The report examines situations in which access to property is restricted before formal criminal charges are brought. Its central point is that the absence of charges does not automatically make a freeze unlawful, but neither does it relieve the state of the need to identify the legal basis, purpose, scope, duration and review mechanism of the measure. For the owner, the decisive question is therefore not simply whether criminal proceedings have been initiated, but which legal mechanism has actually restricted the ability to deal with the asset.

The analysis distinguishes four possible sources of restraint: criminal seizure, preservation linked to civil forfeiture, sanctions freezing and a bank’s own restriction. These mechanisms may operate simultaneously and require different remedies. Removing one restriction does not necessarily remove another. Practical analysis therefore begins with precise identification of the relevant order, authority, property, amount and termination condition for each separate basis.

The comparative sections cover France, England and Wales, federal civil forfeiture in the United States and European mutual-recognition mechanisms. The report examines differences between criminal seizure, account freezing orders and civil forfeiture, including notice, procedural deadlines, evidential thresholds, third-party participation, judicial review and access to funds for essential expenditure. Particular attention is given to duration and proportionality: a measure that was justified initially may require renewed justification as time passes, especially where it threatens an operating business, prevents a family from meeting essential expenses or restrains assets whose value greatly exceeds the amount potentially recoverable.

The practical analysis addresses the first actions following a freeze, reconstruction of the origin of funds, mixed balances, valuation, co-owner and family rights, legal expenses and measures designed to preserve a functioning business. It also considers foreign requests, allegations of political motivation, prolonged restraint and cryptoassets, where legal scope must be matched with technical realities such as custody structures, token quantities, networks, platform records and issuer-level restrictions.

ARGA’s approach is that an effective challenge must address four issues together: the legal basis of the measure, the evidential connection between the property and the statutory purpose, proportionality, and the practical feasibility of the requested remedy. A favourable court decision is incomplete if the bank or other implementing institution cannot determine precisely which account, amount or transaction has been released. The final measure of success is actual restoration of the permitted use of the property, not merely formal variation or discharge of an order.