An Overview

Fraud-related conduct in Saudi Arabia is addressed through several laws, each targeting a specific type of dishonest behaviour, and a victim may need to engage more than one of them.

Deception

On the civil side, the Civil Transactions Law (CTL) is the starting point. Under Article 61 of the CTL, deception (تغري) means using fraudulent means – including deliberate silence – to induce someone into a contract they would not otherwise have entered. Under Article 62 of the CTL, the deceived party may seek nullification of the contract where the deception relates to a material matter.

False Statements and Forgery

Where documents are involved, the Penal Code for Forgery Offences (the “Forgery Penal Code”) applies. Forgery requires bad faith and causing harm, and extends beyond physical alteration to include inserting false facts into a document or deliberately omitting facts that should have been recorded, under Article 3 of the Forgery Penal Code. Penalties vary depending on the type of document. For example, forging a non-official document carries up to three years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to SAR300,000 under Article 9 of the Forgery Penal Code; and forging a Commercial Paper (negotiable instrument) or security, bank instrument or insurance policy carries one to five years and a fine of up to SAR400,000 under Article 13 of the Forgery Penal Code.

In a company setting, Article 260 of the Companies Law 1443-2022 (the “Companies Law”) makes it a criminal offence for directors, board members, officers, auditors or liquidators to deliberately include false or misleading information in financial statements or reports, or to intentionally omit material facts in order to misrepresent the company’s financial position. The penalty is up to three years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to SAR5 million, or both.

Misappropriation

Misappropriation is addressed across two provisions of the Anti-Financial Fraud and Breach of Trust Law (the “Anti-Financial Fraud Law”). Under Article 1 of the Anti-Financial Fraud Law, unlawfully obtaining another’s money through lying, deception or false impressions carries up to seven years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to SAR5 million. Article 2 of the Anti-Financial Fraud Law separately targets those entrusted with money – whether through employment, partnership, deposit, loan, lease, mortgage or agency – and who either unlawfully appropriate it, deal with it in bad faith or intentionally cause damage to it. This carries up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to SAR3 million.

Corrupt Payments

The Anti-Bribery Law applies to both the public and private sectors. The Anti-Bribery Law criminalises offering, promising, giving, soliciting, accepting or receiving a bribe, and treats the giver and the recipient as equally liable. Under Article 8 of the Anti-Bribery Law, the definition of “public official” is broad, covering banking sector employees and employees of companies with government shareholding. Public official bribery carries up to ten years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to SAR1 million under Articles 1 and 2 of the Anti-Bribery Law. Private employees bribery – involving employees of private companies, sole proprietorships or professional bodies – carries up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to a SAR500,000, or both, under Articles 9 bis 1 and 9 bis 2 of the Anti-Bribery Law.

Conspiracy and Participation

Both the Anti-Financial Fraud Law and the Anti-Bribery Law extend liability to those who conspire, incite or assist in the commission of fraud or bribery. Under Article 3 of the Anti-Financial Fraud Law and Article 10 of the Anti-Bribery Law, facilitators face the same maximum penalty as the principal offender where the offence is carried out.

Civil and Criminal Proceedings

Civil and criminal proceedings are not mutually exclusive. Under Article 69 of the Criminal Procedure Law, a victim may assert a private right claim before the public prosecution during the criminal investigation itself. Under Article 22 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the end of a criminal action does not extinguish a civil claim, and Article 143(2) of the CTL confirms that a compensation claim arising from a crime remains alive for as long as the criminal case does. The interaction between these two tracks is explored further in 2.5 Criminal Redress.

Civil Remedies

An agent owes duties of care and loyalty to their principal under the CTL. Accepting a bribe breaches both duties and gives the principal a direct compensation claim for any resulting loss. More specifically, where the bribe influenced a transaction – whether an agent purchases at an unconscionable or above-specified price (Article 492) or sells below the specified or market price (Article 494) – the principal may refuse to ratify the transaction. In either case, the transaction is deemed concluded for the agent’s own account, and the principal may separately claim compensation for any loss suffered. Article 491(2) of the CTL prohibits an agent from purchasing from any person from whom the agent stands to gain or avoid a loss, and Article 495 of the CTL imposes the same prohibition in the context of selling – both provisions capture the bribery arrangement.

Criminal Remedies

The principal may file a criminal complaint under the Anti-Bribery Law against both the agent and the bribing party. The Anti-Bribery Law applies to bribe recipients acting in a relevant capacity – where the agent is employed in the private sector (whether by a private company, sole proprietorship or professional body) – such that the receipt of a bribe in connection with the performance or refrainment of their duties is an offence under Article 9 bis 2, and the bribing party faces equal criminal exposure under Article 9 bis 1. Where the agent falls within the definition of “public official” under Article 8 – which extends to employees of joint-stock companies, companies managing public facilities and banking sector employees, among others – the heavier penalties apply under Articles 1 to 6.

