Enforcing a Foreign Freezing or Confiscation Order in the UAE

Enforcing a foreign freezing or confiscation order in the UAE demands precise navigation of federal mutual legal assistance frameworks, the DIFC and ADGM gateways, and a new AML architecture under Federal Decree-Law 10/2025. This guide sets out every operative pathway, procedural step and strategic risk.

The Legal Framework: Federal MLA, AML and the Onshore Courts

The foundational federal instrument for cross-border recognition and enforcement of foreign criminal orders — including freezing, seizure and confiscation orders — is Federal Law 39/2006 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, as materially amended by Federal Decree-Law 38/2023. Articles 41–55 of that law govern requests for enforcement of foreign criminal judgments and precautionary measures, requiring (i) a bilateral or multilateral treaty basis or reciprocity, (ii) a certified and translated request routed through the UAE Ministry of Justice, and (iii) satisfaction of dual criminality. The requesting state must demonstrate that the underlying conduct constitutes an offence under UAE law — a threshold that has become materially easier to satisfy since the Penal Code was overhauled by Federal Decree-Law 31/2021 (in force 2 January 2022, amended by FDL 36/2022), which consolidated and expanded predicate offences including fraud, breach of trust, bribery and money laundering.

The AML/CFT/CPF architecture underwent its most significant reform in a generation with Federal Decree-Law 10/2025 (in force 14 October 2025), which repealed FDL 20/2018 in its entirety and is supplemented by Cabinet Resolution 134/2025 (Executive Regulations, in force 14 December 2025). FDL 10/2025 adds tax evasion and proliferation financing as standalone predicate offences, removes any statute of limitations for money laundering, introduces personal liability for senior managers of financial institutions and imposes administrative fines up to AED 100 million. Critically for enforcement purposes, Article 26 of FDL 10/2025 expressly empowers the Public Prosecution to provisionally freeze assets upon a foreign authority's request pending formal MLA procedures — a significant acceleration compared to the repealed 2018 regime.

The Criminal Procedure Law, Federal Decree-Law 38/2022 (in force 1 March 2023, amended by FDL 45/2023), governs the domestic procedural machinery through which foreign requests are processed. Articles 247–260 establish the Public Prosecution's authority to receive, assess and act upon incoming MLA requests, including the power to attach, freeze and preserve assets. The Public Prosecution may impose an investigative freeze for up to 30 days, renewable by court order, pending final determination of the MLA request. Practitioners should note that FDL 38/2022 is the operative criminal procedure code; references in older commentary to the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure (Federal Law 35/1992) are no longer reliable.

For civil and commercial enforcement of foreign freezing orders — most relevant where the underlying proceedings are civil fraud, asset tracing or arbitration-related — the pathway diverges from the MLA criminal channel and runs principally through the DIFC Courts, the ADGM Courts or, in limited circumstances, the onshore civil courts under the Civil Procedure Law (Federal Decree-Law 42/2022). Each pathway carries distinct recognition criteria, timelines and strategic characteristics that practitioners must assess at the outset of any enforcement mandate.

The DIFC and ADGM Gateways: Worldwide Freezing Orders Without a Local Asset Nexus

The single most significant recent development for practitioners seeking to enforce a foreign freezing or confiscation order in the UAE is the confirmation — now embedded in primary legislation and judicial precedent — that the DIFC and ADGM Courts can grant and enforce worldwide freezing orders in support of foreign proceedings without any requirement to demonstrate that the respondent holds assets within the DIFC or ADGM. DIFC Court Law No. 2/2025 explicitly grants the DIFC Courts jurisdiction to issue interim relief in support of foreign arbitral or court proceedings, mirroring the 'long-arm' interim relief jurisdiction familiar from English practice under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. This removes the procedural barrier that previously required applicants to establish a UAE asset nexus before obtaining interim relief.

On the ADGM side, A17 v B17 [2025] ADGM CFI confirmed that the ADGM Court of First Instance will grant a worldwide freezing order in support of foreign proceedings, applying ADGM Application Regulations and the English common law principles incorporated by reference into ADGM law. The court applied the well-established American Cyanamid threshold — serious question to be tried, balance of convenience, adequacy of damages — and accepted undertakings in damages from the applicant. The judgment is significant because it resolves previously contested questions about whether ADGM's jurisdiction extended to purely extraterritorial asset preservation.

