









































Pa
ge

 
1



Pa
ge

 
26

American Journal of  Society and Law 
(AJSL) 

Criminal Protection of  Public Property in the Legal System of  Afghanistan 
Rohullah Samim1*

Volume 4 Issue 1, Year 2025
ISSN: 2835-3277 (Online)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajsl.v4i1.4510
https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Article Information ABSTRACT

Received: February 03, 2025
Accepted: March 08, 2025
Published: April 21, 2025

If  we look at the criminal side of  the protection of  public property, we can say that 
there are laws and legal mechanisms in Afghanistan’s criminal law (as a type of  the legal 
system) which would be used to deter and punish offenders who commit crimes against 
public property. This kind of  protection is one of  the best and most important ways to 
protect public property. Nonetheless, despite the presence of  these legal provisions, 
there are challenges in the enforcement of  laws against public property offenses which 
include weak institutional capacity, corruption, and lack of  public awareness on the 
legal implications of  these offenses. Addressing these challenges is crucial to enhancing 
the legal framework’s efficiency. The present study examines applicable legal concepts 
using a descriptive-analytical approach of  research method and library data collection. 
The analysis also includes a comparative approach to showcase how other jurisdictions 
address similar issues and suggestions for best practices which could be considered 
in relation to Afghanistan. The results demonstrate that in Afghanistan’s legal system, 
public property is defined as assets that are allocated for the common use and well-being 
of  society. No criminal penalty is more effective than others for unlawful penetration of  
such property, including capital punishment, imprisonment, fine and damage, depending 
on the severity and nature of  the crime. Criminal policy is the systematic approach that 
enables these criminal protections to be enforced, and against which the perpetrators 
can be held accountable. Some sort of  stringent yet efficiently executed penal provision 
coupled with institutional mechanisms and public legal awareness campaigns, however, 
would be required to bring down the numbers of  crimes against public property to further 
protect national wealth and resources. Moreover, the adoption of  relevant international 
best practices and stronger legal oversight mechanisms could go a long way in enhancing 
the protection of  public property in Afghanistan legal system.

Keywords

Afghanistan’s Criminal Law, 
Capital Punishment, Criminal 
Protection, Fines, Imprisonment, 
Public Property

1 Faculty of  Law and Political Science, Ghalib University, Kabul, Afghanistan
* Corresponding author’s e-mail: samim@ghalib.edu.af

INTRODUCTION 
As we know, public property constitutes a nation’s national 
wealth and is made available for public use, belonging not 
only to the present generation but also to future ones. 
The economic value and societal benefits of  such assets 
necessitate their special protection and preservation. 
The significance of  this matter is so profound that 
various preventive measures have been proposed to 
curb encroachments by individuals and entities (both 
legal and natural persons). These measures include the 
adoption of  modern technologies, the strengthening 
of  oversight institutions such as municipalities, and 
public awareness campaigns aimed at safeguarding 
public assets. However, one of  the most effective and 
essential strategies especially in Afghanistan’s current 
circumstances is the legal approach, particularly criminal 
protections, as a fundamental mechanism to address these 
issues at their root. To ensure the effective application of  
legal frameworks for the protection of  public property, 
existing laws must be rigorously enforced. Moreover, in 
cases where legal gaps or deficiencies exist, legislative 
reforms drawing from the experiences of  other countries 
must be undertaken. 

LITERATURE REVIEW 
Regarding prior research on this subject, various studies 
have addressed public property and its classifications. For 

instance, Abdul Hossein Rasouli’s work titled Property 
Law (2nd edition, Farhang Publications, 2017) focuses on 
Afghanistan’s legal framework but does not specifically 
address criminal protections for public property. Other 
studies have explored criminal protection for specific 
types of  public assets, but within the Iranian legal 
system. For example, Farzaneh Gholipour’s master’s 
thesis (Criminal Protection of  Air and Water, Islamic 
Azad University, Tehran, 2013) discusses environmental 
protection within Iran’s criminal law context. Mohammad 
Tariq Hilal, Barialy Bahir, Ahmad Naveed Noori (Hilal et 
al., 2023).

