What this guide covers
- The Legal Framework: CPL Articles 115–117 and the AML Overlay
- How the Public Prosecution Traces Assets Before Freezing
- The Precautionary Attachment Procedure: Steps and Execution
- The 14-Day Grievance Mechanism: Procedure, Grounds and Tactics
- Third-Party and Corporate Rights: Custodians, Shareholders and Financial Institutions
- Strategic Defence: Acting in the First 72 Hours
- Consequences, Penalties and Post-Conviction Confiscation
- Practical checklist
- What we'd typically advise
- Frequently asked questions
When the Public Prosecution freezes assets in a UAE economic-crime investigation, it moves faster than most executives expect. Understanding the precise legal machinery — and the tight windows to challenge it — is the difference between preserving a business and watching it collapse before trial.
The Legal Framework: CPL Articles 115–117 and the AML Overlay
The primary domestic authority for asset freezing in UAE criminal proceedings is Federal Decree-Law 38/2022 (Criminal Procedure Law, 'CPL'), which came into force on 1 March 2023, as amended by FDL 45/2023. Articles 115 to 117 of the CPL empower the Public Prosecution — without any prior judicial order — to seize, freeze, and appoint custodians over funds, real property, bank accounts, securities, digital assets, vehicles, and any other asset that may be connected to a criminal offence, used as an instrument of crime, or liable to confiscation. The Prosecution acts on its own motion upon opening an investigation file; no indictment, charge, or court hearing is required at this stage.
Layered on top of the CPL is the Federal Decree-Law 10/2025 on Anti-Money Laundering, Counter-Terrorist Financing and Countering Proliferation Financing ('AML Law'), which entered into force on 14 October 2025, repealing FDL 20/2018 in its entirety. Cabinet Resolution 134/2025 (Executive Regulations, effective 14 December 2025) provides the operational detail. Under the AML Law, the Prosecution's freezing power extends explicitly to proceeds of predicate offences — a list that now includes tax evasion and proliferation financing alongside the traditional catalogue of fraud, bribery, corruption, and market manipulation. Crucially, the AML Law provides for no statute of limitations on money-laundering offences, meaning historic asset movements remain permanently within scope.
For capital-markets-related economic crime, Federal Decree-Law 33/2025 (which codifies insider dealing and market-manipulation offences with penalties up to AED 200 million, operative alongside the new Capital Markets Authority established by FDL 32/2025 from 1 January 2026) creates a parallel pathway: the CMA may refer matters to the Public Prosecution triggering CPL Article 115 freezes. Bankruptcy fraud is governed by Federal Decree-Law 51/2023 (in force 1 May 2024), and fraudulent or negligent bankruptcy findings by the dedicated Bankruptcy Court routinely generate Prosecution referrals followed immediately by precautionary attachment orders.
Financial institutions should note that the CBUAE Law No. 6/2025 authorises the Central Bank to impose administrative freezes on accounts independently of the Prosecution, with fines reaching AED 1 billion for AML compliance failures. These administrative freezes coexist with — and are not displaced by — any CPL Article 115 order; a regulated entity can therefore face simultaneous regulatory and criminal asset restrictions.
How the Public Prosecution Traces Assets Before Freezing
The practical starting point is almost always a Suspicious Transaction Report ('STR') filed with the UAE Financial Intelligence Unit ('FIU') under Article 15 of FDL 10/2025, or a complaint lodged directly with the Prosecution by a counterparty, regulator, or foreign law-enforcement body. Once an investigation file is opened, the Prosecution issues written directives — backed by CPL Article 93 — requiring banks, exchange houses, securities brokers, and designated non-financial businesses to produce account records, transaction histories, beneficial ownership registers, and correspondence within defined periods. Non-compliance is itself a criminal exposure under the AML Law.