In practice, the DIFC route is typically preferred where the foreign judgment or order is from an English, common law or treaty-partner court, because the DIFC Courts have a well-developed body of recognition jurisprudence and a Memorandum of Guidance with the English Courts (updated 2022). A DIFC freezing order can then be 'passported' into the onshore UAE courts via the DIFC-Dubai Courts Joint Judicial Committee mechanism, allowing enforcement against onshore assets held in Dubai or other emirates. The ADGM route is similarly structured for Abu Dhabi-sited assets. Applicants should be aware that both gateways require the foreign proceedings to be on foot or imminent — a without-notice application based purely on anticipated future proceedings will face significant judicial scrutiny.

A critical strategic consideration is the requirement to provide full and frank disclosure on a without-notice application. Both DIFC and ADGM courts apply the English without-notice duty with full rigour: failure to disclose material facts — including any defence the respondent has raised or is known to intend to raise — risks discharge of the order and an adverse costs award. Where the foreign order was itself obtained on a contested basis, practitioners should exhibit the foreign court's reasoned judgment and any dissenting submissions to demonstrate the robustness of the underlying merits.

The Federal MLA Channel: Procedure, Timelines and Practical Bottlenecks

Where enforcement is sought through the criminal/regulatory channel — typically in cases involving alleged money laundering, fraud, corruption or asset confiscation following a foreign criminal conviction — the operative route is an MLA request under Federal Law 39/2006 as amended by FDL 38/2023. The UAE has concluded bilateral MLA treaties with over 30 states including the United Kingdom, France, India, Egypt, Jordan, China and the United States (via the UN Convention Against Corruption and the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, both ratified by the UAE). Where no bilateral treaty exists, the UAE will consider requests on a reciprocity basis, though practice has shown that reciprocity-based requests face materially longer processing times and a higher evidentiary threshold.

The procedural sequence under Articles 41–55 of FDL 39/2006 is as follows: (1) the requesting state submits a formal request in Arabic (or with a certified Arabic translation) through diplomatic channels to the UAE Ministry of Justice; (2) the Ministry of Justice routes the request to the competent Public Prosecution office; (3) the Public Prosecution assesses dual criminality, treaty compliance and whether execution would violate UAE public policy or sovereignty; (4) if satisfied, the Public Prosecution applies to the competent onshore court (or refers to a specialised court) for a domestic freezing or enforcement order; (5) the order is executed by UAE enforcement authorities. Article 26 of FDL 10/2025 now permits the Public Prosecution to impose a provisional administrative freeze — without waiting for a court order — for up to 30 days where there is urgency and a credible foreign request, subject to immediate judicial oversight.

Practitioners routinely encounter two principal bottlenecks. First, translation and certification delays: the UAE requires all foreign documents to be notarised, apostilled (where applicable under the Hague Convention, to which the UAE acceded in 2021) and translated into Arabic by a Ministry of Justice-approved translator. A single document package for a complex commercial fraud case may run to thousands of pages. Second, the dual criminality assessment can produce unexpected results: conduct that is clearly criminal in the requesting state may not map cleanly onto UAE offence definitions, particularly in areas such as insider dealing (now codified under Federal Decree-Law 33/2025, in force from 1 January 2026), market manipulation or tax-related offences (now predicate offences under FDL 10/2025 but with specific definitional requirements). Engaging UAE counsel at the drafting stage of the foreign request — before submission — materially reduces the risk of rejection or delay.

The UAE's removal from the FATF grey list in February 2024 and from the EU's high-risk third-country list in 2025 has produced measurable improvements in the responsiveness of UAE authorities to incoming MLA requests from FATF-member states. The FATF mutual evaluation scheduled for 2026 creates institutional incentives for UAE authorities to demonstrate effectiveness in processing requests, which practitioners can reference when engaging with the Ministry of Justice on timeline expectations.

Recognition of Civil Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards Containing Freezing Relief

Where the freezing or confiscation order arises from foreign civil proceedings rather than criminal proceedings, the recognition framework differs significantly. Under Federal Decree-Law 42/2022 (Civil Procedure Law), Articles 85–87 govern the recognition and enforcement of foreign civil judgments in the onshore courts. The onshore courts apply a four-part test: (i) the foreign court had jurisdiction under its own rules and UAE conflict-of-laws principles; (ii) the parties were properly summoned and represented; (iii) the judgment is final and executory in the foreign jurisdiction; (iv) enforcement does not contravene UAE public order or morals. Notably, the onshore courts do not conduct a review of the merits — they will not re-examine the substance of the foreign court's findings. However, interim orders — including freezing orders — that are not final judgments on the merits present a structural difficulty: the UAE onshore courts have historically been reluctant to recognise and enforce foreign interim relief, treating such orders as insufficiently 'final' for recognition purposes.