Bribery is classified as a corruption crime under Article 2 of the Oversight and Anti-Corruption Authority Law (the “Nazaha Law”). Under Article 4 of the Nazaha Law, the Oversight and Anti-Corruption Authority (“Nazaha”) acts with the full powers of public prosecution for corruption crimes and is therefore the competent authority to receive the complaint, investigate and try the case before the designated criminal court.

Civil Claims

Where a third party assisted in or facilitated a fraud that induced a contract, the victim’s first step is to seek nullification of that contract, under Article 63 of the CTL, as explained in 1.1 General Characteristics of Fraud Claims. Once nullified, payments made under the contract become recoverable as undue payments under Articles 145 to 147 of the CTL.

Where the facilitating third party was enriched as a result of the fraud, Article 144 of the CTL provides a separate claim against any person enriched without legitimate cause at another’s expense. In all cases, Article 127 of the CTL imposes joint and several liability on all persons responsible for the same harmful act.

Saudi courts generally limit compensation to actually suffered losses and lost profits that are a natural result of the harmful act. This flows directly from Articles 136 and 137 of the CTL.

Criminal Claims

A facilitating third party may face criminal exposure under three separate laws, which may apply concurrently. Under Article 3 of the Anti-Financial Fraud Law, anyone who incites, conspires with or assists in the commission of any offence under that law faces the same maximum penalty as the principal offender if the offence is carried out, and up to half that maximum if it is not.

Under Article 10 of the Anti-Bribery Law, anyone who knowingly incites, conspires with or assists in the commission of a bribery offence is treated as an accomplice and faces the same penalties as the principal.

Under the Anti-Money Laundering Law, a facilitating party faces independent criminal exposure. Article 2 criminalises acquiring, possessing or using funds known to be proceeds of crime, concealing or disguising their nature or source, and participating in, facilitating or colluding in any such acts. Article 4 clarifies that a money laundering conviction is independent from a conviction for the underlying predicate offence – meaning a facilitator can be prosecuted under the Anti-Money Laundering Law even if the primary fraud case has not yet concluded. The complaint is filed with the public prosecution or the police. The Public Prosecution is the competent authority to investigate and prosecute money laundering crimes under Article 48 of the Anti-Money Laundering Law.

Saudi law does not have a single limitation period for fraud claims. Different periods apply depending on the type of claim.

Civil Claims

For nullification of a contract on grounds of deception, Article 79 of the CTL provides that a claim must be brought within one year from the date the victim becomes aware of the deception. In all cases, nullification claims cannot be heard after ten years from the date the contract was concluded.

For civil compensation claims arising from harmful acts, Article 143(1) of the CTL sets a three-year period from the date the victim becomes aware of both the harm and the identity of the person responsible, with an absolute cap of ten years from the date the harm occurred. However, where the compensation claim arises from a criminal act, Article 143(2) of the CTL provides that the civil claim remains alive for as long as the criminal case can be heard – a provision that significantly extends the effective limitation period in fraud cases that are also the subject of criminal proceedings.

For unjust enrichment claims, Article 159 of the CTL sets a three-year period from the date the creditor becomes aware of their right, with an absolute cap of ten years from the date the right arose.

Criminal Claims

Saudi criminal laws do not provide a uniform limitation period for fraud offences. Under Article 27 of the Forgery Penal Code, criminal suits for most forgery offences lapse after ten years from the date of commission. For offences under the Anti-Financial Fraud Law and Anti-Bribery Law, no limitation period is prescribed in the texts of those laws.

Identifiable Property

Where misappropriated movable property remains identifiable and in the possession of another, a fraud victim can assert a proprietary claim to recover it. Article 26 of the Enforcement Law allows a claimant of ownership of a movable property to request provisional attachment of that property while in the possession of others, where there is compelling evidence supporting the claim.

Where the recipient acted in bad faith, Article 676 of the CTL further requires that person to account for all fruits received or negligently not received from the date bad faith began, meaning gains generated from invested fraud proceeds are also recoverable.

Mixed Funds

Once fraud proceeds are mixed with legitimate funds, the position becomes more difficult. Saudi civil law does not provide a tracing mechanism for mixed assets. However, under Article 33 of the Anti-Money Laundering Law, upon conviction for a money laundering or predicate offence, the court must order confiscation of proceeds of crime, including proceeds intermingled with funds from legitimate sources, up to the value of the intermingled proceeds – providing a practical criminal law alternative where criminal proceedings are underway.

Saudi law does not prescribe formal pre-action conduct rules specific to fraud claims. A fraud victim may file a civil claim before the competent court or a criminal complaint before Nazaha, the public prosecution or the police, as the case may be, without any prior notice to the defendant.

Criminal Route

A fraud victim may file a criminal complaint with the public prosecution or the police, which triggers broad investigative and asset preservation powers that the victim cannot access directly through civil proceedings. Once a complaint is filed, the public prosecution may, under Article 80 of the Criminal Procedure Law, search premises and seize items used in or resulting from the commission of a crime pursuant to a search warrant. Under Article 57 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the head of the public prosecution may order the seizure of correspondence, publications and packages, and authorise the monitoring and recording of telephone conversations if useful for solving the crime. Under Article 85 of the Criminal Procedure Law, where the investigator has evidence that a person holds items relevant to the investigation, they may seek an order for delivery of those items. Under Article 58 of the Implementing Regulations of the Criminal Procedure Law, the public prosecution may freeze bank accounts and balances.

In cases where fraud proceeds are involved, the Anti-Money Laundering Law provides additional powers. Under Article 44, the public prosecution may order provisional seizure of funds that may become subject to confiscation for up to 60 days, ex parte and without prior notice. Under Article 45, the public prosecution may issue search warrants to seize funds, properties and documents relating to a predicate offence or money laundering crime, also ex parte. These powers represent the most powerful asset preservation tools in the fraud context.

Civil Route – Summary Proceedings

Except where the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the commercial courts, a claimant may seek asset preservation through summary proceedings under Articles 205 and 206 of the Civil Procedure Law, which provide for urgent provisional measures – including provisional seizure and injunctions against interference with possession – where the lapse of time may affect the outcome.

Where the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the commercial courts, Article 36 of the Law of Commercial Courts provides for summary relief, including provisional seizure, seizure of certain documents, prevention or permission of disposition, travel ban and receivership. Under Article 37 of the Law of Commercial Courts, the court may require the claimant to provide a security to indemnify the defendant if the claim is found to have no merit.

Provisional Attachment

The primary pre-judgment asset preservation mechanism available to a civil claimant is provisional attachment under the Enforcement Law. Under Article 23 of the Enforcement Law, provisional attachment is conducted as summary proceedings by the competent authority adjudicating the dispute. Where a substantive claim is already filed, that authority has jurisdiction to issue the attachment order under Article 30. Where no substantive claim exists yet, the claimant may file the attachment petition and must then institute a substantive claim within ten days under Article 31 – failing which the attachment is void.

Under Article 24 of the Enforcement Law, the grounds for provisional attachment are that the debtor has no established residence in the Kingdom or that the creditor justifiably fears assets may disappear or be smuggled. Article 24.3 of the Enforcement Law Implementing Regulations (the “Enforcement Law Regulations”) confirms that all of the debtor’s assets – movable and real property – are provisionally attachable. Under Article 28 of the Enforcement Law, provisional attachment requires the debt to be evident and due. Under Article 27 of the Enforcement Law, the attachment can also reach funds and assets held by third parties, including banks, with the garnishee required to disclose and deposit into the enforcement court’s account within ten days of notification.

In Rem or In Personam

Under Article 20 of the Enforcement Law, all of a debtor’s assets are liable to satisfy their debts. Once attachment is ordered, any disposition by the debtor of the attached assets is invalidated. Under Article 20.2 of the Enforcement Law Regulations, this effect runs from the date and time the debtor or garnishee is notified of the attachment order – or from the date of publication where notification is not possible. Under Article 20.3, assets registered in the debtor’s name remain subject to attachment even where a third party claims ownership, and the attachment will not be lifted until that third party establishes their ownership.

Receivership

Separately, under Article 211 of the Civil Procedure Law, where the right to disputed property is not yet established and an imminent danger is feared if the property remains in the hands of the possessor, the court may place that property under receivership – providing an additional protective tool in fraud cases involving specific assets at risk.

Guarantee

Under Article 32 of the Enforcement Law, the claimant must provide a guarantee, such as bank guarantee, or a notarised written guarantee from a solvent guarantor covering all rights of the defendant and any damage sustained if the claim is proved invalid. The solvency of the guarantor is assessed at the court’s discretion under Article 32.1 of the Enforcement Law Regulations.

Court Fees

The provisional attachment petition attracts a fee of SAR1,000. The substantive claim fee is calculated as a percentage of the claim value under the Judicial Fees Law and its Implementing Regulations: 5% for claims below SAR100,000, 4% for claims between SAR100,000 and SAR499,999, 3% for claims between SAR500,000 and SAR999,999 and 2% for claims of SAR1 million and above, capped at SAR1 million, as per Article 3 of the Judicial Fees Law and Article 2 of the Judicial Fees Law Implementing Regulations. Under Article 13 of the Judicial Fees Law, the losing party bears the court fees and petitions.