Beneficial ownership identification has become considerably more precise following Cabinet Decision 109/2023, which applies a 25% shareholding or control threshold for registering ultimate beneficial owners. Prosecutors routinely cross-reference company UBO registers, real-property registries (RERA for Dubai; Abu Dhabi Land Department), DIFC and ADGM company registries, and VARA's virtual-asset service-provider databases (under VARA Rulebooks 2.0, May 2025) to build a complete asset map before any freezing notice is served. The Travel Rule threshold for virtual-asset transfers under Cabinet Resolution 134/2025 is AED 3,500; transfers above this figure must carry originator and beneficiary information, giving investigators a direct audit trail across blockchain-based holdings.
International asset tracing relies on the mutual legal assistance framework under Federal Law 39/2006 as amended by FDL 38/2023. The UAE maintains bilateral MLA treaties with over 70 jurisdictions and is an INTERPOL member. Following the UAE's removal from the FATF grey list in February 2024 and the EU's removal of the UAE from its high-risk list in 2025, cooperation requests from Western jurisdictions are now processed materially faster. Practitioners advising clients who hold overseas assets should assume that a domestic freeze will be accompanied — sometimes within days — by outbound MLA requests targeting those foreign holdings.
For cross-border freezing of assets held in DIFC or ADGM, prosecutors and civil claimants can now invoke DIFC Court Law 2/2025 and the precedent of ADGM A17 v B17 [2025], under which worldwide freezing orders may be granted in support of foreign proceedings with no requirement to demonstrate a local asset nexus. This fundamentally changes the exposure profile for multinational groups — a UAE investigation can anchor a global freeze.
The Precautionary Attachment Procedure: Steps and Execution
Under CPL Article 115, a Public Prosecutor of at least the grade of Chief Prosecutor may issue a written precautionary attachment order. The order must identify the suspect, describe the alleged offence, and specify — as precisely as the investigation allows — the assets to be frozen. In practice, orders are often drafted broadly, freezing all accounts held at named institutions and all real property registered in the suspect's name or in the name of entities over which the suspect exercises control. The order takes legal effect from the moment it is communicated to the relevant institution or registry; there is no ex parte hearing before a court and no prior notice to the suspect or their counsel.
Execution is typically simultaneous across multiple fronts. The Prosecution serves the order on banks (who are required to freeze immediately and confirm compliance within a period specified in the order, commonly 24 to 48 hours), the relevant land department, the Securities and Commodities Authority (or from 1 January 2026, the CMA under FDL 32/2025), and — where virtual assets are involved — VARA-licensed custodians. Motor vehicle registries and civil aviation authorities may also be notified where high-value moveable property is in scope. The suspect and their legal counsel typically learn of the freeze when a bank declines a transaction or when the attachment order is served directly on the suspect during interview or formal notification proceedings.
CPL Article 116 governs the appointment of a judicial custodian over frozen assets. Where the asset is income-producing (a going concern, a rental property, a securities portfolio), the Prosecution may appoint a custodian to manage it during the pendency of proceedings, with powers to collect revenue and make necessary preservation expenditure. The custodian is an officer of the court and reports to the Prosecution. Critically, the custodian is not authorised to liquidate or distribute assets without a separate court order — a point of considerable practical importance when advising on cash-flow during an investigation.
Under CPL Article 117, the Prosecution may extend a freeze or vary its scope at any stage of the investigation. There is no statutory maximum duration for a precautionary freeze prior to charge; freezes have persisted for multiple years in complex fraud and AML cases. Once the case is referred to the Criminal Court, the court assumes control of the attachment and may confirm, modify, or lift it pursuant to its general case-management powers. Fines payable under the AML Law (up to AED 100 million for legal persons under FDL 10/2025) and under capital-markets law (up to AED 200 million under FDL 33/2025) provide the Prosecution with strong justification to maintain wide freezes even where the underlying alleged loss is smaller.
