Excluded financial crimes, but drafting that opens the debate
The general amnesty law adopted in Lebanon opens a new judicial front. It directly concerns financial crimes. Contrary to an interpretation that has been circulating for several days, the text does not provide for an explicit and general amnesty for financial or banking offences. Several categories are even formally excluded. However, the manner in which the law was drafted raises different concerns. Could certain financial offences not clearly included in the list of exceptions benefit from amnesty? Elnashra, September 8, 2026, reports that this issue is now agitating legal and economic circles. The controversy lies in the very architecture of the text. Instead of specifically listing the crimes that benefit from amnesty, the legislator has adopted a general principle of amnesty with a series of exceptions. It is therefore all at stake to determine what happens to offences that have not been specifically placed in these exceptions. In a country marked by an unprecedented banking and financial collapse since 2019, this issue takes on a particular dimension. Depositors remain deprived of a significant part of their assets. Procedures for the management of funds, bank managers or financial transactions remain open. The slightest ambiguity in the field of an amnesty can therefore have very different consequences than those originally associated with prison congestion.
However, the text contains several safeguards. Elnashra, September 5, 2026, states that section 2 excludes, inter alia, offences related to fraudulent bankruptcy. It also excludes crimes under the Currency and Credit Code and bank laws and regulations. Offences under anti-money laundering legislation are also excluded. Another provision covers certain offences of illicit enrichment. She mentioned, inter alia, embezzlement of public funds, abuse of trust, theft of certain funds and tax evasion. At first glance, the package seems to protect the main financial files from amnesty. But the lawyers interviewed by Elnashra on 5 and 8 September 2026 draw attention to the way in which these exclusions are formulated. Certain offences are linked to specific laws or specific legal categories. The question is therefore whether a financial act prosecuted under another criminal classification automatically remains outside the scope of amnesty. The problem is not theoretical. The same economic operation may sometimes give rise to several qualifications depending on the facts, the quality of the person prosecuted and the nature of the funds concerned. An overly narrow drafting of the exception can then create a significant difference between two economically close dossiers.
When amnesty becomes the rule and exception must be sought
Sabine El Kik, a banking specialist interviewed by Elnashra on 8 September 2026, focuses his criticism on the legal construction of the law. According to his analysis, an amnesty text should normally identify the specific offences to which the legislator wishes to grant that benefit. Anything not explicitly amnestied would then remain subject to the ordinary rules of criminal law. Lebanese law adopts a reverse approach. It lays down a broad amnesty and then draws up a list of crimes that do not benefit from it. This technical difference produces a major consequence. The judicial debate no longer consists in verifying whether an offence is included among those that are amnestied. It involves looking for whether it belongs to one of the exceptions. If this is not clearly the case, the defence may attempt to argue that the benefit of the law should apply. Elnashra, September 8, 2026, sums up the difficulty: amnesty becomes the principle while the continuation of prosecution depends on the exception provided by the legislator. This construction was also criticized by lawyers cited by The New Arab on 4 September 2026. Jurist Wissam Lahham believes that amnesty should be a narrow and precisely defined exception. He considered that the adopted text reversed that logic.
This difference in method is of particular importance for financial offences. The category of « financial crimes » does not correspond to a single criminal offence. It can cover fraud, money laundering, fraudulent bankruptcy, abuse of trust, certain forms of misappropriation, manipulation of accounts or breaches of banking rules. Some of these offences are expressly excluded by the Amnesty Act. Others may be pursued on the basis of different provisions. The legal risk lies in this area. Therefore, the amnesty would not automatically eliminate all financial records. On the other hand, it could give persons prosecuted in certain cases a new procedural argument. The courts will have to determine whether the criminal qualification chosen belongs to an excluded category. Lawyers may challenge this interpretation. Decisions taken in the first cases should therefore play an important role in the practical definition of the scope of the law.
