Beirut, Lebanon (Enmaeya News) — Weeks after Lebanon’s Public Prosecutor for Financial Affairs, Maher Chaito, issued an exceptional ruling to recover funds transferred abroad, experts are assessing its potential impact on the banking sector and the wider economy.
The decision, which applies to both individuals and institutions, including bankers, asks for the return of money moved during the crisis to restore liquidity and rebuild trust in Lebanon’s financial system.
The ruling, following long investigations, is based on Legislative Decree No. 150/1983, which gives the Financial Prosecutor wide powers over financial crimes, including public funds misuse, corruption, tax evasion, and money laundering. It also allows exceptional measures in urgent cases for the public interest.
Even though the law does not clearly require people to return money, the Public Prosecutor said this step is part of “exceptional measures needed by necessity,” because the transfers badly hurt liquidity and depositors’ rights.
In an interview with Enmaeya, Lawyer Mohammad Rizk called the decision “a bold move and a legal precedent,” but he also warned about the risks. He said: “The decision is an important precedent for the Financial Prosecutor’s work on financial crimes. But by itself, it cannot be enough without a clear legal framework that defines limits and rules.”
Rizk added that handling transfers during the crisis as part of a “financial gap” needs clear legal rules. These rules should separate legitimate transfers—like for medical bills, education, or external obligations—from transfers meant to move money out illegally or harm the financial system. Without this, he said, there could be legal challenges and debates, which could hurt trust in a financial sector already facing a serious crisis.
He stressed the need for clear and transparent ways to enforce the decision, making sure the Financial Prosecutor, the Central Bank of Lebanon, and the Banking Control Commission work together and provide accurate data.
“Clear rules will make sure the decision is applied fairly, without favoritism or discrimination, and protect the rights of individuals and institutions. Otherwise, it could create more controversy than solutions,” Rizk said.
Economically, Rizk mentioned that the decision could have positive effects but also faces challenges. “On the positive side, asking people and organizations to return funds moved abroad could bring back some lost liquidity to banks, which could help banks meet obligations and give the economy a small confidence boost.”
He added that the decision could also show that authorities are serious about financial justice and holding those who used the crisis for personal gain accountable. In turn, this could improve Lebanon’s image with international donors if implemented as part of broader reforms.
However, he warned of potential risks. Specifically, if the measure is seen as forced, it could undermine trust rather than build it, especially when it includes transfers that were legal at the time. As a result, people might avoid sending money back to Lebanon if they fear similar measures in the future.
Rizk also said money transfers, which are vital for the economy, could be affected if expatriates feel their money could be taken without clear rules. He stressed that success depends on a full plan to restructure the banking sector and fix public finances. Without this, any recovered money could be lost in the system with little effect.
He concluded that, economically, the decision is mostly symbolic unless it comes with reforms and clear laws tackling the root causes of the crisis. The goal is not just to recover money but to rebuild a system that ensures transparency, responsibility, and protection of deposits.
“Success is not just about bold decisions. It’s about whether they hold up in courts, earn public trust, and lead to real results that restore fairness and balance. Otherwise, the decision stays symbolic without practical effect,” Rizk said.
In summary, Judge Maher Chaito’s decision is an important step showing the judiciary can handle big financial cases, but its real impact depends on clear enforcement rules and a full regulatory framework that ensures fairness and protects everyone’s rights.
