SEIZURE OF PROPERTY: REASONS

While the seizure of intangible property or rights is not conditional on the owner or holder being indicted (Cass. crim., 7 Dec. 2016, no. 16-81280), the investigating chamber hearing an appeal against a special criminal seizure order must assess whether there are indications that an offence has been committed that would justify the criminal seizure measure.

The Investigating Chamber of the Amiens Court of Appeal, in confirming the seizure of the debt contained in a life insurance policy, noted that, in a separate judgment dated 29 January 2019, the Investigating Chamber had declared the holder's indictment null and void in the absence of serious or corroborating evidence, as at 11 April 2018, of his involvement in the acts of which he was notified at the time of his indictment.

The judges added that, however, the judicial investigation was continuing, that it could not be ruled out that it would result in the gathering of new evidence pointing to a more substantial involvement of the person concerned in the facts referred to the court and that, given the important role he had played in the suspected fraud scheme and until the judicial investigation had reached its final conclusion, he was still liable to the additional penalty of confiscation.

In ruling on these grounds alone, which were in part hypothetical, the Examining Chamber, which did not seek to establish the existence of any evidence of the commission of an offence, did not take into account the fact that the offence had been committed. offence of such a nature as to justify the measure of criminal seizure, insufficiently justifies the decision.