Background
Israel Defense Forces seized NIS 40,000 in cash, US$13,600 in checks, and NIS 25,000 in checks from petitioner Omar Khaled Omar Atia’s home. On May 26, 2025, the military commander adopted the recommendation of the Property Seizure Review Committee and ordered the confiscation of NIS 65,000. The recommendation relied on classified security material indicating that Atia had received money as compensation for terrorism offenses and arms trafficking. The commander returned the foreign-currency checks and confiscated the remainder.
Atia petitioned the High Court of Justice, arguing that confiscation required proof of a connection between the particular property and unlawful activity and that the evidence did not establish his involvement in the alleged conduct. He also asserted that the order undermined the presumption of innocence, that he lacked a meaningful opportunity to be heard, that confiscation disproportionately impaired his property rights, that less restrictive measures were not considered, and that the committee’s recommendation was inadequately reasoned. He further claimed that returning the foreign-currency checks while confiscating cash was arbitrary and discriminatory.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously dismissed the petition. Justice David Mintz, writing for the panel, explained that existing precedent had already rejected Atia’s general legal arguments. Under Regulation 120 of the Defence (Emergency) Regulations, 1945, confiscation—particularly of money—does not require a demonstrated link between the specific property and the conduct prompting the exercise of the power. Nor must the alleged conduct be proved to the criminal-law standard.
After reviewing the classified security material with defense counsel’s consent, the Court found a sufficient factual basis for the order. Atia had been permitted to file an objection and appear through counsel before the committee, so his right to be heard was not violated. The committee’s reliance on classified material explained why its reasoning could not be detailed at length, and the confiscation was neither unreasonable nor disproportionate, especially because part of the seized property was returned. The decision to confiscate assets requiring the fewest resources to realize—cash rather than checks—was practical, not discriminatory.
Key Takeaways
- Confiscation under Regulation 120 does not necessarily require proof that the particular funds confiscated were directly connected to the underlying unlawful conduct.
- The factual basis for administrative confiscation need not satisfy the criminal standard of proof, and classified security evidence may support the decision.
- An opportunity to submit an objection and appear through counsel satisfied the hearing requirement, while the classified nature of the evidence justified limited public reasoning.
Why It Matters
The judgment reaffirms the broad confiscation authority available to Israeli military commanders under the Defence (Emergency) Regulations and the limited scope of judicial intervention when classified intelligence provides an adequate factual foundation. It also confirms that ordinary criminal-law protections concerning evidentiary standards and tracing particular assets do not apply unchanged in this administrative national-security context.
The Court nevertheless reviewed the classified material itself and assessed procedural fairness, proportionality, and the treatment of different assets. It ordered Atia to pay the respondents NIS 5,000 in costs.