United Against Corruption Alliance (Mouttahidoun): Riad Salameh Arrested: Depositors Reject Any Substitute for Justice

Why do certain prosecutors and investigating judges continue to exclude the legitimate complainants from substantive proceedings concerning former Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh, Acting Governor Wassim Mansouri, the Deputy Governors, members of the Central Council, the Banking Control Commission, government commissioners, bank owners and their alleged accomplices?

Why are the criminal complaints filed by depositors and their lawyers through the United Against Corruption Alliance being ignored, delayed or effectively paralysed?

These questions are all the more legitimate because several of these proceedings have already passed significant judicial stages and because, according to the rulings issued, the plaintiffs' standing and right to bring proceedings have been recognized.

Riad Salameh's arrest, however significant, cannot by itself constitute an answer to the profound crisis of confidence affecting both the judiciary and Lebanon's depositors.

What matters now is not simply that someone has been arrested. What matters is whether justice will pursue responsibility to its full extent, whether depositors' lawsuits will actually be examined, and whether assets that could enable the recovery of their savings will genuinely be identified, preserved and taken into account in all relevant proceedings.

Riad Salameh's arrest on July 31, 2026, and his subsequent detention marked a new stage in the proceedings against him. But several separate (relevant) cases continue to move, or remain pending, before Lebanese courts.

It is precisely in this context that depositors and their lawyers are entitled to ask questions.

Are the Decisions of the Court of Cassation Still Being Ignored?

The Criminal Court of Cassation — in particular the chamber presided over by Judge Souheil Al-Harake in the proceedings concerned — had previously rejected appeals brought by certain defendants, including Riad Salameh, banks and their associates, against complaints filed by depositors.

Thus wronged parties have the right to bring proceedings before the criminal courts, mainly on the basis of the relevant provisions of the Penal Code, contrary to recent arguments suggesting that such authority belongs exclusively to the Governor of the Central Bank.

If this is the legal principle established by the highest court, on what basis can the complainants now be excluded from proceedings they themselves initiated?

In Beirut: Why Do These Cases Remain Without Meaningful Progress?

Why do the (first) complaints filed by depositors against Riad Salameh, Raja Salameh, Marianne Hoayek and their associates — including cases involving Forry, Optimum Invest, Libank, Western Union/OMT and other entities — continue to encounter such procedural obstacles?

Why has First Investigating Judge of Beirut Rola Othman still not scheduled a hearing in one of these cases, even though the Beirut Indictment Chamber, acting as the appellate authority, accepted the complainants' appeal and overturned Judge Bilal Halawi's decision?

And why have the two proceedings still not been consolidated, despite the established legal connection between them — a connection that could allow the financial operations at issue to be examined in their full context?

These are not abstract questions.

They concern proceedings directly related to depositors' savings and to allegations surrounding conduct that, according to the various cases brought before the courts, contributed to the financial collapse whose consequences Lebanon continues to endure.

Following the Measures Announced by the Special Investigation Commission: Where Do Depositors Stand?

On September 22, the Special Investigation Commission of Lebanon’s Central Bank ordered the freezing of accounts and assets belonging to eleven individuals and two companies.

This measure comes as depositors have spent years demanding that their rights and their savings be placed at the heart of the judicial proceedings.

A fundamental question therefore arises:

How can proceedings concerning assets, transfers and financial responsibility be conducted without ensuring that the complainants — whose savings are precisely at stake — are effectively informed and heard in accordance with their procedural rights?

In the Bekaa: Why Has Even the Date of a Hearing Become Inaccessible?

On September 23, lawyers representing the depositors went to the Zahle Courthouse to obtain information concerning the interrogation hearing before First Investigating Judge Joseph Tamer of the Bekaa.

After travelling from Beirut, the lawyers were reportedly uninformed of the date of the hearing by the court registry.

Since when must litigants or their lawyers discover whether and when a hearing is taking place through means other than the registry of the court handling their case?

This is a basic question of procedure and respect for the fundamental rights of the parties.

In Mount Lebanon: How Long Must Lawyers Wait to Know Whether an Interrogation Took Place?

A similar situation has arisen before First Investigating Judge of Mount Lebanon Nada Al-Asmar.

On September 22, counsel for the complainants once again attended the registry to inquire about the status of the interrogation involving Riad Salameh, Antoun Sehnaoui and his bank, Mecattaf and their co-defendants.

According to the lawyers, the answers they received reportedly evolved as follows:

“The interrogation did not take place.”

Then:

“Even if it did, we would not tell you.”

Then:

“The file is with the judge, and we do not want to tell you.”

And finally:

“We do not know whether an interrogation took place at all.”

Once accurately reported, such statements require an explanation.

How can parties effectively exercise their procedural rights if their lawyers cannot even establish whether a hearing has taken place?

The situation is all the more concerning because counsel for the complainants had already reported similar procedural irregularities to the competent authorities, including the Judicial Inspection Authority.

Are Case Files Being Lost, Held Up or Simply Left Without Action?

Another question remains unanswered: what has happened to the case file concerning the seizure of Riad Salameh's funds and assets which remains unaccounted for within the Mount Lebanon Enforcement Department?

More broadly, how can the repeated difficulties encountered by lawyers in accessing judicial files concerning accountability for the banking and financial crisis be explained?

These cases do not concern a private dispute.

They concern the life savings of an entire population, the collapse of the Lebanese pound, the paralysis of the banking system, and the social and economic consequences that Lebanon continues to endure.

Justice Cannot Operate Behind Closed Doors for Those Who Have Lost Everything

The Alliance has already filed numerous complaints and requests before the Judicial Inspection Authority, with copies submitted to the Higher Judicial Council and the Ministry of Justice.

Certain proceedings have also resulted in rulings by the Court of Cassation concerning the standing and right of the complainants to bring proceedings.

In these circumstances, one central question remains:

Why are the procedural rights of depositors still being treated as secondary when they are directly affected by the facts under investigation?

Riad Salameh's arrest must not become a substitute for justice.

Judicial announcements, arrests, interrogations and precautionary measures can restore confidence only if they are accompanied by transparent, adversarial and accessible proceedings for the parties who brought these cases before the courts.

Depositors are not asking for a judicial spectacle. They are asking for their complaints to be examined.

They are not asking for special treatment.

They are asking for the same procedural rules to apply to everyone.

They are not asking the courts to convict anyone before trial.

They are asking for investigations to be pursued to their conclusion, for responsibility to be established by the competent courts, and for assets that could enable the recovery of their savings to be identified and preserved.

After years of waiting, banking restrictions and devastating losses, how much longer must depositors wait?

How much longer should they accept postponed proceedings, missing files, uncertain hearings and judicial decisions that appear to have little tangible effect for those whose savings are at stake?

Trust in justice cannot be declared. It must be demonstrated through action.

And today, depositors are simply asking to see that action.

Enough waiting. Enough silence.

It is time for justice to answer those who have been waiting for it.