their identity is known,
service on the owners and on any third parties holding or
claiming rights over the asset shall be carried out, at the
request of the Investigating Judge, the Liberty and Custody
Judge or the trial court, by the Public Prosecutor’s Offi ce. It
should be noted that there is no time limit for service of the
seizure. An appeal against the seizure order may be lodged
within ten days of notifi cation or service.
• Seizures carried out pursuant to international mutual
legal assistance. Under Article 596-13 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, appeals against measures executed on
Monegasque territory in response to an MLA request (Mutual
Legal Assistance request) must be lodged before the Court of
Appeal sitting in camera within two months of the date on
which the Public Prosecutor’s Offi ce receives the documents
evidencing the execution of the request. Notifi cation of the
seizure is therefore not the starting point of the appeal period.
Information and Documents Accessible to
the Appellant
For seizures ordered under Article 100 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the fi nal paragraph of Article 105 provides that the
third party has the right to be heard before the Court of Appeal
sitting in camera and to submit observations. The third party
may only request access to the documents relating specifi cally
to the seizure.
For seizures ordered under Article 596-1 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the text provides that “third parties to the
proceedings may request access to the documents relating to the
seizure that concerns them.”
Limiting access to the documents relating solely to the seizure
does not breach the principles of adversarial proceedings or
equality of arms, as “disclosure of the documents from the seizure
proceedings alone is suffi cient to enable review of the lawfulness of
the measure from a formal standpoint.”
In the context of measures executed pursuant to an MLA
request (Mutual Legal Assistance request) on Monegasque
territory, any person affected by such measures has the right
to seek judicial review of their formal regularity.