The Concept of  Public Property 
Public property is what the government owns and 
has everything going to the public. Such resources 
include parks, buildings, other urban shape and natural 
services provided for the use of  the community (Cole 
& Grossman,  2002). While private property is under 
individual control, public property is managed by 
public laws and regulations that ensure it works for the 
common good (Wyman, 2017). Public property can 
provide public services like libraries and schools or 
recreational green spaces or environmental conservation. 
Public goods are subject to democratic processes that 
govern their management and allocation and their role 
in promoting the common good (Underkuffler, 2005). 



Pa
ge

 
27

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 26-33, 2025

This kind of  property is critical for providing social 
order and equitable resource access; this property helps 
all constituents of  society without regard to social or 
financial standing (Bromley, 1991). In the Afghanistan 
legal system Public property refers to assets that do not 
belong to any specific individual owner (Qasemzadeh, 
2011). According to this definition, any property without 
a designated owner falls under the category of  public or 
communal property. The term public signifies common 
ownership, general accessibility, and collective use, as 
opposed to private ownership (Amid, 2010). However, 
properties with unknown owners or lost items (luqṭah) 
that originally had a specific owner, even if  their owner 
remains unidentified, are not considered public property. 
It is important to note that the definition provided above 
is not entirely comprehensive, as it merely states that 
public property lacks a private owner without explicitly 
addressing its function for public benefit and welfare. A 
more precise definition would be that public property 
consists of  assets designated for the benefit and welfare 
of  all members of  society (Langroudi, 2007). These 
assets may be: 

1. Directly accessible to the public, such as roads, public 
squares, bridges, and other public infrastructures. 

2. Accessible under certain conditions, where usage is 
subject to specific regulations and eligibility criteria, such 
as public schools, state orphanages, and government 
universities. Several alternative definitions of  public 
property have also been proposed: 
“Public property refers to assets that belong to the public 
or remain unclaimed” (Katouzian, 1998). According to this 
definition, public property comprises assets collectively 
owned by the people, which neither individuals nor legal 
entities can appropriate as private property. Examples 
include roads, bridges, mosques, parks, pastures, and 
other shared resources. Public property is closely 
associated with the concept of  common property, which 
refers to: “Assets collectively owned by a nation or the 
residents of  a region, such as a city, and utilized for public 
purposes, including parks, public squares, endowments, 
streets, and highways” (Langroudi, 2007). Based on this 
definition, no individual may claim ownership over public 
streets, open-ended alleys, bridges, caravanserais, public 
reservoirs, historical schools, public squares, or wells 
used by the general public. The prohibition of  private 
ownership over such assets stems from the fact that their 
intended function and purpose inherently conflict with 
private appropriation. Another comprehensive definition 
states: “Public property consists of  assets owned by the 
state or public legal entities, designated for public welfare. 
These assets may be directly available for public use such 
as roads, bridges, museums, squares, and parks or may be 
subject to specific usage criteria, such as public universities, 
government schools, and military buildings, which are 
accessible only to individuals meeting certain conditions” 
(Rasouli, 2017). Afghanistan Civil Law provides a legal 
definition of  public property: “Public property refers to 
assets that do not belong to individuals and are designated 

for the public interest and welfare.” Additionally, under 
the Civil Code of  Afghanistan (CMA), public property 
may be either movable or immovable, provided that it is 
designated for public benefit and welfare. Based on the 
provided definitions, this study’s author proposes the 
following: “Public property consists of  assets collectively 
owned by society, managed by public legal entities, and 
allocated for the common good and public welfare.” Also 
property is categorized into two types: perfect property 
and imperfect (imperfect) property (Hilal, 2023).

