Administrative and judicial settlement in economic crimes under Jordanian law: Public asset recovery, deterrence, and legal certainty

This article examines administrative and judicial settlement in economic crimes under Jordanian law. It analyses the current statutory framework, the criminal and civil effects of settlement, and the extent to which the system can reconcile public-asset recovery, deterrence, equality, and legal certainty. The analysis is doctrinal and comparative within Jordanian law: customs offences provide the administrative-settlement model, while the Economic Crimes Law provides the judicial-settlement model. Legislative history is used only where it explains the present rule. The article argues that settlement is legitimate only when tied to restitution or a genuine financial settlement, meaningful financial consequences, and reviewable institutional or judicial safeguards. A valid settlement terminates the criminal action within the facts covered by it, prevents registration of a criminal precedent where no final conviction exists, and bars later claims for compensation or recovery of amounts paid for the same facts. Three weaknesses remain: unclear statutory guidance on the 'justifying reasons' for administrative waiver, no explicit rule on repeated settlement in serious or recurring offences, and the absence of published data on settlement numbers, funds recovered, and recidivism. The article recommends statutory criteria, reasoned and reviewable decisions, limits on repeated settlement, and systematic recording and publication of aggregate settlement data.