The 14-Day Grievance Mechanism: Procedure, Grounds and Tactics
The CPL provides a structured challenge mechanism against precautionary attachment orders. Under the applicable provisions of Federal Decree-Law 38/2022, a suspect, defendant, or any third party whose property has been frozen has 14 calendar days from the date of notification of the attachment order to file a grievance (تظلم, tazallum) with the competent court. Missing this window does not permanently extinguish challenge rights — further applications may be made at later procedural stages — but it sacrifices the most direct and expedient route to lifting or narrowing a freeze, and courts treat dilatory applicants with considerably less sympathy.
The grievance must be filed in the Criminal Court that has jurisdiction over the underlying matter, or — where the case remains at investigation stage — before the competent Court of First Instance in its criminal capacity. The application should be supported by: a certified copy of the attachment order (obtainable from the Prosecution upon formal request); evidence of ownership or legal interest in the frozen assets (title deeds, bank statements, share certificates, UBO register extracts); a legal memorandum identifying the specific grounds of challenge; and, where proportionality is argued, independent valuations demonstrating that the frozen quantum exceeds any plausible confiscation order. Evidentiary standards are those of Federal Decree-Law 35/2022 (Evidence Law) as applicable in criminal proceedings.
Grounds for challenge fall into three broad categories. First, procedural invalidity: the order was issued by an official below the required grade; assets are insufficiently identified; or mandatory notification requirements were not observed. Second, ownership disputes: the frozen assets belong to a bona fide third party with no connection to the alleged offence — family members' personal accounts, joint ventures, or trust structures are common battlegrounds here. Third, proportionality and necessity: the value of frozen assets is grossly disproportionate to the maximum penalty or alleged proceeds; or specific assets (operating accounts, payroll facilities) are essential to ongoing legitimate business and their continued freezing causes irreparable harm without commensurate investigative benefit. The court has discretion to partially lift a freeze — for example, releasing working-capital accounts while maintaining a freeze over investment accounts — and practitioners should always present the court with a calibrated alternative rather than seeking blanket discharge.
Where assets include non-deliverable financial instruments, crypto-asset holdings recorded on a VARA-licensed exchange, or offshore structures, separate parallel applications may be required. For DIFC-situated assets, the DIFC Courts' Part 25 injunction procedure (as updated by DIFC Court Law 2/2025) provides an additional — sometimes faster — forum. GCs and boards of UAE-licensed financial institutions should also be alert to the possibility of concurrent CBUAE administrative restrictions, which require separate representations to the Central Bank and are not displaced by a successful CPL grievance.
Third-Party and Corporate Rights: Custodians, Shareholders and Financial Institutions
A precautionary attachment order issued against an individual suspect frequently catches corporate assets in its net — particularly where the Prosecution has identified the corporate entity as a vehicle for the alleged offence or where it holds that the suspect exercises de facto control. Under the AML Law FDL 10/2025, personal manager liability is now explicit: senior managers and directors may be held individually liable for AML failures of their institutions, and an attachment order against the manager may be accompanied by a separate order against accounts or assets registered in the company's name where the company is treated as the instrument of the offence.
Shareholders in a company that has been subject to attachment face a distinct but related problem: a freeze on the company's operating accounts can destroy enterprise value far more rapidly than any eventual confiscation order. The appropriate procedural vehicle in this scenario is a third-party intervention in the grievance proceedings, supported by evidence that the corporate assets belong to multiple shareholders with no connection to the alleged wrongdoing. Alternatively, where the company itself is not a suspect, an application for the appointment of an independent administrator (separate from any Prosecution-appointed custodian) may preserve ongoing operations while the investigation proceeds.
Banks and other regulated institutions served with an attachment order have no discretion to delay compliance. Under FDL 10/2025, a reporting institution that fails to freeze immediately upon receipt of a Prosecution order faces criminal and regulatory exposure. However, institutions are entitled — and practitioners routinely advise them — to seek written clarification of the precise scope of the order before executing, particularly where the order purports to freeze all accounts 'connected' to a named individual without specifying account numbers. Seeking clarification is not non-compliance; it is due diligence, and it creates a contemporaneous record that can be valuable if the institution later faces a claim from the account holder. The CBUAE Law No. 6/2025 imposes its own compliance obligations on licensed institutions that sit alongside the Prosecution order.