Criminal Protection of  Public Property in 
Afghanistan’s Criminal Law 
Efforts to control and safeguard national wealth, including 
public property, stem from its foundational role in society. 
If  we aim to fulfill our duty toward future generations, 
our nation, and civilization as a whole and if  we wish to 
pass down the same resources and opportunities that our 
predecessors entrusted to us we must begin by preserving 
and protecting the fundamental infrastructure of  society, 
namely public assets and resources. The preservation of  
these essential resources has always been a commendable 
act throughout history. Since public property belongs 
to society at large and constitutes the backbone of  a 
thriving community, any encroachment upon it poses 
a serious threat to human rights. These public assets, 
which include roads, parks, green spaces, rivers, canals, 
groundwater, air, and historical-cultural heritage, are 
entrusted to governments either by divine decree (natural 
resources) or by the people (man-made assets) for public 
use and welfare. The primary responsibility of  the state 
is to act as the guardian of  these resources on behalf  of  
the entire population. The Role of  Criminalization in 
Public Property Protection given the critical importance 
of  protecting public assets, the state has the authority 
to criminalize offenses related to public property. While 
criminalization inherently restricts individual freedoms, 
it is justified when it serves the greater good of  society 
especially in cases where public property constitutes a 
fundamental pillar of  national welfare. By adhering to 
the principle of  legality in crime and punishment, the 
state can legitimately impose criminal sanctions to deter 
offenses against public assets. Today, most legal systems 
worldwide recognize the protection of  public property 
both through criminal and non-criminal measures as 
a core legal and social value, necessitating effective 
policies and enforcement mechanisms. One of  the most 
significant measures in this regard is criminal protection, 
which serves as a deterrent against violations and ensures 
accountability. This section specifically examines the 
criminal protections afforded to public property under 
Afghanistan’s criminal law. It explores the criminal policy 
adopted by the Afghan legislature in combatting offenses 
against public assets and evaluates the legal mechanisms 
in place to punish offenders and prevent future violations. 
The Nature of  Punishment and Its Role in Crime 
Prevention Punishments are designed with multiple 
objectives: they serve to penalize offenders, ostracize 



Pa
ge

 
28

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 26-33, 2025

criminals from society, rehabilitate wrongdoers, and alert 
the public to the consequences of  criminal acts. These 
functions of  punishment vary in severity and intensity 
across different societies, but a common underlying 
principle exists across all human civilizations ensuring 
personal and social securityas a fundamental human 
need (Gholipour, 2013). This innate desire for safety has 
led societies to adopt various deterrence mechanisms, 
ranging from fear-based punishments to rehabilitative 
approaches, in an effort to neutralize criminal behavior 
and reform offenders. Over centuries, legal systems 
have evolved significantly, striving to balance deterrence, 
punishment, and rehabilitation. Criminal Sanctions 
for Offenses against Public Property in Afghanistan 
Following this introduction, the discussion now turns 
to an in-depth analysis of  the legal responses provided 
by Afghan law against individuals who commit crimes 
against public property. Specifically, this study examines: 
1. What types of  criminal sanctions are imposed for 
offenses against public assets under Afghan law? 
2. What legal mechanisms has the legislature established 
to safeguard public property and penalize offenders?
By addressing these questions, the research aims to clarify 
the scope and effectiveness of  Afghanistan’s criminal 
protections for public property and assess the sufficiency 
of  existing legal frameworks in combating such offenses.

Capital Punishment (Death Penalty) 
In certain cases, offenses against public property not 
only result in damage to national assets but also threaten 
human life or involve terrorist acts aimed at undermining 
the government. Under such circumstances, the 
death penalty is imposed. According to Article 169 of  
Afghanistan’s Penal Code (2017), capital punishment is 
defined as: 
“The removal of  a natural person’s life in accordance 
with the law, following a verdict issued by a competent 
court and the approval of  the President.” As one of  
the severest forms of  criminal punishment, the death 
penalty is considered a neutralizing response to grave 
offenses against public assets when such crimes also 
lead to loss of  life or pose a direct threat to the state. 
Capital Punishment for Crimes against Public Property 
Afghanistan’s Penal Code prescribes the death penalty 
for individuals who intentionally destroy public buildings, 
state-owned properties, or assets belonging to public 
institutions and, in the course of  committing such acts, 
also commit intentional murder. Article 259 of  the Penal 
Code provides: 

(1) Any person who deliberately destroys or damages 
public or state-owned buildings, properties dedicated 
to governmental institutions, public organizations, or 
entities legally established for public benefit in such a way 
that renders them completely or partially unusable shall 
be sentenced to medium or long-term imprisonment. 

(2) If  the offense specified in paragraph (1) is 
committed in a state of  emergency, with the intent to 
cause disorder, or to spread fear among the public, the 

offender shall be sentenced to long-term imprisonment 
exceeding ten years. 