Sanctions for Non-Compliance

Under Article 88 of the Enforcement Law, a defendant who conceals or smuggles property, refuses to disclose assets or provides false statements faces up to seven years’ imprisonment. This applies equally to legal representatives and employees of private legal persons who obstruct or impede enforcement under Article 88.1 of the Enforcement Law Regulations. Under Article 46 of the Enforcement Law, where a debtor fails to comply with an enforcement order, the enforcement judge may impose, including but not limited to, a travel ban, mandatory asset disclosure and a bar on financial institutions dealing with the debtor. A debtor proven to have dissipated significant assets faces up to 15 years’ imprisonment under Article 90 of the Enforcement Law, which is classified as a serious crime mandating detention.

Effect on Third Parties

Under Article 20.3 of the Enforcement Law Regulations, assets registered in the name of the debtor are subject to attachment even if claimed by a third party, and will not be released until that third party establishes ownership. A garnishee who provides a false declaration or refuses to declare assets faces enforcement against their own property and a damages claim under Article 27.4 of the Enforcement Law Regulations.

Asset disclosure in Saudi Arabia operates differently depending on whether a claimant holds an enforceable instrument. Under Article 9 of the Enforcement Law, compulsory enforcement may only be carried out pursuant to an enforceable instrument for a due and specified right – which includes court judgments, arbitral awards and documents the defendant acknowledges as containing a due right.

Once such an instrument exists, the enforcement judge may order the debtor to disclose assets sufficient to satisfy the debt under Article 16 of the Enforcement Law. Under Article 17 of the Enforcement Law, all competent authorities, asset registration bodies and the debtor’s own debtors, accountants and employees must comply within ten days. The judge may extend this to any person believed to have knowledge of the debtor’s assets under Article 17.1 of the Enforcement Law Regulations. Under Article 47 of the Enforcement Law, the enforcement judge may also personally question the debtor, their accountants, employees and persons suspected of being favoured by the debtor, and may appoint an expert to trace assets. The regime is not limited to assets in the defendant’s own name – under Article 46 of the Enforcement Law, it extends to the debtor’s spouse, children and any person to whom circumstantial evidence suggests assets may have been transferred.

Before judgment, the disclosure mechanisms available are more limited. For the tools available at that stage – including provisional attachment, garnishment of third parties and the consequences of non-compliance – 1.7 Prevention of Defendants Dissipating or Secreting Assets.

Civil Proceedings

On the civil side, a party who fears that evidence may be lost or destroyed may file an urgent inspection case under Article 206 of the Civil Procedure Law, read together with Articles 108 and 109 of the Evidence Law. Article 109 of the Evidence Law specifically allows a party who fears the loss of evidence relating to a fact that may be disputed before the court to request its inspection and establishment by way of a summary case. Where the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the commercial courts, the equivalent procedure is available under Article 36(1) of the Law of Commercial Courts, which expressly includes inspection to verify an existing state among the summary petitions that may be filed. In all cases, Saudi courts have established that such applications must satisfy two requirements: seriousness (meaning the claim appears valid on the face of the papers) and urgency (meaning there is an imminent harm that cannot be remedied or that is feared to occur imminently). This procedure may be invoked before substantive proceedings are commenced. Where the court grants the application, it is the court itself – or an expert appointed by it – that conducts the inspection, including at the defendant’s residence or place of business. Whether the claimant may attend is subject to the court’s discretion. No cross-undertaking in damages is explicitly required.

Criminal Proceedings

On the criminal side, filing a fraud complaint with the public prosecution or the police triggers investigative powers – including search warrants, seizure of documents and interception of communications under Articles 79, 80 and 57 of the Criminal Procedure Law – that are far broader than what is available in civil proceedings.

During Proceedings

The primary mechanism for obtaining documents from third parties is Article 37 of the Evidence Law, under which the court may, on its own motion or at a party’s request and at any stage of the case, order the joinder of a third party to produce a document in their possession. The court may also request from a public entity a certified copy of any document the litigant is unable to produce, and may request the public entity to provide information relevant to the case, verbally or in writing. Under Article 45 of the Procedural Manuals for the Law of Evidence, third-party joinder for document production follows the general joinder procedures under the relevant laws.

Before Commencement of Proceedings

The document production mechanism under Article 37 of the Evidence Law requires proceedings to be on foot. However, the urgent inspection procedure under Articles 108 and 109 of the Evidence Law, mentioned in 2.2 Preserving Evidence, may be invoked before proceedings are commenced where the requirements of seriousness and urgency are met.

Restrictions

Documents may not be compelled where they are protected by a special legal provision or where production would reveal trade secrets. Legal professional privilege is discussed in 6.2 Undermining the Privilege Over Communications Exempt From Discovery.

The General Rule

Saudi procedural law generally requires that the defendant be notified before orders are made against them. Under Article 207 of the Civil Procedure Law, the minimum notification period in summary cases is 24 hours, which may be reduced by court order in compelling circumstances. This reflects a default position that even urgent proceedings involve some form of notice.

