Winds and Pegs: Preliminary Remarks on the Charitable Work Regulation Law
No one disputes the necessity of transparency and the importance of monitoring charitable work. However, it is a mistake for oversight to devolve into numerous, complex, and obstructive administrative procedures driven more by suspicion and caution toward charitable activities than by trust and facilitation. Regrettably, internal incitement has persistently sought to tarnish all charitable institutions without any legal or judicial basis. Furthermore, international anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering laws, along with trends contrary to Islamic principles, have fueled suspicions against all charitable institutions, without distinguishing between those that comply with laws and public interest and those that do not. In reality, the non-compliant minority is exceedingly rare.
Despite the presence of many sound provisions in the Law Regulating Charitable Work, the overall orientation of this law leans toward greater centralization and prolonged, prior administrative and financial oversight, which will often lead to hindrance and restriction.
The law established the “National Center for Charitable and Humanitarian Work,” which is tasked with prior and subsequent oversight of all charitable and humanitarian associations, including monitoring the implementation of all charitable projects. It conducts periodic assessments of money laundering and terrorism crimes within charitable activities, issues licenses for all fundraising campaigns, and maintains a registry for these campaigns detailing their purpose, personnel, funds raised, and duration. The center must receive data on financial deposits, and cash fundraising is permitted only with the center’s authorization. This applies equally to electronic fundraising and its promotional methods, as well as mechanisms for proving aid delivery to beneficiaries. The law also mandates the appointment of judicial police officers, the issuance of a governance manual, and subjecting charitable associations to this administrative and financial oversight, without prejudice to the authority of other regulatory bodies (such as requiring board members to submit financial disclosures to the Public Authority for Combating Corruption). Additionally, the executive regulations may stipulate other prior oversight measures, such as appointing an independent compliance officer to audit the association’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism measures. All these procedures and requirements create an impression of suspicion and pre-emptive restriction on all association activities, whereas the superior global approach is subsequent oversight coupled with deterrent penalties for violators, as not everyone is a thief or a terrorist.
Moreover, the 95-article law contains more than 20 articles on penalties and their procedures, reinforcing the theory of suspicion and precaution, in addition to the prior oversight provisions.
Consequently, well-intentioned individuals who collect donations via email for the benefit of stateless persons (Bedouns) or certain deceased individuals should heed these provisions and cease their fundraising efforts, as doing so carries the risk of imprisonment.
Ironically, the law stipulates that failure to issue a decision on a new association’s license application within 60 days constitutes a rejection. Yet, the Media Regulation Law, issued in the same month, states that failure to issue a license for any media activity within the same period is deemed approval. What a paradox!