(3) If  the offense specified in paragraph (1) results 
in death, the offender shall be sentenced in accordance 
with the penalty for the crime committed (Penal Code of  
Afghanistan, 2017).
Paragraph (3) clearly establishes that if  an individual 
commits a crime against public property and 
simultaneously commits murder, they shall be subject 
to capital punishment. Furthermore, Article 547(6) 
of  the Penal Code reinforces this principle, stating: 
“If  murder is committed in conjunction with another 
intentional felony or misdemeanor, the offender shall be 
sentenced to death.” (Penal Code of  Afghanistan, 2017, 
Article 547(6)). From a legal standpoint, this provision 
implies that if  a person commits a crime against public 
property that qualifies as a felony while also committing 
intentional murder, they will face the death penalty. 
However, if  the crime against public property is classified 
as a misdemeanor, the offender will be sentenced to first-
degree life imprisonment instead of  capital punishment. 
Destruction of  Public Property for Terrorist Purposes 
Another instance where capital punishment applies is 
when public property is deliberately destroyed as part 
of  a terrorist act aimed at challenging state authority or 
destabilizing the government. However, the death penalty 
is only imposed if  such acts result in human fatalities. 
Article 269(2) of  the Penal Code explicitly states: 
(1) A person who, with the intent to commit a terrorist 
act, destroys or severely damages public infrastructure, 
disrupts its functionality, or renders it unusable, shall 
be sentenced to the maximum term of  long-term 
imprisonment. 
(2) If  the offense specified in paragraph (1) leads to 
the death of  a person or persons, the offender shall be 
sentenced to death. (Penal Code of  Afghanistan, 2017). 
A critical analysis of  Article 269 suggests that the 
punishment for terrorist acts should be more severe 
in all instances. Article 269(1) provides for long-term 
imprisonment (ranging from 5 to 16 years) for terrorist-
related destruction of  public property. However, given 
the gravity of  such crimes, it would be more appropriate 
for the legislator to impose first-degree life imprisonment 
or a harsher penalty in line with Article 269(2), which 
prescribes the death penalty if  the act results in fatalities. 
Poisoning of  Public Water Supplies a unique instance 
of  capital punishment related to public property is the 
deliberate contamination of  public water sources, which 
endangers both human life and national resources. Article 
814(2) of  the Penal Code states: 

(1) Any person who intentionally contaminates public 
water sources, such as wells, reservoirs, or underground 
aquifers, by introducing toxic, microbial, or harmful 
substances, thereby endangering public health or property, 
shall be sentenced to second-degree life imprisonment. 

(2) If  the offense specified in paragraph (1) results in the 
death of  an individual, the offender shall be sentenced to 
death (Penal Code of  Afghanistan, 2017). This provision 



Pa
ge

 
29

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 26-33, 2025

emphasizes the severe consequences of  tampering with 
public water supplies, recognizing the vital role of  clean 
water in public health and safety. Illegal Drilling of  Wells 
Leading to Fatalities Similarly, the unlawful drilling of  
wells or sewage systems without the proper authorization, 
which subsequently results in the death of  a person, can 
also lead to capital punishment under Afghan law. Article 
838(3) of  the Penal Code provides: 

(2) Any person who illegally drills a sewage well or 
engages in unauthorized activities that contaminate 
groundwater or drinking water sources shall be sentenced 
to short-term imprisonment. 

(3) If  the offense specified in paragraph (2) results in 
the death of  a person, the offender shall, in addition to 
the penalty stipulated in this article, be sentenced to the 
punishment prescribed for the committed crime (Penal 
Code of  Afghanistan, 2017).

Imprisonment 
One of  the most fundamental mechanisms for protecting 
society against criminals is imprisonment, which isolates 
offenders and prevents them from posing further threats. 
This type of  punishment serves both positive and negative 
functions. On one hand, incarceration removes offenders 
from society, thereby reducing immediate risks and 
maintaining public order. On the other hand, it protects 
the offender from potential retaliation by victims or other 
individuals, thereby upholding the rights of  the accused. 
Furthermore, imprisonment allows for the classification 
of  inmates and their placement in rehabilitation 
programs, facilitating their reintegration into society 
as law-abiding citizens. Unlike some other forms of  
punishment, imprisonment is flexible and can be adjusted 
based on the severity of  the crime and the characteristics 
of  the offender. Additionally, if  a judicial error occurs, 
compensation and remedial measures are more feasible 
compared to irreversible punishments such as the death 
penalty (Safari, 2008). Legal Provisions on Imprisonment 
for Crimes against Public Property Afghanistan’s Penal 
Code prescribes various forms of  imprisonment for 
crimes against public property, depending on the degree 
of  harm and the circumstances of  the offense. Some of  
the most relevant legal provisions are discussed below. 