When Without-Notice Orders Are Available

Without-notice orders are available in specific circumstances. Under Article 16 of the Enforcement Law, the enforcement judge may order asset disclosure and attachment without prior notice to the debtor where there is circumstantial evidence of persistent default or concealment. In the context of provisional attachment under Articles 23–32 of the Enforcement Law, the order may be issued by the court before the defendant is formally notified, provided notification follows within ten days of the order under Article 31 of the Enforcement Law, failing which the attachment is void. On the criminal side, Articles 44–46 of the Anti-Money Laundering Law expressly provide that provisional seizure, search warrants and interception orders may be issued ex parte and without prior notice.

Additional Burden on the Claimant

Under Article 32 of the Enforcement Law, the claimant seeking provisional attachment must provide a guarantee to cover any damage sustained by the defendant if the claim is proved invalid.

Why Victims Use the Criminal Route

In Saudi Arabia, fraud victims frequently turn to the criminal process – not only to punish the perpetrator, but because the criminal investigation unlocks powerful tools that civil proceedings alone cannot provide: search warrants, asset seizure and the investigative resources of the public prosecution. Filing a criminal complaint is therefore often a practical first step, even where the victim’s primary goal is financial recovery.

How the Two Tracks Interact

Under Article 17 of the Criminal Procedure Law, crimes that affect private rights require a complaint from the victim to initiate proceedings. Once filed, the victim may assert their private right claim during the criminal investigation itself under Article 69 of the Criminal Procedure Law. The two tracks run in parallel – under Article 22 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the lapse of the public criminal action does not extinguish the private right claim, and under Article 143(2) of the CTL, the civil compensation claim remains alive for as long as the criminal case can be heard.

Does Criminal Prosecution Delay Civil Claims?

The civil and criminal tracks are independent and may proceed simultaneously. Under Article 87 of the Evidence Law, a civil court is not bound by a criminal acquittal unless it is based on a finding that the act itself did not occur. However, a criminal conviction carries res judicata effect as to the facts found by the criminal court – meaning the civil court is bound by those factual findings and cannot reach a contrary conclusion on the same facts. This makes a criminal conviction a powerful foundation for a subsequent or parallel civil compensation claim.

Absent Defendant

Under Article 57 of the Law of Civil Procedure, where a defendant has been notified in person and fails to appear, the court proceeds to rule on the merits, and the judgment is not deemed in absentia. Where the defendant was not notified in person, the case is postponed, and the defendant is re-notified; if the defendant again fails to appear without an acceptable excuse, the court rules on the merits, and the judgment is deemed in absentia.

In practice, court notifications in Saudi Arabia are now issued electronically to the mobile number registered with the Ministry of Interior linked to the defendant’s national ID, which is treated as personal notification. This means that where the defendant is identifiable, notification is largely automatic – and a defendant’s failure to appear will typically result in the court proceeding to judgment on the merits without the in absentia classification.

Unmeritorious Defence

Saudi procedural law does not have a mechanism equivalent to summary judgment for a wholly unmeritorious defence. The court considers the merits of all cases brought before it.

Saudi law does not prescribe special rules for pleading fraud. The general evidential framework under the Evidence Law applies – a claimant bears the burden of proof and facts must be relevant, material and admissible. There is no heightened pleading standard specific to fraud allegations and no professional conduct rules requiring a threshold of evidence before asserting fraud.

Saudi civil procedural law requires the defendant to be identified in the statement of claim under Article 41 of the Civil Procedure Law. Bringing a civil claim against a truly unknown defendant is therefore not straightforward under the civil framework.

The more practical route is the criminal process. The public prosecution has broad investigative powers to identify perpetrators. Once the fraudster is identified, the victim may assert their private right claim within the criminal proceedings under Article 69 of the Criminal Procedure Law.       

Civil Proceedings

Under Article 72(3) of the Evidence Law, the court may on its own motion or at the request of a litigant summon any person whose testimony it deems necessary. Under Article 81 of the Evidence Law, a party who fears losing the opportunity to bring a witness may request a summary case to hear that testimony before substantive proceedings commence.

Criminal Proceedings

Under Article 165 of the Criminal Procedure Law, any person summoned to testify pursuant to a judge’s order must appear at the designated time and place. Under Article 116 of the Implementing Regulations of the Criminal Procedure Law, if a witness fails to appear without an acceptable excuse, the court may summon them by any means it deems fit.

Civil Liability

Under Article 28 of the Companies Law, which applies across all company types, managers and board members are jointly and severally liable for any damage caused to the company, its partners, shareholders or third parties arising from wrongful acts, negligence or omission in the performance of their duties. A company is bound by the acts of its managers and board members carried out within the scope of their authority and the company’s purposes. Additionally, under Article 129(2) of the CTL, a corporate employer is liable for harm caused by a subordinate during the course of their work.

Criminal Liability of Individuals

Several criminal laws directly target individuals acting within or on behalf of a company. Under Article 260 of the Companies Law, managers, officers, board members, auditors and liquidators who intentionally falsify financial statements or misuse company funds face up to three years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to SAR5 million.

