Iran’s judiciary says it has seized 240 assets belonging to Iranian citizens and blocked 182 bank accounts over the past several months. According to the judiciary-affiliated Mizan news agency, some of the measures involve journalists and prominent figures living outside the country.
Mizan reported on Monday, September 14, that 143 of the seized assets are located in Tehran. The agency said some of the assets belong to journalists working for Persian-language outlets including Iran International and Manoto, as well as other Persian-language media and prominent figures living abroad.
Mizan attributed the measures to accusations including “betrayal of the homeland” and “selling out the homeland”. The report did not, however, provide evidence establishing these allegations or specify the precise charges in each case.
The terminology used by the judiciary also raises a legal question. “Betrayal of the homeland” and “selling out the homeland” do not, by themselves, identify a specific standalone criminal offence under Iranian law. The use of such expressions therefore cannot substitute for a precise legal charge.
Another key uncertainty concerns the status of the assets. Mizan did not specify how many cases have resulted in final confiscation orders and how many involve temporary seizures while proceedings are still underway.
That distinction is significant because temporary seizure and final confiscation have fundamentally different legal consequences. They cannot be treated as equivalent measures.
The presumption of innocence is also relevant to cases that remain under judicial review. A person whose case has not resulted in a final conviction should not be treated as guilty before a final judgment.
The announcement comes amid continuing judicial and security pressure on some Persian-language media outlets and journalists based outside Iran. However, without details of the individual cases, it remains unclear what specific charges have been brought against each person and what legal basis was used to seize or freeze their assets.
The figures announced by the judiciary — 240 seized assets and 182 blocked bank accounts — indicate the potentially broad scope of the measures. But a precise assessment requires distinguishing temporary seizures from final confiscations and determining whether the assets belong to separate individuals and cases.
Until those details are made public, the legal status of the assets remains only partially clear. The lack of case-by-case information also leaves open the broader question of whether these measures are solely part of individual judicial proceedings or form part of wider pressure on journalists and prominent figures living abroad.