1. Destruction of  Public Buildings and State-Owned 
Property (Article 259): According to Article 259 of  the 
Penal Code, any person who deliberately destroys or 
damages public buildings, state-owned properties, or 
assets belonging to public institutions shall be sentenced 
to medium- or long-term imprisonment, depending 
on the severity of  the crime. However, if  the offense 
occurs under emergency conditions or is committed with 
the intent to cause disorder, panic, or fear, the crime is 
considered aggravated, and the perpetrator is sentenced 
to long-term imprisonment exceeding ten years. 
(1) Any person who intentionally destroys public or state-
owned buildings, properties dedicated to governmental 
institutions, public organizations, or entities legally 
established for public benefit in such a way that renders 

them completely or partially unusable shall be sentenced 
to medium- or long-term imprisonment. 

(2) If  the offense specified in paragraph (1) is 
committed in a state of  emergency, with the intent to 
create disorder or instill fear in the public, the offender 
shall be sentenced to long-term imprisonment exceeding 
ten years. (Penal Code of  Afghanistan, 2017).

2. Destruction of  Public Infrastructure for Terrorist 
Purposes (Article 269): Article 269 of  the Penal Code 
addresses offenses involving the destruction of  public 
infrastructure for terrorist purposes. If  an individual 
damages or disables public infrastructure such as 
transportation networks, energy facilities, or water supply 
systems with the intent of  committing a terrorist act, they 
shall be sentenced to the maximum term of  long-term 
imprisonment. 

(1) Any person who, with the intent to commit 
a terrorist act, destroys or severely damages public 
infrastructure, disrupts its functionality, or renders it 
unusable shall be sentenced to the maximum term of  
long-term imprisonment (Penal Code of  Afghanistan, 
2017).

3. Arson (Article 344): Afghanistan’s Penal Code also 
criminalizes arson as a serious offense. Article 344 states 
that any person who deliberately sets fire to movable or 
immovable property belonging to another person shall 
be sentenced to short-term imprisonment. Although 
the article does not explicitly specify whether “another 
person” includes public entities, it can be reasonably 
inferred that public property falls within the scope of  
this provision. Furthermore, if  arson is committed 
against certain public utilities or facilities, the offender 
is sentenced to second-degree life imprisonment. The 
Penal Code explicitly lists the following as aggravating 
circumstances:

(1) Any person who intentionally sets fire to movable 
or immovable property with the intent to cause harm to 
themselves or others shall be sentenced to short-term 
imprisonment. 

(3) If  the act of  arson is committed in any of  the 
following locations, the offender shall be sentenced to 
second-degree life imprisonment: 

- Rail transport facilities, including railway engines, 
passenger train cars, or airport terminals. 

- Public areas where large numbers of  people reside or 
frequently gather. 

- Government buildings, state-owned enterprises, or 
public institutions (Penal Code of  Afghanistan, 2017).
In addition to the penalties discussed earlier, Afghanistan’s 
Penal Code also prescribes imprisonment for various 
offenses against public property, including disrupting 
public transportation, damaging communication systems, 
deforestation, and desecration of  graves. Below are some 
of  the key legal provisions addressing these crimes? 

1. Disruption of  Public Transportation (Articles 360 & 
361): Any act of  negligence or recklessness that disrupts 
public transportation or causes significant damage to public 
property is punishable by medium-term imprisonment. 



Pa
ge

 
30

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 26-33, 2025

According to Article 360 of  the Penal Code, if  a person 
deliberately endangers or disables public transportation 
infrastructure such as vehicles, railway tracks, terminals, 
or other transportation facilities they shall be sentenced 
to medium- or long-term imprisonment. 

(1) Any person who intentionally endangers or disables 
public transportation vehicles, routes, premises, facilities, 
or infrastructures related to motorized land, water, or 
railway transport shall be sentenced to medium- or long-
term imprisonment, depending on the circumstances 
(Penal Code of  Afghanistan, 2017). 
Additionally, Article 361 of  the Penal Code states that 
if  such an offense is committed due to negligence or 
recklessness, the offender shall be sentenced to medium-
term imprisonment of  up to three years. 

(1) Any person who, due to recklessness or negligence, 
endangers the safety of  public transportation vehicles, 
routes, premises, facilities, or infrastructures related 
to motorized land, water, or railway transport, shall be 
sentenced to medium-term imprisonment of  up to three 
years (Penal Code of  Afghanistan, 2017).

