In Monaco, assets can be frozen even though their owner is not being prosecuted. The protection of third parties then depends on whether they have a real opportunity to understand the measure, to contest it and to have it reviewed.
On 14 October 2026, Monaco signed the new Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe's Warsaw Convention, designed to strengthen the recovery of criminal assets. This instrument, which is distinct from Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, had not yet been ratified by Monaco or entered into force as at 19 October 2026. Its signature therefore does not, by itself, constitute a new legal basis for confiscating property.1
This development continues a trend that was already under way. In its statement of 19 June 2026, the FATF noted Monaco's progress, in particular the increase in seizures of property suspected of deriving from criminal activities. It considered the action plan substantially completed, subject to on-site verification. This finding of effectiveness must be accompanied by careful scrutiny of the safeguards afforded to those whose property is targeted.2
For account holders, spouses, co-owners and companies that own assets in their own right, the issue is a concrete one. How can a seizure be challenged when the investigation concerns the conduct of others? How can the origin of an asset be established if the material calling it into question remains unknown? And what review can be obtained when the request comes from a foreign authority?
Article 12 of the Criminal Code is the central provision. As rewritten by Law No. 1.559 of 29 February 2024, it covers the object of the offence (corps du délit), its proceeds and property that was used, or was intended to be used, to commit it. It also provides, subject to conditions, for the confiscation of property whose origin could not be accounted for and for value confiscation. The rights of the good-faith owner are expressly preserved.3
Where the offence has generated a profit and is punishable by at least three years' imprisonment, extending confiscation to property of unexplained origin requires that the convicted person and, where different, the owner have been given the opportunity to explain the origin of the property. For certain offences, the provision also addresses the commingling of lawful and unlawful funds by limiting confiscation to the estimated value of the criminal proceeds invested.3
These mechanisms call for a precise analysis of the basis relied on. Disputing the criminal origin of an asset does not necessarily end the debate if value confiscation is legally envisaged. Conversely, the existence of an investigation does not remove the need to identify the applicable mechanism, its conditions and the rights of the persons concerned.
A distinction must also be drawn between seizure, which is intended to preserve an asset or to secure a possible confiscation, and confiscation, which entails dispossession. The provisional nature of the former prejudges neither the owner's guilt nor the outcome of the trial.4
The judgment of the Cour de révision of 11 November 2025 provides an illustration. According to the official chronicle of the Monegasque Institute for Training in the Legal Professions, jewellery had been seized at the home of a company director who had been heard merely as a witness in a judicial investigation into money laundering. The Cour de révision held that this status was not enough to exclude the presumption laid down in Article 218-4 of the Criminal Code, whose own conditions had to be examined.5
It also reiterated that property may remain under seizure with a view to confiscation, even where retaining it is no longer necessary for establishing the truth. This decision was given on an appeal in the interests of the law (pourvoi dans l'intérêt de la loi): the quashing did not call into question the restitution obtained in the case itself.5
The defence must therefore address the asset itself and the conditions of the measure, not merely the procedural status of the person holding it. Acquisition deeds, financing, bank transactions and proof of income may prove decisive. Where assets are held within a family or by several companies, each right claimed should be documented separately.
Article 12 requires that a third-party owner whose title is known, or who has claimed it during the proceedings, be able to submit observations before confiscation, in particular on their good faith. For an owner whose title was not known, or who had not claimed it, the Article provides for third-party opposition (tierce opposition) under Article 436 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3
The practical challenge is to give this protection real substance. Being invited to produce supporting documents makes a meaningful defence possible only if the person concerned sufficiently understands what is alleged in respect of the origin, holding or use of the asset.
Article 596-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for a reasoned seizure decision, its notification to or service on the persons concerned, where they are known, and information on the assistance of a lawyer. An appeal against a seizure decision covered by that provision must be lodged within ten days of its notification or service. It has no suspensive effect. That time limit does not apply indiscriminately to other remedies relating to restitution or confiscation.4
For a third-party appellant, this mechanism confines access to the documents relating to the contested seizure. It does not automatically give access to the entire criminal case file.4
The decisive question is what is actually accessible. Can the owner identify the suspicious transactions, understand the connection drawn with the asset and contest the material on which the judge bases the decision? The confidentiality of the investigation may justify certain restrictions. Their scope must nevertheless be assessed in the light of the practical opportunities for defence.
For the lawyer, it is important to request the relevant documents precisely, to keep a record of any refusals and to explain which argument or evidence cannot be presented without them. A documented criticism of procedural inequality gives the judge a question to decide.