Criminal Liability of the Company Itself

Multiple laws extend criminal liability to the corporate entity. Under Article 31 of the Anti-Money Laundering Law, a legal person that commits a money laundering offence faces a fine of up to SAR50 million and may be prohibited from certain activities, closed down or liquidated. Under Article 23 of the Forgery Penal Code, a private entity whose manager or employee commits forgery offences in its favour and with its knowledge faces a fine of up to SAR10 million and a ban on contracting with public entities for two to five years. Under Article 19 of the Anti-Bribery Law, a company faces fines and a government contracting ban where a manager or employee commits bribery for its benefit. In all cases, the criminal liability of the company does not exclude the personal criminal liability of the individuals who acted on its behalf.

Saudi company law establishes clear separation between a company and its partners or shareholders, who are not liable for company debts beyond their capital contributions under the Companies Law.

Where a person standing behind the company acts as a manager or board member, Article 28 of the Companies Law exposes them to personal liability directly. Where such a person has directed, incited or assisted in the commission of fraud through the company, Article 3 of the Anti-Financial Fraud Law extends criminal liability to them.

Where the company has been used as a vehicle for money laundering, Article 3 of the Anti-Money Laundering Law provides that the criminal liability of the legal person does not exclude the personal criminal liability of those who participated in the money laundering – including owners, board members and employees.

On the enforcement side, Article 46 of the Enforcement Law empowers the enforcement judge to order disclosure of assets belonging to any person to whom circumstantial evidence suggests assets may have been transferred, providing a practical route to reach assets placed in structures designed to conceal the identity of those who stand behind the company.

Company Action

Under Article 29(1) of the Companies Law, the company may bring a derivative action against its managers or board members for any damage resulting from a violation of the law, the company’s constitutional documents or a wrongful act, negligence or omission in the performance of their duties. The decision to bring such action is made by the partners, general assembly or shareholders, as the case may be.

Minority Shareholder Action

Where the company fails to act, Article 29(2) of the Companies Law allows partners or shareholders representing at least 5% of the capital – or a lower threshold if provided in the constitutional documents – to bring a derivative action on behalf of the company. Under Article 30(1) of the Companies Law, a prior shareholder resolution relieving managers from liability does not bar the action.

Personal Claims

Under Article 29(4) of the Companies Law, a partner or shareholder may also bring a personal action against managers or board members where the wrongful act causes damage personally to them rather than to the company as a whole.

Limitation Period

Derivative actions generally lapse five years from the end of the fiscal year in which the act occurred, or three years from the end of the manager’s term, whichever is later. Crucially, this limitation period does not apply to cases of forgery and fraud under Article 30(2) of the Companies Law.

Civil Jurisdiction

Joining an overseas party to Saudi civil proceedings requires first establishing a jurisdictional basis. Saudi courts have jurisdiction over cases filed against Saudi citizens regardless of their place of residence under Article 24 of the Civil Procedure Law, and against non-Saudis resident in the Kingdom under Article 25 of the same law. Under Article 26 of the Civil Procedure Law, jurisdiction extends to non-Saudis without Kingdom residence where the obligation originated in or the place of performance is in the Kingdom, or where one of multiple defendants has a place of residence in the Kingdom. Article 26 of the Implementing Regulations of the Civil Procedure Law clarifies that the Kingdom is deemed the place where an obligation originated if the contract was concluded inside the Kingdom, and the place of performance if the contract provides for performance wholly or partly within the Kingdom. Under Article 28 of the Civil Procedure Law, parties may also submit to Saudi court jurisdiction by agreement. Under Article 29 of the Civil Procedure Law, Saudi courts have jurisdiction over precautionary and provisional measures enforced in the Kingdom regardless of whether they have jurisdiction over the underlying claim.

Once jurisdiction is established, the claimant proceeds to serve the overseas defendant – the procedure for which is discussed in 4.2 Service of Proceedings out of the Jurisdiction. Under Article 23 of the Civil Procedure Law and its Implementing Regulation, all documents coming from outside the Kingdom must be attested by the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Justice and translated into Arabic. Under Article 21 of the Civil Procedure Law, a 60-day extension applies to both appearance deadlines and challenge periods for persons residing outside the Kingdom, which the court may extend for a further similar period.

Mutual Legal Assistance Under the Anti-Money Laundering Law

Where fraud involves money laundering or predicate offences, the Anti-Money Laundering Law provides a separate mutual legal assistance framework applicable to countries with which the Kingdom has concluded agreements or on the basis of reciprocity. Under Article 38, competent authorities may exchange information and conduct inquiries on behalf of foreign counterparts. Under Article 39, mutual legal assistance may be provided in respect of money laundering and predicate offence investigations, including tracing, seizure, recovery and confiscation of funds and proceeds of crime. Under Article 40, a final confiscation order issued by a competent foreign court may be recognised and enforced in the Kingdom. Under Article 41, accused or convicted persons may be extradited to or from the Kingdom in money laundering cases. Mutual legal assistance requests are handled by the Permanent Committee for Mutual Legal Assistance under Article 42.

