Widespread Asset Seizure under the Guise of Countering ‘Enemy’ and Intensified Economic Pressure on Citizens
In a new judicial narrative, the official account of “security measures” has become a tool for expanding asset confiscation and intensifying financial pressure on society.
In the latest statement by the head of the Islamic Republic’s judiciary, the issue of widespread seizure and confiscation of individuals’ assets has been raised again; an action justified under security rhetoric and under the guise of countering “enemy collaborators,” but in practice, has intensified serious concerns about the expansion of citizen asset confiscation.
Gholam-Hossein Mohseni Ejei announced on Tuesday, Ordibehesht 1 (April 21), that firm orders have been issued to identify and seize assets of individuals who, in official terminology, are referred to as “collaborators and companions of the invading enemy.” He also emphasized that if charges are proven, the punishment process should be executed swiftly and without administrative complications; a phrase that critics see as indicative of a reduction in minimum due process standards and an acceleration in judicial proceedings.
This new approach follows a statement released by the judiciary’s media center on Farvardin 29, which announced the issuance of a judicial order to identify and seize assets and block accounts of individuals associated with foreign services, opposing networks, and subversive movements. Notably, the breadth of these allegations is striking; the official report references a wide spectrum of society including artists, athletes, businesspeople, bloggers, and journalists.
At the level of individual accounts, some individuals living abroad have also reported direct consequences of these policies. An Iranian female journalist residing abroad told Voice of America that her family in Iran received text messages about “property ownership transfers”; a matter interpreted as meaning the transfer or seizure of assets without direct notification of the person residing outside the country.
Reza Ghaibi, an economic journalist, also announced that all his assets and those of his relatives in Iran have been seized and his family members’ bank accounts have been blocked. He described these measures as a form of systematic pressure on individuals critical or associated with foreign media outlets.
Meanwhile, Ejei, in other statements on Farvardin 30, spoke of the “judicial war mobilization” and called for setting aside part of the normal judicial review process in security cases; a phrase that many observers view as evidence of the complete securitization of judicial processes in Iran.
Continuing this security-oriented approach, he also emphasized accelerating the implementation of severe sentences. According to published reports, alongside orders related to asset seizure and financial measures, there has been strong emphasis on “no delay in executing final sentences”; an issue that has particularly raised human rights concerns regarding severe punishments including execution. Critics argue that such broad and hastened orders could create grounds for reduced judicial precision and increased likelihood of error in sensitive cases.
Concurrently, multiple reports have been released about the activation of security bodies such as the IRGC Intelligence Organization and the Ministry of Intelligence in the detention of citizens, and some sources have also reported acceleration in the execution of severe judicial sentences including executions.
In sum, what is being presented under the guise of “countering infiltration and enemy connections” has in practice become an extensive mechanism for controlling assets, economic restriction, and pressure on a wide spectrum of citizens. Critics argue that this process, rather than focusing on judicial transparency, has become a tool for expanding an atmosphere of economic terror and public distrust, and has further blurred the line between national security and citizens’ rights.
