‘Confiscation or Death’: Islamic Republic’s Ancient Policy for Plundering Iranians’ Assets Becomes Public Again

With a fresh threat from the Islamic Republic’s prosecutor’s office of “confiscation or death” for Iranians living abroad, the government’s long-standing policy of confiscating citizens’ assets—from migrants and religious minorities such as Christians to families of those killed in protests—has once again come into focus.

While Iran finds itself in the midst of one of its most tense military and political periods, the Islamic Republic’s judiciary has, in an unprecedented move, threatened Iranians living abroad with asset confiscation and even capital punishment; a threat that many view as a continuation of the government’s decades-long policy of economic and legal pressure on opponents and religious minorities.

On the tenth day of the war, Monday, March 9 (corresponding to Esfand 18 on the Persian calendar), the office of the prosecutor general announced through a statement that the assets of Iranians living abroad would be confiscated if they engage in what is termed “collaboration with the enemy.” The statement explicitly referred to severe punishments as well.

The announcement stated that the assets of Iranians who “voice agreement, cooperation, and collaboration” with the enemy would face confiscation and could even result in execution.

The prosecutor general’s office, citing the law on aggravated punishment for espionage, also declared: “Any operational measure on behalf of Israel, America, or other hostile regimes and groups will result in execution.”

These threats are being raised at a time when, according to human rights sources, security and judicial pressures on civil activists and government opponents have intensified alongside wartime conditions and increased regional tensions.

Asset confiscation of citizens in the Islamic Republic is not a new matter. From the earliest months following the 1357 (1979) revolution, institutions such as the “Mustazafan Foundation” and revolutionary courts assumed responsibility for the widespread seizure of citizens’ assets.

During those years, thousands of properties, factories, lands, and private assets were transferred to government institutions under various pretexts ranging from ties to the previous regime to political charges. Many of these assets belonged to Iranians who had left the country after the revolution.

Among the victims of this process, religious minorities also held a significant share. Multiple reports indicate that many Christian families have faced property confiscation, business closures, or pressure to surrender their assets since the 1357 revolution until now. Human rights activists say this policy is often justified with security or religious charges.

Critics of the Islamic Republic say the government has used economic instruments in recent years to pressure opponents. One controversial example of this policy is the collection of money called “bullet costs” or “gunfire payment” from families of those killed in protests; a matter reported during various protests, including December protests this year and afterward. In these cases, families have been forced to pay sums to government institutions to receive the bodies of their loved ones or to avoid judicial pressures.

Additionally, many Iranians living abroad have faced threats of property confiscation or asset seizure in Iran in recent years; particularly those who have engaged in media or political activities against the Islamic Republic.

The recent threat from the prosecutor’s office comes at a time when military conflicts and the country’s security atmosphere have intensified. According to observers, such statements could be an attempt to create an atmosphere of intimidation among Iranians abroad; particularly political activists, journalists, and civil society advocates.

The statement made clear that any cooperation or intelligence activity against the Islamic Republic, even from abroad, could result in complete asset confiscation and severe punishments. Critics say this approach demonstrates that the government uses not only security instruments but also economic tools to silence the voices of critics.

Among groups that have faced these policies more than others are religious minorities including Christians.

In past decades, many individuals serving in house churches and other Christian activists have faced arrests, security pressures, and asset confiscation. Some have also reported after emigrating that their properties or assets in Iran have been seized.

Minority rights activists believe these actions are part of a broader policy aimed at limiting the growth of independent religious communities and preventing the spread of Christianity in Iran.

Experts believe that asset confiscation in the Islamic Republic is not merely a security instrument but has, in many cases, become an economic resource for government institutions.

From major economic foundations to quasi-governmental institutions, many of the assets confiscated in past decades have now become a significant part of the economy under government control.

Under such circumstances, the prosecutor’s latest threat against Iranians abroad, for many observers, recalls the same old pattern: using law and security charges to seize citizens’ assets.

With the release of this statement, the question has been raised once again: whether the Islamic Republic, in times of crisis, will resort more than ever to economic pressure and asset confiscation tools to control society and its opponents; a policy that critics call “confiscation economy” and believe has become one of the consistent characteristics of governance in Iran over the past four decades.