2. Damage to Telecommunication Systems (Article 
365): The Penal Code also criminalizes the deliberate 
destruction of  telecommunication systems, which can 
disrupt public communications and emergency services. 
Any person who intentionally destroys or disables 
telecommunication systems in any manner shall be 
sentenced to short-term imprisonment (Penal Code of  
Afghanistan, 2017).

3. Destruction of  Public Buildings and Infrastructure 
(Article 368): The deliberate destruction of  public 
buildings, state-owned properties, or assets allocated for 
public benefit is explicitly criminalized under Article 368 
of  the Penal Code. Any person who intentionally destroys 
public buildings, state-owned properties, or properties 
dedicated to governmental institutions, public benefit 
organizations, or general public use shall be sentenced 
to a maximum of  short-term imprisonment or a fine 
ranging from 30,000 to 60,000 Afghanis (Penal Code of  
Afghanistan, 2017). 

4. Deforestation, Road & Park Destruction (Article 
369): Cutting down public trees, damaging roads, parks, 
or recreational areas is also classified as an offense against 
public property. Any person who intentionally cuts down 
trees or destroys public roads, parks, or recreational 
areas shall be sentenced to short-term imprisonment 
of  up to six months or fined between 5,000 and 30,000 
Afghanis. Additionally, the offender shall be required 
to compensate for damages, including the costs of  
replanting trees and restoring the affected facilities (Penal 
Code of  Afghanistan, 2017).

5. Desecration of  Graves (Article 694): While legal 
debates exist regarding whether graves qualify as public 
property, Afghan law—following prevailing social 
customs classifies grave desecration as an offense against 
public assets. Any person who, without religious or legal 
authorization, destroys or desecrates a grave or cemetery 
shall be sentenced to short-term imprisonment or fined 

between 30,000 and 60,000 Afghanis (Penal Code of  
Afghanistan, 2017).

6. Theft from Places of  Worship (Article 708): Another 
significant crime against public property is theft from 
places of  worship. Since mosques and other religious 
sites serve the entire community, Afghan law categorizes 
such theft as an offense against public property. Any 
person who commits theft inside a place of  worship, 
including mosques and other religious establishments, 
shall be sentenced to medium-term imprisonment of  no 
less than three years (Penal Code of  Afghanistan, 2017, 
Article 708). This legal provision is based on the principle 
that religious institutions belong to the public, and any 
violation against them constitutes a crime against public 
property. 

7. Land Usurpation (Articles 715 & 716): Another 
critical offense under Afghan law is land usurpation, 
which includes illegal occupation, unauthorized use, 
or unlawful transfer of  government, public, private, or 
endowed land. Article 715 of  the Penal Code defines land 
usurpation as: 
“The occupation, appropriation, usage, transfer, 
mortgage, guarantee, lease, or rental of  government, 
public, private, communal, or endowed lands without 
valid legal documentation or authorization.” (Penal 
Code of  Afghanistan, 2017). Additionally, Article 716 
prescribes the penalties for land usurpation: 

(1) Any person convicted of  land usurpation shall, in 
addition to returning the land, be subject to the following 
penalties: (Penal Code of  Afghanistan, 2017). (The 
specific penalties are detailed in the subsequent legal 
provisions.)
Afghanistan’s Penal Code imposes various levels of  
imprisonment for land usurpation (ghasb-e-zamin) 
depending on the value of  the land in question. The 
severity of  the punishment increases proportionally with 
the economic impact of  the crime. According to Article 
716 of  the Penal Code, individuals convicted of  land 
usurpation are subject to the following penalties: 
(1) The convicted person, in addition to returning the 
land, shall be sentenced as follows: 

- If  the land’s value is up to 300,000 Afghanis, the 
offender shall face short-term imprisonment. 

- If  the land’s value exceeds 300,000 Afghanis but is less 
than 1 million Afghanis, the offender shall face medium-
term imprisonment of  up to two years. 

- If  the land’s value exceeds 1 million Afghanis but 
is less than 5 million Afghanis, the offender shall face 
medium-term imprisonment of  more than three years. 