For cheques drawn on frozen accounts, Federal Decree-Law 50/2022 (Commercial Transactions Law) is relevant. Under Article 635 bis, a dishonoured cheque on a legitimately frozen account does not automatically create the bad-faith criminal exposure that a simple NSF cheque might — the payee's remedy is primarily civil enforcement as an executive instrument — but advisers should ensure that counterparties are notified promptly and that documentary evidence of the freeze order is preserved to rebut any bad-faith allegation.
Strategic Defence: Acting in the First 72 Hours
Experience in UAE economic-crime defence consistently shows that the most consequential decisions are made — or missed — in the first 72 hours after an asset freeze is notified. The immediate priority is to obtain the full text of the attachment order, identify which assets are frozen and at which institutions, and assess whether any assets have been incorrectly included (a common occurrence where the order has been drafted by reference to name rather than account number, catching accounts belonging to family members, business partners, or unrelated entities of the same name). A formal request for the investigation file reference number and the name of the supervising prosecutor should be submitted immediately; this enables direct engagement with the Prosecution at the investigative stage before positions harden.
Privilege and legal professional privilege in UAE proceedings deserves particular attention. Communications between a client and their UAE-licensed legal adviser are protected under the Advocates Law, but documents held by accountants, financial advisers, or compliance consultants are not automatically privileged. In the first 72 hours, instructions should be given to preserve — and where appropriate, secure — all potentially privileged communications and to cease creating new written records that could be misread out of context. Employees and managers should be advised not to discuss the matter with investigators without legal representation present; under the CPL, silence is not an adverse inference, but incautious statements are frequently used to expand the scope of freezes.
On the financial side, the immediate task is to identify which unaffected assets or credit facilities can support essential operations and personal living expenses pending the grievance. UAE courts have shown willingness, in appropriate cases, to carve out a defined amount for reasonable living expenses and legal fees from a frozen estate — but this requires a prompt, evidence-based application and should not be assumed. The burden falls on the applicant to demonstrate, with specificity, the amounts required and the absence of alternative unencumbered resources. Practitioners should prepare these calculations — keyed to the AML Law's proportionality principles — before filing the grievance so that the living-expenses carve-out can be sought concurrently with the primary challenge.
Where the investigation has a cross-border dimension — offshore bank accounts, assets in common-law jurisdictions, or shares in foreign-incorporated entities — parallel specialist advice should be obtained immediately rather than sequentially. Under DIFC Court Law 2/2025 and the ADGM A17 v B17 [2025] precedent, overseas assets can be drawn into a worldwide freezing order anchored on UAE proceedings with considerable speed. Conversely, assets held in jurisdictions with strong freezing-challenge procedures (the DIFC Courts' own jurisdiction, for instance) may offer faster and more predictable interim relief than onshore UAE proceedings in certain fact patterns. A coordinated multi-jurisdictional strategy, executed from day one, consistently produces better outcomes than a sequenced approach.
Consequences, Penalties and Post-Conviction Confiscation
The consequences of a sustained asset freeze extend well beyond the immediate liquidity crisis. For corporate entities, a prolonged freeze on operating accounts triggers cross-default clauses in financing agreements, may constitute a material adverse change under M&A transaction documents, and — in the case of regulated entities — is likely to prompt supervisory action by the CBUAE, the CMA (from 1 January 2026 under FDL 32/2025), or VARA. Directors and senior managers facing attachment orders in their personal capacity face parallel exposure under FDL 10/2025's personal manager liability provisions, with fines for legal persons reaching AED 100 million and for individuals reaching levels that reflect the gravity of the predicate offence. Market-abuse and insider-dealing cases prosecuted under FDL 33/2025 carry penalties up to AED 200 million, providing courts with ample justification to maintain correspondingly large freezes throughout proceedings.
