The Crown Prince warns buyers of confiscated property: what are the hidden legal consequences of these transactions? S. Rouzbeh ۱۴۰۵/۰۲/۲۸ The article examines the legal and financial risks of buying property seized by the Islamic Republic, including challenges to confiscation orders and the difficulty of claiming good faith after public warnings. S. Rouzbeh – Can a government seize and confiscate a person’s home, bank account and assets solely on the basis of an Instagram post, a media interview or support for popular protests? Are journalism, speaking to the media, supporting protests or criticising the government considered “security offences” in today’s world, with the result that people’s property is confiscated and their families threatened? And the more important question: why is Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi now publicly warning buyers not to enter into these transactions? Behind this warning lies not merely a political stance, but a profound legal, economic and even historical concern. In recent years, the Islamic Republic has taken cases involving the seizure and confiscation of property to a new level. The issue is no longer confined to the capitalists of the Revolution’s first decade. Journalists, athletes, artists, media figures and even social media users may now face frozen accounts, seized property and security cases because of their support for protests or cooperation with media outlets. For example, reports have been published about the seizure of Ali Karimi’s properties and assets. Official media have also reported the prosecution of, and seizure of property belonging to, hundreds of journalists and staff at Persian-language media outlets based abroad. The government cites laws such as Article 49 of the Constitution, security laws, the Anti-Money Laundering Act and various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to justify these actions. But the central issue is that many of these cases have not been based on violence or armed action, but on the criminalisation of belief, the media, protest and the expression of political views. In many countries around the world, journalism, criticism of the government, support for protests and media activity are not crimes or security offences. For this reason, many legal experts believe that such rulings could face serious legal challenges in the future, particularly if Iran’s legal and judicial system undergoes change. Even under the Islamic Republic’s current laws, these rulings are not absolute or irreversible. Under Article 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if a judgment has been issued in absentia and has not been formally served, the person convicted has the right to seek a retrial and appeal. The Islamic Republic’s own laws also provide for appeals, retrials, third-party objections and the suspension of enforcement of a judgment. This means that even under the current system, a case involving the seizure and confiscation of property is not necessarily final or concluded; it can be reconsidered. In practice, too, it is a lengthy and complex process for a property or asset to reach the point of final sale: from opening a case and issuing a seizure order to appeals, valuation, auction and transfer of title. For this reason, Reza Pahlavi’s warning is directed not only at opponents of the government, but also at buyers who may think they have made a profitable purchase by buying a property below market value, when in fact they have entered a high-risk and disputed case. Civil law recognises the concept of a “good-faith purchaser”: someone who buys property without knowing about a legal dispute or an issue concerning ownership. But when warnings are issued publicly, officially and widely, the situation changes. Anyone who buys seized or confiscated property belonging to a journalist, athlete or political activist today will find it difficult in the future to claim that they knew nothing about its disputed status. And this is precisely why Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi’s message has a deterrent effect: it seeks to tell prospective buyers that these assets may in future be subject to renewed proceedings, judicial review and ownership claims. The experience of other countries also shows that this is not merely a theoretical debate. After the collapse of East Germany’s communist government in 1989, thousands of confiscation cases were reviewed, and some properties were returned to their original owners or their heirs. In the Czech Republic, too, after the fall of the communists, special laws were passed to return confiscated property, and many properties and assets were restored to their former owners. In Romania, after the fall of Ceaușescu, and in South Africa, after the end of apartheid, truth-seeking and restitution commissions were also established, and some political rulings and ideological confiscations were reconsidered. Of course, proceedings in none of these countries were immediate, but there was one thing they had in common: many political rulings and confiscations based on the suppression of belief and freedom of expression came under renewed legal scrutiny, and the property was returned to its owners or compensation was paid. For this reason, the Crown Prince’s message should be seen as more than a political slogan. It is, in essence, a warning about the risk of buying property acquired through security and political cases, whose legal legitimacy is disputed and which may soon be subject to judicial review. In the end, this is not simply a dispute between the government and its opponents; it is a question of property rights, freedom of expression and the legal security of citizens. When someone is at risk of having their property seized because of journalism, an interview, media activity or even a political statement, it is natural for many to ask: Were these rulings issued on the basis of a genuine crime, or are they a tool for intimidation, pressure and silencing opponents at home and abroad? And it is precisely from this perspective that today’s warning by Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi seeks, in light of the successful examples and experts’ opinions, both to give hope to the victims of these cases and to warn prospective buyers: Do not gamble on property whose legal future is seriously disputed. Source: https://srouzbeh.com/en/posts/archive-84150df7-78b9-3fd4-6403-430f65969b1d Please credit the author and link to this edition.