This gap is precisely where the DIFC and ADGM gateways provide decisive strategic value. Rather than seeking recognition of the foreign freezing order as a standalone instrument in the onshore courts, the more reliable approach is to (i) obtain a fresh DIFC or ADGM freezing order in support of the foreign proceedings using the jurisdiction confirmed by DIFC Court Law 2/2025 and A17 v B17 [2025], and then (ii) enforce that DIFC/ADGM order against onshore assets through the Joint Judicial Committee mechanism. This 'two-step' approach insulates the applicant from the finality objection and brings the matter within a court system where the procedural rules are familiar and the judiciary is experienced in commercial freezing applications.

Where the underlying dispute has proceeded to arbitration, the position is more nuanced. Emergency arbitrator orders and interim measures awarded under DIAC, LCIA, ICC or ADCCAC rules are not automatically enforceable as arbitral awards under the New York Convention, since the UAE ratified the Convention in 1006 and its courts have confirmed (including in DIFC-seated arbitrations) that only final awards are Convention-recognised. However, a party may apply to the DIFC Courts or ADGM Courts for a court-issued freezing order in support of the arbitration, which is then directly enforceable. The DIFC Arbitration Law (DIFC Law 1/2008 as amended) and the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015 both preserve the court's power to grant interim measures in support of arbitral proceedings seated elsewhere.

Freezing Crypto Assets and Piercing Beneficial Ownership Structures

A growing proportion of high-value enforcement mandates in the UAE involve digital assets held through virtual asset service providers (VASPs) regulated by the Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA) under its Rulebooks 2.0 (May 2025) and the Issuance Rulebook (June 2025). The legal characterisation of crypto assets as property — established in the DIFC by DIFC Digital Assets Law No. 2/2024 — provides the foundation for freezing applications: if an asset constitutes property, it can be the subject of a proprietary injunction or Mareva-style order. Practitioners bringing applications in the DIFC Courts should rely explicitly on Law 2/2024 when drafting the originating application and supporting affidavit.

On the regulatory side, Cabinet Resolution 134/2025 (the Executive Regulations to FDL 10/2025) imposes a Travel Rule threshold of AED 3,500 for virtual asset transfers, requiring VASPs to collect, verify and transmit originator and beneficiary information. This creates a transaction data trail that is directly useful in tracing and freezing enforcement: practitioners can apply for disclosure orders against UAE-regulated VASPs to obtain transaction records, wallet addresses and counterparty KYC data. VARA-licensed VASPs are subject to the same AML/CFT obligations as financial institutions under FDL 10/2025, including the obligation to file Suspicious Transaction Reports and to freeze assets upon instruction from the competent authority.

Beneficial ownership tracing is a related enforcement tool. Cabinet Decision 109/2023 requires all UAE-incorporated entities (including those in free zones, with limited DIFC/ADGM carve-outs under their own regimes) to maintain and file a beneficial ownership register identifying any natural person holding 25% or more of shares or voting rights, or exercising ultimate effective control. This register is accessible to competent authorities and, in proceedings before the UAE courts, may be obtained by court order. Practitioners should seek early-stage disclosure orders against the relevant emirate-level registry (DED, ADIO or equivalent) to identify the true beneficial owners behind any corporate respondent. Where ownership is layered through offshore structures, the combination of beneficial ownership registers, VARA transaction data and bank account disclosure orders can reconstruct the full asset picture.

Strategic Considerations: Sequencing, Respondent Tactics and Public Policy Risks

Effective enforcement of a foreign freezing or confiscation order in the UAE requires strategic sequencing decisions made before any application is filed. The central question is whether to lead with the criminal/MLA channel, the DIFC/ADGM civil channel or both in parallel. Running both simultaneously can produce faster interim asset preservation — the DIFC Courts can hear a without-notice freezing application within 24–48 hours of filing — while the slower MLA channel proceeds in parallel to secure a more durable and broadly applicable order. However, the risk of parallel proceedings is that a respondent who becomes aware of the MLA channel may seek to characterise the civil proceedings as an abuse of process or as designed to circumvent the due process protections of the criminal pathway. Practitioners should document the independent legal basis for each channel and avoid any suggestion that civil proceedings are being used as a surrogate for criminal investigation.