Upon conviction, precautionary attachment converts automatically into the enforcement mechanism for any confiscation order made by the Criminal Court. UAE law provides for confiscation of both the direct proceeds of crime and assets of equivalent value where proceeds cannot be located — a particularly significant provision given the AML Law's no-limitations rule for money laundering. Where a defendant has dissipated assets prior to or during proceedings, the court may order confiscation from other assets up to the value of the dissipated proceeds. Third parties who received assets from the defendant — including family members and business associates — may find those transfers unwound if the court determines they were made with knowledge of the criminal origin or in fraud of the confiscation jurisdiction.
For corporate-tax-related economic crime, Federal Decree-Law 47/2022 and Cabinet Decision 129/2025 prescribe a penalty regime where voluntary disclosure attracts a surcharge of 1–4% of underpaid tax, compared to 15% on audit discovery. Where underpaid tax amounts are large enough to constitute a predicate offence under FDL 10/2025 (tax evasion being a newly added predicate), the exposure escalates from an administrative tax matter to a criminal AML investigation with full attachment powers. GCs and boards should treat any significant corporate tax exposure as a potential gateway to criminal proceedings and obtain privileged legal advice on disclosure strategy before any regulatory interaction.
Reputational consequence should not be underestimated in a jurisdiction where bank-client relationships are central to business operations. A publicly known attachment order — visible through land registry searches, DIFC Court records, or news reporting — can effectively end commercial relationships even where the underlying investigation results in no charge or acquittal. Proactive, legally privileged communications with key counterparties (prepared and delivered by counsel under privilege where possible) are a standard component of the defence strategy in high-profile cases and should be planned in the first days after notification, not as an afterthought.
Practical checklist
- Obtain the full text of the attachment order within 24 hours of notification
- Identify every institution and registry served with the freeze order by name and account
- File a CPL grievance within 14 calendar days — diarise this deadline immediately
- Prepare an evidence-based living-expenses and legal-fees carve-out application
- Instruct specialist counsel in each jurisdiction where overseas assets are held
- Preserve all legally privileged communications and brief employees on silence rights
- Notify key commercial counterparties under privilege to limit reputational and contractual damage
- Assess corporate-tax and AML predicate exposure before any regulatory interaction
What we'd typically advise
Our first action when instructed in an asset-freeze matter is to obtain the order itself and map every asset it touches against the client's full balance sheet — including corporate holdings, family structures, and offshore accounts — because the gap between what the Prosecution has frozen and what it is entitled to freeze is almost always exploitable. The 14-day grievance window under the CPL is unforgiving; we prepare the evidentiary package and legal memorandum in parallel with that initial mapping exercise, not sequentially.
For institutional clients, the priority is preserving operating liquidity while the grievance is heard. For individual clients, it is securing unencumbered resources for legal fees and living expenses before those accounts are also captured. In cases with any cross-border dimension, we coordinate simultaneously with counsel in the relevant offshore jurisdictions from day one — not after the domestic position is resolved — because worldwide freezing orders under DIFC Court Law 2/2025 can move faster than clients anticipate.
Frequently asked questions
Can the Prosecution freeze my assets before I am formally charged or even told I am under investigation?
Yes. Under CPL Article 115 (FDL 38/2022), the Public Prosecution may issue a precautionary attachment order at any stage of the investigation, including before the suspect is notified of the investigation. The order is self-executing and takes effect on communication to the relevant institution or registry. You may first learn of a freeze when a bank declines a transaction rather than from the Prosecution directly.
My spouse's personal account has been frozen even though she has no involvement. What can we do?
A third party whose assets are wrongly captured by an attachment order may file a grievance in the competent Criminal Court within 14 calendar days of notification, supported by evidence of independent ownership (separate bank records, proof of separate income source, title documentation). Courts do distinguish bona fide third-party assets from those used as a vehicle by the suspect, but the burden of proof rests on the applicant. Act promptly — delaying weakens the application in practice even if the legal right is preserved.
