Page 38 - MONACO LAW REVIEW 2025-2

COURTROOM
INSIGHTS
M. Yves STRICKLER, Scientifi c Director of the Monegasque Institute for Training in the Legal
Professions; Professor, Université Côte d’Azur
M. Laurent LEMESLE, Vice-President of the Court of Revision
M. François-Xavier LUCAS, Counsellor at the Court of Revision; Professor, Université Paris I
Mme Aline BROUSSE, Senior Judge at the Court of First Instance
Mme Delphine LANZARA, Policy Offi cer, Department of Justice
M. Samy DOUIDER, Section Head, Department of Justice
Appeal in the Interests of the Law: the
Court of Revision Clarifies the General
Regime Governing Criminal Seizures
Court of Revision, 11 November 2025
Case No. 2025/49 – Appeal No. 2025/000049
BACKGROUND:
In the course of a judicial investigation opened against X for,
inter alia, money laundering, several seizures were carried
out at the registered offi ce of a company and at the home
of its director. The latter applied for the return of the items
seized at her residence. The investigating judges ordered
the release of the seizures, save for those relating to certain
jewellery. On appeal by the person concerned, the Court of
Appeal sitting in camera ordered the return of the jewellery.
The Prosecutor General then lodged an appeal, in the sole
interests of the law, against that decision.
ANALYSIS:
In ordering the return of the jewellery, the Court of Appeal
sitting in camera held, fi rst, that maintaining the seizure was
no longer necessary for the purposes of establishing the truth,
and second, that the statutory presumption of unlawfulness
applicable to seized assets, provided for by Article 218-4 of
the Criminal Code, did not apply to persons who were not
parties to the proceedings.
The Prosecutor General challenged both strands of reasoning:
First, he submitted that the Court of Appeal ought to have
assessed the necessity of maintaining the seizure not only
in light of the needs of the investigation, but also in order
to prevent the dissipation of assets constituting the object,
proceeds or instrumentalities of the alleged offences; in
substance, the necessity of maintaining the seizure had to be
reviewed with a view to possible future confi scation; Second,
he argued that nothing in Article 218-4 restricted the statutory
presumption solely to the parties to the proceedings.
The Court of Revision accepted both arguments, thereby
providing useful clarifi cation of the legal framework
governing seizures.
SIGNIFICANCE:
1. The obligation for trial judges to assess whether a seizure
remains necessary not only for the purposes of the ongoing
investigation but also in view of a possible future confi scation
now stems from the amendments introduced by the Laws
of 9 December 2022 and 7 December 2023 in Articles 81-7-
3 and 596-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This dual
assessment had already been applied by the Court of Revision
in a decision of 19 December 2024 (Case No. 2024/63).
The specifi c feature of the present case, and what gives the
decision its signifi cance, is that the seizures pre-dated those
legislative amendments and were therefore not governed by
them. The Court nevertheless held that the rule applies to all
criminal seizures, irrespective of the date on which they were
carried out.
2. Whether the statutory presumption of unlawfulness
applies regardless of the individual’s procedural status had
not yet been expressly confi rmed in the case law. The Court
of Revision held that, although Article 218-4 of the Criminal
Code imposes substantive conditions linked to the origin of
the assets concerned, it lays down no condition relating to
the role of the person from whom the property is seized. By
excluding the presumption in the present case on the ground
that the person involved was only a witness, the Court of
Appeal added a requirement that the law does not contain.
Because the appeal was brought in the sole interests of the
law, the decision has no effect on the underlying proceedings.
It nonetheless clarifi es the framework governing seizures and
36