The abuse of trust at the centre of the controversy
One of the most sensitive issues concerns abuse of trust. Elnashra, 5 September 2026, notes that the wording of article 2 combines certain offences with the legislation on illicit enrichment. The media questions the consequences of this connection when the alleged perpetrator belongs to the private sector. The issue concerns, in particular, the managers or managers of financial institutions. The Law on Illicit Enrichment applies primarily to public officials and persons treated as such under the conditions laid down in the Law. However, bank owners or members of their boards of directors are not, solely because of their banking function, public officials. The question therefore becomes that of the exact scope of the exception when abuse of trust is prosecuted outside the scope of this particular legislation.
This question is directly related to the deposit crisis. Since 2019, procedures initiated around certain banking practices can mobilise different qualifications. However, it would be incorrect to infer that all the bankers prosecuted now benefit from an amnesty. The crimes provided for in banking legislation remain explicitly excluded according to the text reported by Elnashra on 5 September 2026. The same applies to money laundering and fraudulent bankruptcy. The risk arises when a prosecution is based on a qualification that does not fall clearly within these categories. The debate therefore focuses less on the existence of a general exemption granted to banks than on the boundaries between different criminal qualifications.
This distinction will be decisive for cases already opened. A judge will have to examine the exact nature of the offence. It will also have to verify the law defining it and determine whether it corresponds to one of the exceptions provided for by the amnesty. Two cases involving financial transactions could thus have a different fate. It would depend on their legal qualification. This explains the concern of the specialists. A law to deal with certain categories of prosecution could transfer some of the debate to the courts. Instead of removing uncertainty, it could multiply requests for interpretation.
Depositors face the risk of a new judicial battle
For applicants, this controversy comes at a particularly sensitive time. The financial crisis that began in 2019 has still not found a comprehensive settlement. The restrictions imposed by banks have prevented many clients from freely disposing of their funds. At the same time, the question of the distribution of losses between the State, the Bank of Lebanon, banks and depositors remains at the heart of the reforms. An amnesty that could affect certain criminal responsibilities would not necessarily affect the civil or financial rights of applicants. However, it could have an impact on procedures to establish certain individual responsibilities.
This is precisely what economist Jassem Ajaka fears. When questioned by Elnashra on 8 September 2026, he considered that an amnesty for financial crimes against public finances or depositors would undermine the principle of accountability. It directly links the issue to the reconstruction of the economic system. According to his analysis, restoring confidence requires that financial offences be prosecuted. His argument therefore goes beyond the fate of the files already opened. It concerns Lebanon’s future credibility with savers and investors.
The problem also concerns the message sent by the State. For several years, the Lebanese authorities have presented financial and banking reform as a condition for exiting the crisis. A new audit of the Bank of Lebanon has been entrusted to Alvarez & Marsal. Reuters, September 2, 2026, reports that this audit is to review the period from October 2019 to December 2023. It must cover several categories of transactions, including foreign assets, subsidies, public sector transfers and certain letters of credit. The previous audit found irregularities in the management of the central bank under former Governor Riad Salameh. He is the subject of financial investigations in Lebanon and abroad and challenges the charges against him. The launch of a new audit and the entry into force of an amnesty at disputed borders thus produce two opposing movements. The first is to deepen transparency. The second raises concerns that certain responsibilities may be more difficult to pursue.
The issue goes beyond bank records
The potential consequences are not only for banks. Financial offences can affect public finances, markets, businesses and relations between private actors. Tax fraud is one of the categories specifically mentioned in the exclusions reported by Elnashra on 5 September 2026. Money laundering is also excluded. These provisions considerably reduce the scope of financial crimes that may benefit from the text. But they do not respond to all possible situations.
Criminal law is based on specific qualifications. Common language can describe a case as a « financial crime » while the court record is based on a general offence. A fraud involving a financial transaction remains, for example, legally defined according to the legislation applicable to fraud. A fraudulent use of funds can also be pursued on several bases. The actual scope of the amnesty therefore depends on the details of each case. This complexity explains why the claim that « financial crimes are amnestied » is too broad. The opposite assertion, according to which no financial crime can ever benefit from the text, also seems difficult to support until the courts determine the interpretation of the exceptions.