How long can the Prosecution keep my assets frozen before the case goes to trial?
There is no statutory maximum duration for a precautionary freeze at the investigation stage under FDL 38/2022. Complex fraud and AML cases have seen freezes persist for two to four years before trial. Once the matter is referred to the Criminal Court, the court assumes supervisory jurisdiction over the attachment and may be petitioned to review its scope, but automatic discharge does not occur on referral. Sustained engagement with the Prosecution during the investigation phase — including cooperation where appropriate — can in practice shorten freeze duration.
Our company's operating accounts are frozen and we cannot pay salaries. Is there any urgent relief available?
Yes. An urgent application to the court (or in the first instance to the supervising Prosecution) may seek a carve-out from the frozen estate for specifically evidenced payroll obligations and essential operating expenditure. The application must demonstrate, with documentary precision, the amounts required and the absence of alternative unencumbered resources. UAE courts have granted such relief but require a compelling, evidence-based case. Under CPL Article 116 (FDL 38/2022), a judicially appointed custodian may also be authorised to meet necessary preservation expenditure from frozen income-producing assets.
I hold crypto assets on a UAE-based VARA-licensed exchange. Can those be frozen?
Yes. Virtual-asset service providers licensed by VARA are subject to Prosecution attachment orders on the same basis as banks. VARA Rulebooks 2.0 (May 2025) impose compliance obligations on licensees, and the Travel Rule under Cabinet Resolution 134/2025 — applying to transfers above AED 3,500 — gives investigators a detailed audit trail of on-chain movements. The DIFC Digital Assets Law 2/2024 also characterises crypto as property capable of being the subject of proprietary freezing orders in DIFC proceedings. Clients should not assume that crypto holdings are less visible or less attachable than traditional financial assets.
We are a bank served with an attachment order that appears to cover accounts we cannot identify. Can we seek clarification before freezing?
Yes, and it is prudent to do so. While compliance with a Prosecution attachment order under FDL 38/2022 and FDL 10/2025 is mandatory and must be prompt, seeking written clarification of ambiguous scope — particularly where the order references a name without account numbers — is not non-compliance. It is a due-diligence step that protects the institution against both over-compliance (freezing unrelated customer accounts, triggering civil liability) and under-compliance (missing in-scope accounts, triggering AML regulatory exposure). Document the clarification request and the response meticulously.
Does the AML Law's new inclusion of tax evasion as a predicate offence mean a tax dispute can become a criminal asset-freeze matter?
Potentially yes. Under FDL 10/2025, tax evasion is now an explicit predicate offence for money laundering, meaning that where underpaid tax is sufficiently large and there is evidence of deliberate concealment, the Federal Tax Authority may refer the matter to the Prosecution, which can then open an AML investigation and issue attachment orders. FDL 47/2022 and Cabinet Decision 129/2025 distinguish voluntary disclosure (1–4% surcharge) from audit-discovered evasion (15% penalty). The gap between those figures, and the risk of criminal referral, makes early privileged legal and tax advice on any material exposure essential before any regulatory engagement.
Can UAE criminal proceedings support a worldwide freezing order over assets held abroad, including in common-law jurisdictions?
Yes, increasingly so. DIFC Court Law 2/2025 and the ADGM precedent in A17 v B17 [2025] establish that worldwide freezing orders can be granted by the DIFC and ADGM Courts in support of foreign — including onshore UAE — proceedings, with no requirement to show that assets are located within the DIFC or ADGM. Separately, outbound MLA requests under Federal Law 39/2006 as amended by FDL 38/2023 may be used to freeze assets in treaty jurisdictions. Following the UAE's removal from the FATF grey list in February 2024, MLA cooperation has materially accelerated. Clients should assume from day one that a domestic UAE freeze will be accompanied by parallel efforts to capture overseas assets.
Related guides
Published 15 July 2026. General information only — not legal advice. Contact us for matter-specific advice.