- If  the land’s value exceeds 5 million Afghanis, the 
offender shall face long-term imprisonment of  up to ten 
years (Penal Code of  Afghanistan, 2017, Article 716). 
Moreover, the Penal Code introduces additional legal 
consequences for land usurpation in certain situations: 

- If  the usurped land belongs to the public or is 
endowed (waqf) and was sold for residential construction, 
the offender must return the received money to the state 
treasury, in addition to serving the prescribed punishment 



Pa
ge

 
31

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 26-33, 2025

(Penal Code of  Afghanistan, 2017).
- The convicted individual must return the land, 

and any legal documents they presented as proof  of  
ownership shall be deemed null and void. (Penal Code of  
Afghanistan, 2017).
In addition to direct land usurpation, Afghan law 
recognizes crimes that, while not technically usurpation, 
are treated as equivalent offenses due to their impact on 
public resources. These include illegally occupying or 
using public water sources, forests, or other communal 
lands for personal gain. According to Article 719 of  
the Penal Code: Any person who unlawfully takes 
possession of  or exerts ownership over public water 
resources, including riverbanks, canals, streams, springs, 
underground water reserves, wetlands, grazing lands, 
hills, or mountains, shall be treated as committing land 
usurpation and shall be sentenced to medium-term 
imprisonment ranging from one to five years (Penal Code 
of  Afghanistan, 2017). Historical and cultural assets are 
classified as public property, as they belong not only 
to the state but to the entire nation across generations. 
Any destruction or damage to these assets is treated as 
a criminal offense. Protection of  Historical and Cultural 
Monuments (Article 731): (1) any offense committed 
under this section shall be treated as a crime against 
historical or cultural heritage, and the offender shall be 
punished accordingly. (2) For the purpose of  this section, 
historical or cultural heritage includes: 

- Movable or immovable property of  cultural 
significance to the nation, including architectural, artistic, 
or historical buildings, archaeological sites, manuscripts, 
rare books, and scientific collections. 

- Museums, libraries, and archives designed to preserve 
and display cultural assets (Penal Code of  Afghanistan, 
2017). Since historical and cultural assets are considered 
public property, Afghan law imposes strict penalties for 
their destruction or illegal trade:

- Any person who intentionally damages, destroys, or 
defaces a historical or cultural asset shall be sentenced 
to medium- or long-term imprisonment (Penal Code of  
Afghanistan, 2017). 

- If  destruction or loss occurs due to negligence by a 
responsible official or guardian, they shall be sentenced 
to medium- or short-term imprisonment (Penal Code 
of  Afghanistan, 2017). Illegal Trade and Smuggling of  
Cultural Artifacts (Articles 735-736). The unauthorized 
removal, trade, or smuggling of  historical and cultural 
artifacts is strictly prohibited under Afghan law: 

- Any person who removes a historical or cultural artifact 
from its designated location without official authorization 
shall be sentenced to medium-term imprisonment of  up 
to two years (Penal Code of  Afghanistan, 2017). 

- If  this act leads to destruction, alteration, or loss of  
the artifact, the offender shall face medium- or long-
term imprisonment of  up to eight years (Penal Code of  
Afghanistan, 2017).

- Illegal sale, purchase, storage, transportation, or 
smuggling of  cultural artifacts is punishable by medium- 

or long-term imprisonment (Penal Code of  Afghanistan, 
2017). 

- If  a person imports a prohibited historical or cultural 
artifact into Afghanistan, they shall be sentenced to short-
term imprisonment or fined between 30,000 and 60,000 
Afghanis (Penal Code of  Afghanistan, 2017). Since the 
environment is a shared national resource, any act that 
damages forests, pollutes rivers, or harms green spaces is 
treated as a crime against public property. Pollution and 
Environmental Damage (Article 807). 

(1) Any person who releases harmful pollutants into 
water, soil, or air at levels that pose risks to humans, 
animals, plants, or buildings shall be guilty of  an 
environmental crime and shall be sentenced to medium-
term imprisonment. 

(2) If  this crime results in bodily harm, psychological 
harm, or death, the offender shall, in addition to long-
term imprisonment, be subject to further penalties (Penal 
Code of  Afghanistan, 2017). Poisoning Public Water 
Supplies (Article 814): 

(1) Any person who deliberately contaminates a 
public well, reservoir, or other water source with toxic 
or microbial substances, endangering public health, shall 
be sentenced to second-degree life imprisonment (16 to 
20 years). 