The debate should therefore move towards jurisprudence. The courts will have to consider applications from persons prosecuted or convicted. The prosecution will have to determine the relevant files. Lawyers will seek to apply the most favourable interpretation to their clients. Victims will be able to defend a restrictive reading of the amnesty. The first judicial decisions will be of importance beyond individual cases. They will determine whether the concerns expressed about the drafting flaws actually lead to the termination of certain financial proceedings.
A law born of the prison crisis
Financial controversy must also be placed in the original objective of the law. Ahram Online, quoting Agence France-Presse on 12 August 2026, recalls that Parliament adopted the text in order to respond to prison overcrowding. Lebanese prisons operate well above their capacity. More than 6,200 inmates were registered at the end of March, while some estimates placed the actual population above. The New Arab, on 4 September 2026, reports that the prison system’s capacity corresponds to about one third of the population. A significant proportion of detainees are also in pretrial detention.
The text reduces certain penalties and provides for release mechanisms. It is therefore part of a real crisis in the prison and judicial system. But its scope has been broadened by the political compromises necessary for its adoption. Ahram Online, 12 August 2026, reports the criticisms of Nizar Saghieh, Executive Director of Legal Agenda, who considers that the various political forces have sought amnesty for their respective groups. The lawyer believes that the text turns amnesty into principle and responsibility into an exception. This criticism is directly in line with that of financial crimes.
There are therefore two issues that are not identical. The first concerns the need to deal with overcrowding, excessively long detentions and the slow pace of proceedings. The second concerns the possibility of removing proceedings for offences whose victims are still awaiting redress. The problem arises when the same legal instrument tries to respond simultaneously to these two issues.
Joseph Aoun signs a text now subject to trial by the courts
President Joseph Aoun signed the law, which was subsequently published and entered its enforcement phase. The courts must now determine which detainees and convicted persons are entitled to benefit from its provisions. This step transforms a parliamentary compromise into a series of concrete judicial decisions. The ambiguities of the text will therefore be tested quickly.
The controversy is already significant enough to reach the highest levels of the judiciary. Akhbar Al Yawm, on 8 September 2026, reports that the Attorney General of the Court of Cassation has criticized the complexity of certain provisions and must present his analysis to the Supreme Council of the Judiciary. This reaction illustrates the difficulty of application. The problem is not just financial crimes. Several categories of offences and mechanisms for reducing sentences must be interpreted.
For financial matters, the issue will be to determine how far the exceptions to Article 2 extend. The banking offences explicitly referred to remain outside the amnesties. Laundering remains excluded. Fraudulent bankruptcy is also protected against erasure. Uncertainties therefore focus on qualifications that are not mentioned independently or appear to be linked to specific legislation.
A flaw that could affect economic confidence
The issue comes at a time when Lebanon is trying to convince its partners that a new phase of financial responsibility is opening up. Audits, banking restructuring and reforms must contribute to this demonstration. Any impression of impunity can weaken this message. Jassem Ajaka, in Elnashra on September 8, 2026, directly links judicial responsibility to the ability to attract capital. According to him, an investor must be certain that infringements of his funds can be punished.
This logic also applies to Lebanese applicants. The banking crisis is not just an accounting crisis. It has become a crisis of confidence in contracts and institutions. Savers found that a bank deposit no longer guaranteed normal access to the amounts entered in their accounts. The reconstruction of the sector therefore requires more than a reorganization of the balance sheets. It implies restoring the credibility of the rules.
Amnesty intervenes precisely on this ground. It does not erase all financial crimes in its known form. It even excludes several of the most important. But the technique chosen by the legislator leaves the courts the responsibility to resolve cases that do not clearly correspond to the exceptions. In a financial system where responsibility remains open seven years after the crisis began, this margin of interpretation itself becomes an economic issue.
Future files will measure its true scope. A person prosecuted for a financial offence not explicitly mentioned may attempt to invoke the benefit of the amnesty. The prosecution may argue that the facts fall into an excluded category. The judge will have to decide. It is in these decisions, rather than in general political statements, that the real border between amnesty and financial responsibility in Lebanon will emerge.