Keeping assets frozen for a long period calls for scrutiny of the authorities' diligence. In a judgment of 19 February 2018, the Cour de révision ordered the release of assets that had been under seizure since March 2016, emphasising the lack of promptness in a case affecting a third party against whom no offence was alleged. That precedent, delivered under an earlier regime, does not set a general maximum duration for seizure.6
The difficulty takes a particular form when Monaco acts at the request of another State. Sovereign Ordinance No. 15.457 of 9 August 2002, amended in particular in 2024, makes the enforcement of a foreign confiscation subject to several conditions: a final decision that is still enforceable, property liable to confiscation under Monegasque law, and protection of the rights of third parties. The court is, however, bound by the findings of fact in the foreign decision.7
Article 9 of the Ordinance strictly circumscribes the lifting of protective measures. Save where the seizure has been declared null and void in Monaco at the request of an interested party, and save in the cases of lifting by operation of law, lifting depends on an application from the requesting foreign authorities. The Direction des Services Judiciaires must ask them, at intervals of no more than two years, whether the measure should be maintained, and must repeat the enquiry after six months without a reply.7
The termination of the proceedings brought abroad, and the final and enforceable refusal of the Monegasque courts to authorise enforcement of the foreign confiscation, entail the lifting of the measures by operation of law.7
This mechanism creates neither a two-year maximum duration nor an automatic return of the assets if the requesting State remains silent. It raises a practical question of the first importance: what sufficiently prompt review can the owner obtain in the meantime?7
The defence must therefore coordinate the challenge in the State of origin with the avenues open in Monaco. It is necessary to identify which authority can remedy the freeze, what material it holds and which decision must be challenged. The question of whether the remedy is effective must be investigated on that basis, without presuming that every form of international cooperation is irregular.
Law No. 1.593 of 18 June 2026 introduced the criminal settlement agreement (convention pénale). For legal persons and, under the conditions laid down by law, for the natural persons authorised to represent them, this mechanism may involve the relinquishment to the State of property seized in the proceedings, or of unseized property considered to meet the conditions of Article 12, where the offences concerned are eligible. It rests, in particular, on the assistance of a lawyer, an agreement and judicial validation.8
The validation order does not amount to a declaration of guilt and does not have the effects of a judgment of conviction. It is immediately enforceable and not open to appeal. The mechanism must be distinguished from a confiscation imposed at the end of a criminal trial.8
A negotiation of this kind therefore requires a stand-alone analysis of its effects on the assets. Which assets are concerned? To whom do they belong? What third-party rights remain? Consent must cover consequences that have been identified, with particular attention to the scope of the judicial validation.
Monaco has been bound by the European Convention on Human Rights since 30 November 2005. It has signed, but not ratified, Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Article 1 of that Protocol, which protects property, therefore cannot serve as the direct basis of an application against Monaco. European case-law developed under that provision alone does not automatically carry over to Monaco.9
Domestic law retains its own safeguards, including the protection of property under Article 24 of the Constitution. At the European level, Article 6 may protect the proceedings in which pecuniary rights are determined. Its applicability must be demonstrated by reference to the procedure and the right at issue.10,11
In Silickienė v. Lithuania, on 10 April 2012, the Court examined, under the civil limb of Article 6, the confiscation of property belonging to a person who was not a party to the criminal proceedings. It found no violation, given the practical opportunities for defence afforded in that case. The Court nevertheless considered that, as a general principle, persons whose property is confiscated should be formally granted the status of parties to the proceedings in which the confiscation is ordered. The lack of that status must then be assessed together with all the safeguards actually available. The reasoning on a final confiscation does not, however, by itself settle every case of provisional seizure.11
Other safeguards may be relevant depending on the facts: Article 7 where a measure falls within the Convention concept of a penalty, or Article 8 where an actual interference with the home, private life or correspondence is at issue. Article 13 presupposes an arguable complaint under an applicable Convention right. None of these provisions allows a protocol that Monaco has not ratified to be relied on against it indirectly.12
Stewart v. Monaco and three other applications, communicated to the Monegasque Government on 7 October 2025, concern bank accounts frozen in the course of criminal proceedings. The Court put questions to the parties on the applicability of Article 6 § 1 and, if that Article is applicable, on the fairness of the proceedings for release in view of the refusal to disclose the documents on which the freezes were based.13
The July 2026 edition of the Court's official country profile on Monaco lists them among the pending cases. Communication of a case does not amount to a finding of any violation and does not prejudge the answer on the applicability of Article 6. It nevertheless identifies a concrete question: was the holder of the assets able to contest, in a meaningful way, the reasons why they were frozen?13
For practitioners, Convention arguments must be raised before the Monegasque courts, at least in substance and in compliance with the required formalities and time limits. An application to Strasbourg then requires the exhaustion of the relevant domestic remedies and compliance with the four-month time limit, whose starting point depends on the relevant final domestic decision and on the rules governing its notification or the point at which it became known. An analysis specific to the asset-related complaint is needed to identify that decision.12
Defending seized assets thus requires the dispute to be defined precisely: the right claimed, the basis of the seizure, the disputed material, the missing documents and the consequences of maintaining the measure. The Monegasque debate on confiscation must give full weight to this effective capacity to challenge. For the good-faith owner, it determines the real scope of the safeguards set out in the legislation.
Texts and publications verified as at 19 October 2026.
These notes are general information on Convention law; they do not constitute legal advice and do not create a lawyer-client relationship.
After the final decision of the highest national court, a case may be submitted to us directly, by the client or by their lawyer.