Respondents in the UAE frequently deploy three principal defensive tactics. First, jurisdictional challenges: the respondent argues that the DIFC or ADGM Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter or that the foreign order does not qualify for recognition under the applicable rules. This underscores the importance of grounding every application in the specific jurisdictional provisions — DIFC Court Law 2/2025 for DIFC applications, ADGM Application Regulations for ADGM applications — and exhibiting the foreign court's own jurisdictional analysis. Second, public policy objections: the respondent argues that enforcement would violate UAE public policy, typically by reference to Islamic law principles (for example, in cases involving interest-bearing debts or certain categories of financial instrument) or constitutional sovereignty concerns. Practitioners should anticipate this objection and address it proactively in the supporting affidavit. Third, cross-undertaking attacks: the respondent applies to dissolve the freezing order and claim on the cross-undertaking in damages. Where the underlying foreign proceedings are well-advanced and the merits are strong, this risk is manageable; where there is genuine uncertainty about the outcome of the foreign proceedings, practitioners should advise clients to ensure the cross-undertaking is backed by adequate security — in some cases, the DIFC Courts have required a bank guarantee or payment into court.

The UAE's new capital markets regime under Federal Decree-Law 32/2025 (which replaces the SCA with the Capital Markets Authority from 1 January 2026) and the codified market abuse and insider dealing offences under Federal Decree-Law 33/2025 (penalties up to AED 200 million) create a domestic enforcement infrastructure that reinforces incoming foreign orders in capital markets cases. Where a foreign order relates to securities fraud or market manipulation, practitioners should consider whether the UAE's own CMA regulatory enforcement tools can be deployed in parallel, as the CMA has investigative and asset-freeze powers that operate more rapidly than the MLA or civil court channels.

Post-Freeze Steps: Maintaining the Order, Asset Management and Repatriation

Obtaining a freezing order is the beginning, not the end, of the enforcement process. Once a DIFC or ADGM freezing order is in place, the applicant must take active steps to serve it on all relevant third parties — banks, VASPs, company registries, property developers — and to maintain the order through compliance with any undertakings given to the court. Both the DIFC and ADGM Courts require the applicant to notify the court promptly if material new facts emerge that would affect the basis on which the order was granted. Failure to do so risks discharge of the order and a finding of breach of the without-notice duty.

Where frozen assets include illiquid or depreciating assets — real estate subject to a dispute, shares in a private company, crypto assets in a volatile market — practitioners should apply early for directions on asset management. The DIFC Courts have jurisdiction to appoint a receiver over frozen assets under Rule 25.40 of the DIFC Courts Rules, and this is a practical tool where there is a risk of asset dissipation through deterioration rather than transfer. In complex cases involving UAE real property, the freezing order should be registered against the title at the relevant land department (Dubai Land Department, Abu Dhabi Department of Municipalities and Transport, or equivalent) to prevent any disposition. Registration requires a court order addressed to the land department and, in practice, a covering letter from the applicant's UAE counsel explaining the legal basis.

Repatriation of frozen funds to a foreign judgment creditor requires a further enforcement step: converting the freezing order into an order for payment or transfer. In criminal confiscation cases processed through the MLA channel, repatriation is governed by Articles 53–55 of Federal Law 39/2006 as amended by FDL 38/2023, which permit the UAE to transfer confiscated proceeds to the requesting state subject to any domestic claims on those assets and the deduction of enforcement costs. In civil cases, repatriation follows the execution of a final judgment — either the foreign judgment recognised under FDL 42/2022 or a DIFC/ADGM judgment — and is processed through the courts' execution directorates. Practitioners should open execution files promptly upon obtaining a final judgment to avoid any procedural gaps that could be exploited by the respondent.

Practical checklist

• Identify the correct pathway — MLA criminal channel, DIFC/ADGM civil gateway or both — before filing
• Verify dual criminality against current UAE Penal Code FDL 31/2021 and AML predicates under FDL 10/2025
• Prepare Arabic-certified, apostilled document package before submitting the MLA request to the Ministry of Justice
• File DIFC or ADGM without-notice application with full and frank disclosure affidavit citing DIFC Court Law 2/2025
• Register any freezing order over real property at the relevant UAE land department immediately upon grant
• Serve the freezing order on all banks and VASPs and demand written confirmation of compliance within 24 hours
• Secure the cross-undertaking in damages with a bank guarantee or paid-in security where the foreign merits are contested
• Monitor MLA progress with UAE Ministry of Justice and escalate through diplomatic channels if no response within 60 days

Frequently asked questions

Related guides

• Extradition To and From the UAE After the 2023 Reforms
• INTERPOL Red Notices and the UAE: Removal, Provisional Arrest and Defence
• Tried in Your Absence: In-Absentia Convictions in the UAE and How to Reopen Them
• White-Collar & Financial Crime — full guide

Published 15 July 2026. General information only — not legal advice. Contact us for matter-specific advice.