Riad Salameh and the General Amnesty Law: Will Prosecutions Against the Former Governor of Lebanon's Central Bank Be Dropped?

If we were to dissect the amendments made by the Constitutional Council to the General Amnesty Law, we would write volumes about it, especially after the political storm stirred by some Lebanese parliamentarians who do not value a law that is above everyone and above their heads, merely to exonerate certain killers and terrorists to release them from prison. This occurs in a state where Lebanese people, before the East and West, want to fight corruption and criminals, yet some of its MPs are themselves quintessentially corrupt.

To avoid prolonging the discussion, today we will detail the map of judicial files, the request for dropping public prosecution, and the limits of benefiting from Amnesty Law No. 70/2026, particularly regarding Riad Salameh, the former governor of Banque du Liban.

The Request for Amnesty Is Not a Verdict Dropping Prosecution
When a lawyer for a person prosecuted for financial crimes submits a request to benefit from the General Amnesty Law, the first step is not declaring the charges dropped, but rather identifying the crimes covered by the request, the texts upon which the prosecution relies, and then comparing all this with the exceptions included in the law and the interpretation adopted by the Constitutional Council.

This distinction is necessary in the case of Riad Salameh, the former governor of Banque du Liban, who faces multiple judicial files in Lebanon and abroad. Information published on October 15, 2026, indicated that his representative requested the dropping of public prosecution for certain crimes based on Amnesty Law No. 70/2026, while the session was postponed to December 3, 2026. This step does not mean the request was accepted, nor that the court decided to drop any charge, nor that all files pursued by the judiciary against Salameh are covered by the request.

The precise legal formulation here is important: we are facing a defensive request awaiting a decision, not a final judicial outcome. Furthermore, the available news speaks of certain crimes and does not specify in the published text a complete and final list of all charges for which the defense requested dismissal. Therefore, it is not permissible to attribute to the request a scope wider than what the available information confirms.

But the mere submission of the request opens an important legal question: Does the Amnesty Law allow the dropping of prosecutions related to financial corruption, unlawful enrichment, or money laundering, or do these crimes fall within the exceptions that the legislator kept outside the amnesty, and which the Constitutional Council confirmed in its Decision No. 12 issued on October 12, 2026?

To answer, one must return to the texts, not settle for the headline accompanying the news.

One File or Multiple Files?
Among the mistakes to be avoided when dealing with Salameh's case is treating it as a single lawsuit with identical facts and charges. Judicial information published until September and October 2026 indicates several tracks, differing in subject matter and procedural stage, although some accusations overlap.

Among the most prominent of these tracks is the case of "Forry Associates", which concerns transfers and commissions paid by Banque du Liban accounts to a company owned by Salameh's actual beneficiary brother, Raja Salameh, between 2002 and 2015. Investigations revolve around commissions exceeding $330 million, with suspicions regarding the transfer of parts of the funds through accounts and companies linked to the brothers. Charges related to embezzlement, money laundering, and unlawful enrichment have been brought in this file, but the published report on the case's status indicated that it had not yet concluded with a final verdict.

There is also the real estate case in France, including properties in Paris linked to contractual relationships between Banque du Liban and a company associated with a former partner of Salameh. Suspicions in this file include money laundering and unlawful enrichment, and the case was referred to the Jounieh Criminal Court, with a subsequent session scheduled for January 2027, according to published information.

As for the latest file, it concerns a complaint filed by Banque du Liban in January 2026 regarding a financial operation dating back to 2010, linked to the purchase of shares in Bank Audi through bonds issued by a company in the Cayman Islands. On August 10, 2026, the Public Prosecutor in Beirut charged Salameh and the former CEO of Bank Audi, Samir Hanna, with suspicions of embezzling public funds. Procedures later expanded to include allegations of violating the Monetary and Credit Law.

