Execution on Pledged Securities: A Comparison between the Saudi and Egyptian Law

Authors

Iman Fouad Abdel Moneim Ahmed

 

Abstract

The study aims to enhance knowledge of the legal frameworks and pledged securities in financial transactions through a comparison between Saudi and Egyptian law. It seeks to understand the regulatory landscape and proposes practical recommendations to improve stability, transparency, and efficiency in mortgaged securities markets. The study also explored the implementation of shifts in both systems, identifying opportunities and challenges. The study used a comparative analysis approach to examine both legal systems by adhering to relevant case law and established cases and interpreting them using publicly available cases. The study concluded that Egypt and Saudi Arabia have distinct legal frameworks regarding mortgage securities and confiscation. The Egyptian system focuses on systematic and transparent procedures and judicial oversight, while the Sharia-based approach in Saudi Arabia balances ethical considerations with the well-being of the debtor. Both systems aim to enforce debt recovery while protecting the rights of the debtor. To improve efficiency, Egypt needs to simplify procedures, Saudi Arabia needs uniform interpretations of Sharia, and both countries can enhance cross-border legal cooperation to strengthen the legal system and structure involved in implementing confiscations at the national and international levels. Further research should look into the role of technologies in mortgage operations and the integration of legal systems between the two countries, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. This may lead to the liberalization of the two economies with regard to cross-border investments and improvement in the effectiveness of mortgage laws between the two jurisdictions.

DOI: 10.51958/AAUJBL2025V9I2P6