The Riyadh Arab Agreement for Judicial Cooperation (1983)

Saudi Arabia is a party to the Riyadh Arab Agreement for Judicial Cooperation of 1983 (the "Riyadh Convention"), together with over 20 Arab states. The Riyadh Convention provides the primary framework for obtaining judicial assistance from other Arab states in both civil and criminal matters. In criminal matters it covers:

• service of criminal documents through the Ministries of Justice under Article 6;
• letters rogatory for the examination of witnesses, collection of evidence and other judicial procedures under Articles 14–20;
• exchange of criminal records under Article 5; and
• extradition of persons charged or convicted of offences carrying a liberty-depriving penalty of at least one year under Articles 38–45.

Where a contracting state declines to extradite its own nationals, it undertakes to prosecute them domestically under Article 39.

Interpol

Saudi Arabia is a member of Interpol. Where a fraud suspect has fled the jurisdiction and the applicable requirements under Interpol’s Rules on the Processing of Data are fulfilled – including the existence of an arrest warrant and satisfaction of the minimum penalty threshold under Article 83 – the public prosecution may request its National Central Bureau to publish a Red Notice under Article 82 of the Rules, seeking the location and detention, arrest or restriction of movement of the wanted person for the purpose of extradition or similar lawful action. Red Notices may be complemented by Diffusions under Article 97 – a more flexible mechanism for circulating co-operation requests directly to selected member countries.

Bilateral Agreements

Beyond the multilateral frameworks mentioned previously, Saudi Arabia has concluded bilateral agreements and memoranda of understanding with a number of countries relating to judicial co-operation, financial investigation and extradition. The scope and terms of available assistance will therefore vary depending on the country involved, and the applicable bilateral framework should be verified at the outset of any cross-border fraud matter.

Method of Service

Under Article 19 of the Civil Procedure Law, where the person to be served resides outside the Kingdom, a copy of the notice is sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for delivery through diplomatic channels. A statement from the Ministry confirming delivery to the person to be served is deemed sufficient. This applies to both Saudi defendants outside the Kingdom and non-Saudi defendants, as confirmed by the Implementing Regulations of the Civil Procedure Law. International treaties and conventions applicable between the Kingdom and the relevant country are taken into account.

Foreign Companies With a Kingdom Presence

Where a foreign company has a branch or agent in the Kingdom, service is effected on the branch manager or agent, or their designee, under Article 17 of the Civil Procedure Law. In such cases, overseas service through diplomatic channels is not required.

Alternative Service in Practice

In practice, a claimant may serve the defendant abroad by courier and submit proof of personal receipt to the court as an alternative to the Article 19 diplomatic channel process. Although this does not strictly follow the Article 19 procedure, courts may accept it as valid service on the basis of Article 5 of the Civil Procedure Law, which provides that procedural requirements are satisfied when their underlying purpose has been fulfilled – and the purpose of service is to ensure the defendant has actual notice of the proceedings. However, the Implementing Regulations of the Civil Procedure Law provides the court has discretion if the underlying purpose of a procedure has been fulfilled.

The Enforcement Process

Enforcement is conducted through enforcement courts. A claimant holding an enforceable instrument, under Article 9 of the Enforcement Law, files a request, and the judge issues an order to the debtor to fulfil what has been ordered. If the debtor fails to comply within five days, the judge issues an order under Article 46 of the Enforcement Law, mandating disclosure and enforcement against the debtor’s present and future assets. In standard practice, this results in bank accounts being identified – sufficient funds are transferred directly to the court’s account. The judge may also impose a travel ban and other measures.

Attachment and Forced Sale

The enforcement judge may also attach and sell the debtor’s movable and real property under Articles 35–55 of the Enforcement Law. Attachment invalidates any subsequent disposition of the attached assets.

Garnishment of Financial Assets

The Enforcement Law provides specific garnishment mechanisms for financial assets. Under Article 60, bank accounts – including current accounts, investment accounts, term deposits and safe deposit boxes – are garnished through the financial institution’s supervisory authority, which bars the debtor from withdrawing funds. Under Article 61, company equity shares are garnished through the Ministry of Commerce, and securities through the Capital Market Authority. Under Article 62, commercial papers (negotiable instruments) including cheques and promissory notes may be garnished. Under Article 63, future funds owed to the debtor may also be captured.

Asset Disclosure

Under Articles 16 and 17 of the Enforcement Law, the enforcement judge may order mandatory disclosure of the debtor’s assets from all competent authorities, registration bodies, accountants and employees. Under Article 46 of the Enforcement Law, asset disclosure may extend to assets of the debtor’s spouse, children and nominees.

Personal Sanctions Against the Debtor

Where the debtor fails to comply within five days, the judge, under Article 46 of the Enforcement Law, may order a travel ban, forced asset disclosure and bars on financial institutions dealing with the debtor. Where enforcement requires a personal act and the debtor refuses, the judge may impose daily fines up to SAR10,000 under Article 69. Concealment, false statements or refusal to disclose assets carries up to seven years’ imprisonment under Article 88.

Conditions

Under Article 11 of the Enforcement Law, without prejudice to treaties and agreements, a foreign judgment may only be enforced on the basis of reciprocity and subject to all of the following conditions being met:

• Saudi courts have no jurisdiction over the dispute and the foreign court had jurisdiction under applicable rules;
• the parties were properly summoned and afforded the right to defend themselves;
• the judgment is final under the law of the issuing court;
• the judgment does not conflict with any Saudi court judgment on the same matter; and
• the judgment does not conflict with public order in the Kingdom – which means the provisions of Sharia under Article 11.3 of the Enforcement Law Regulations.

The same conditions apply to foreign arbitral awards under Article 12 of the Enforcement Law.

Procedure

Under Article 14 of the Enforcement Law, the foreign judgment is presented to the Enforcement Court, which ascertains that the conditions are fulfilled and affixes the enforcement seal. The applicant must submit an official copy of the judgment and service of process documents, an attestation that it is final and enforceable, and – in the case of a default judgment – proof that the defendant was duly notified under Article 11.1 of the Enforcement Law Regulations. Foreign official documents must be attested by the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Justice and translated into Arabic. The burden of proving reciprocity lies with the applicant under Article 11.6 of the Enforcement Law Regulations.

Saudi law does not expressly provide for a privilege against self-incrimination as understood in common law jurisdictions. However, under Articles 101 and 102 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the accused may refuse to answer questions during the investigation, and the investigator records the refusal and continues proceedings. The accused may not be subjected to duress or asked to take an oath.

Under Rule 21 of the Professional Conduct Rules for Lawyers, a lawyer’s duty of confidentiality over client information and documents yields in five circumstances:

• to prevent a crime;
• where there is suspicion of money laundering or terrorism financing;
• to defend the lawyer against a claim or complaint;
• with the client’s written consent; or
• where required by a specific statutory provision or court order.

The most significant exception in the fraud context is the first – where the lawyer becomes aware that client information relates to a crime being committed or planned, the duty of confidentiality does not apply. The money laundering exception is equally important given that fraud frequently generates laundered proceeds.

In criminal proceedings, while Article 84 of the Criminal Procedure Law protects lawyer-client documents from seizure during an investigation, the Anti-Money Laundering Law provides a route to overcome this: under Articles 44 and 45 of the Anti-Money Laundering Law, the public prosecution may issue ex parte search warrants and seizure orders in money laundering investigations, which can extend to lawyers’ offices and documents.

Saudi law does not provide for punitive or exemplary damages. Compensation is governed by Articles 136 and 137 of the CTL, which establish that compensation shall fully restore the aggrieved party to their original position – covering actual loss and lost profits that are a natural result of the harmful act.

Where contractually agreed compensation exists, Article 179(3) of the CTL permits the court to increase the agreed amount if the claimant establishes that fraud or gross negligence by the other party caused the harm to exceed what was agreed.

In Saudi Arabia, banks owe a general duty of confidentiality to their customers in respect of account information and financial data. However, this duty yields in a number of circumstances. In the context of fraud and asset recovery, three are particularly relevant.

Under Article 43 of the Anti-Money Laundering Law, the public prosecution may order any financial institution – through the supervisory authority – to provide records, documents or information in connection with a criminal investigation, and the institution must comply promptly and accurately.

Under Articles 44 and 45 of the Anti-Money Laundering Law, the Public Prosecution may issue ex parte provisional seizure orders and search warrants extending to financial records in money laundering and predicate offence investigations.

As discussed previously, under the enforcement framework of the Enforcement Law, the enforcement judge may order garnishment of bank accounts and mandatory disclosure of financial information through the supervisory authority once an enforceable instrument exists.

In all three cases, banking confidentiality does not operate as a bar to disclosure.

Saudi Arabia does not have a dedicated statutory framework governing crypto-assets. The most relevant framework from the perspective of fraud and asset recovery is the Anti-Money Laundering Law. The Anti-Money Laundering Law’s definition of “funds” is broad – encompassing assets of any value or type, whether tangible or intangible, including electronic or digital systems. Crypto-assets used as proceeds of fraud or as instruments of money laundering therefore fall within the Anti-Money Laundering Law’s reach, and the public prosecution’s investigative and seizure powers under Articles 43–45 of the Anti-Money Laundering Law apply to them.