Reports indicate that the core dispute in this file relates to the legitimacy of Banque du Liban investing its funds in this manner. While the defense relies on the central bank's role in protecting financial stability, the prosecution believes the operation exceeded the powers permitted by law, unless there was an exceptional situation threatening the banking sector.

These files are not identical, and it is not permissible to combine them into a single charge or assume their judicial fate will be the same. Each file relies on different facts, different evidence, and legal texts that may vary in their elements. Moreover, the existence of an accusation in one file does not imply its establishment in another, nor does it substitute for examining the procedural stage each has reached.

What Does the Amnesty Law Change in These Files?
Article Two of General Amnesty Law No. 70/2026 stipulates exceptions for categories of financial and banking crimes, including crimes against public funds, those related to the Monetary and Credit Law and banking laws, unlawful enrichment crimes specified in the text, money laundering and terrorism financing crimes, and crimes related to depositors' funds and banking crimes of all kinds.

However, applying these exceptions to Salameh's file requires more than just the existence of financial accusations. It is necessary to determine the legal description of each act attributed to him, the text upon which the prosecution relies, and whether the act falls under a crime exempted from amnesty according to the original text and the binding reading of the Constitutional Council.

If one of the prosecutions relates to a crime of corruption, embezzlement of public funds, or money laundering within the scope excluded by the law, it is not permissible to assume they are covered by amnesty simply because the specific clause describing them did not appear in the request or was not mentioned in the case title. Conversely, it is also not permissible to assume that all prosecutions against the same person are automatically excluded without reviewing the nature of each charge individually.

This is the difference between looking at the person's name and looking at the crime. The general amnesty, according to the logic adopted by the Constitutional Council, relates to the crime defined by the law, not granting comprehensive personal immunity to anyone who applies to benefit from it.

Why Has the Constitutional Council's Decision Become Pivotal?
Decision No. 12 of the Constitutional Council was issued on October 12, 2026, following the challenge to the Amnesty Law. In its examination of the exception for corruption crimes, the Council rejected the reading that limits the excluded crimes to those mentioned in paragraphs nine and ten of Article Two, and decided that the exception includes all corruption crimes stipulated in effective laws and international conventions to which Lebanon is committed, in both the public and private sectors, and all those involved regardless of their capacity.

This means the exception is not limited to public employees or those with official status. It can include partners, intermediaries, beneficiaries, or any other contributors, provided their responsibility for a corruption crime falling within the scope of the exception is established.

This interpretation acquires special importance in complex financial files where roles may be distributed among employees, officials, financial institutions, companies, and individuals benefiting from operations. Differences in status or role alone are not sufficient to exclude a contributor from the scope of the exception if the crime they contributed to is covered by it.

However, the decision itself does not resolve Salameh's responsibility for any of the acts attributed to him. It defines the legal framework that courts should apply when considering the amnesty request, while determining facts, elements of crimes, and individual responsibility remains the jurisdiction of the judiciary handling each file.

Preliminary Conclusion: Do Not Preempt the Court's Decision
In light of the above, it is incorrect to say that Salameh benefited from the Amnesty Law, just as it is incorrect to say that all files he faces have been legally resolved merely by the issuance of the Constitutional Council's decision. What we know is that a request to drop public prosecution for certain crimes was submitted, that a session was postponed to December 3, 2026, and that the law and the Council's decision contain broad exceptions for corruption, public funds, banking crimes, and money laundering.

The outcome depends on the specific crimes covered by the request, the legal characterization adopted in each file, and the decision the court will issue. These steps cannot be replaced by journalistic conclusions, no matter how serious the accusations or significant the person concerned.

But the Constitutional Council's decision places a clear constraint on any expansive interpretation of amnesty: it is not permissible to assume that a corruption crime is covered by amnesty simply because it was not literally mentioned in paragraphs nine and ten. This makes studying the defense request, in light of the full text of the law and the constitutional decision, a legal necessity rather than merely media debate.

"Al-Nashra"