The aim of this study is to examine the legislative tension between restitution as a criminal sanction under Article (43) of the Jordanian Penal Code and annulment as a civil remedy under Article (13) of the Real Estate Ownership Law. The research employs a qualitative doctrinal methodology, analyzing statutory provisions, judicial applications, and comparative insights from selected legal systems, particularly French and Anglo-Saxon models. The results reveal a legislative gap that undermines coherence between criminal justice, which emphasizes the sanctity of property rights, and civil justice, which prioritizes transactional stability and the protection of bona fide purchasers. The study concludes that current provisions are inadequate to balance these competing demands and proposes legislative reforms to clarify the distinction between criminal nullity and civil remedies, establish objective criteria for good faith, and strengthen procedural safeguards. The analysis is based on Jordanian legislation, judicial practice, and open-access comparative legal sources, ensuring that the findings are grounded in both doctrinal and practical contexts.
Mohamad Alshible (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: