#️⃣ Part Three

The Hidden Layers Behind Corruption Files: The Case of Noor Zuhair

One of the most significant hidden dimensions behind the passage of the “single-basket” laws — particularly the General Amnesty Law and its amendments — was the creation of legal cover for major corruption cases involving numerous political figures.

Noor Zuhair, known as “Abu Fatima,” is a businessman who owns the companies Al-Qanit and Al-Mubdi’un, and is considered the main defendant in the so-called “Theft of the Century” case — the largest financial corruption scandal in Iraq’s history — involving the illegal withdrawal of tax-deposit funds from Rafidain Bank between September 2021 and August 2022.

Noor Zuhair was arrested at Baghdad International Airport on November 24, 2022, but was later released under an agreement between Supreme Judicial Council President Faiq Zidan and former Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, with the approval of the competent judge, in return for a pledge to repay the money in installments.

Only 365 billion Iraqi dinars were recovered from him out of more than 1.6 trillion dinars before he left Iraq and repayments stopped. He was later sentenced in absentia to ten years in prison in November 2024.

What matters here is not Noor Zuhair’s personal fate, but the legal cover granted to those who issued the decision to release him.

His release was not based on any clear legislative framework, placing those responsible for the decision in a position where they could potentially face legal accountability.

However, the Second Amendment to General Amnesty Law No. 27 of 2016, passed on January 21, 2025, later provided legal legitimacy for this type of measure.

The law explicitly stipulated that offenses involving embezzlement and theft of state funds, waste of public money, and financial and administrative corruption could be covered by the amnesty if the convicted person repaid the money owed.

Following the amendment, Noor Zuhair’s lawyer submitted a request for his client to be included under the law

“in return for completing repayment of the remaining amount owed.”

The request remains pending, awaiting approval from the Ministry of Finance.

Thus, the person who authorized the release went from potentially facing legal scrutiny to relying on a law that provides legal cover for what had already been done.

Even more seriously, the law does not apply only to Noor Zuhair. It explicitly allows those convicted of financial corruption offenses to benefit from amnesty if they repay the sums owed.

The Supreme Judicial Council confirmed that 12 employees of the Tax Authority, who received prison sentences in their presence,

“may be included under the Amnesty Law after paying the value of the compensation.”

In absentia sentences were also issued against the former prime minister’s office director and a number of advisers, with the indication that

“all of them may be covered by the Amnesty Law if they repay the amounts owed.”

This means that the legal cover granted to those who released Noor Zuhair did not merely retroactively legitimize a previous action. It also created a permanent mechanism through which any person convicted of corruption — including the fugitive Noor Zuhair himself — could potentially seek amnesty simply by repaying the money owed.

This reveals that the General Amnesty Law was not merely a temporary legislative bargain, but a legal restructuring capable of transforming major corruption cases from criminal files carrying punitive consequences into financial cases open to settlement.