(2) If  this crime results in death, the offender shall be 
sentenced to death (Penal Code of  Afghanistan, 2017). 
If  such an act occurs due to negligence, the punishment 
is reduced to medium-term imprisonment. Destruction 
of  Public Utilities (Article 816): (1) any person who 
intentionally damages public infrastructure, including 
water, electricity, and gas utilities, shall be sentenced to 
medium-term imprisonment of  up to two years. (2) If  the 
crime is committed through negligence, the punishment 
is reduced to short-term imprisonment (Penal Code of  
Afghanistan, 2017). Deforestation and Illegal Logging 
(Article 827), Any person who illegally cuts down trees in 
state-owned or communal forests or smuggles timber shall, 
in addition to confiscation of  the timber, be sentenced 
to medium-term imprisonment of  more than three years 
(Penal Code of  Afghanistan, 2017). Intentional Flooding 
(Articles 849-850), the deliberate creation of  floods that 
endanger public and private property is criminalized under 
Afghan law. (1) Any person who intentionally causes a 
flood that threatens public or private property shall be 
sentenced to long-term imprisonment (Penal Code of  
Afghanistan, 2017). If  flooding is caused accidentally, but 
results in damage to public infrastructure, the punishment 
is long-term imprisonment of  up to seven years (Penal 
Code of  Afghanistan, 2017).

Monetary Fines (Financial Penalties) 
Another key aspect of  criminal protection of  public 
property under Afghanistan’s Penal Code is the imposition 
of  monetary fines. 

Concept of  Monetary Fines 
Monetary fines (jazā-ye naqdi) refer to financial penalties 



Pa
ge

 
32

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 26-33, 2025

imposed by law as punishment for certain crimes. Unlike 
blood money (diyah) or debts (dayn), which can be 
inherited and paid from the deceased’s estate, monetary 
fines are strictly personal and expire upon the death of  
the convicted individual. Additionally, fines cannot be 
negotiated or paid to the victim or their heirs instead, they 
are deposited into the state treasury (Hasanzadeh, 2011). 
Historically, before formal governments were established, 
monetary compensation (gharamat) was used to settle 
disputes in tribal societies. The amount of  compensation 
depended on the extent of  the damage and the power 
dynamics between the conflicting parties. However, with 
the formation of  modern legal systems, state-regulated 
fines replaced these informal practices. 
Afghanistan’s Penal Code recognizes monetary fines as 
a supplementary or alternative punishment alongside 
imprisonment for crimes against public property. Below 
are some key legal provisions in which financial penalties 
are imposed. 

Fines for Environmental Crimes and Destruction of  
Public Lands 
One of  the primary categories where fines are imposed 
is environmental damage and destruction of  public lands. 

- Illegal burning or destruction of  pastures (alaf-
charha) is classified as a crime against public property and 
is punishable by a monetary fine. 

- Negligence leading to the destruction of  public 
telecommunication systems also incurs fines ranging from 
5,000 to 30,000 Afghanis (Penal Code of  Afghanistan, 
2017).
Since telecommunication infrastructure can be either 
privately owned or state-owned, any damage to state-
owned communication networks, which serve the general 
public, is treated as a crime against public property. 

Fines for Destruction of  Public Buildings and 
Infrastructure 

- Any person who intentionally destroys public 
buildings, state-owned properties, or assets designated for 
public benefit shall be fined between 30,000 and 60,000 
Afghanis (Penal Code of  Afghanistan, 2017). 

- Any person who deliberately cuts down trees, damages 
public roads, parks, or recreational areas shall be fined 
between 5,000 and 30,000 Afghanis, in addition to paying 
for the cost of  restoration (Penal Code of  Afghanistan, 
2017).

Fines for Desecration of  Graves and Religious 
Property 

- Destroying or damaging graves and tombs, which are 
classified as public property, is punishable by a fine of  
30,000 to 60,000 Afghanis (Penal Code of  Afghanistan, 
2017). 

- Theft of  low-value items (less than 5,000 Afghanis) 
from places of  worship is punishable by a fine of  10,000 
to 60,000 Afghanis (Penal Code of  Afghanistan, 2017). 
Since places of  worship such as mosques serve the general 

public, any crime committed against their property is 
treated as a violation of  public assets. 

Fines for Illegal Construction on Public Lands 
- Unauthorized construction on public land designated 

for mining or oil and gas extraction is punishable by a 
fine of  120,000 to 300,000 Afghanis (Penal Code of  
Afghanistan, 2017). 

Fines for Environmental Violations 
The Penal Code also imposes fines for environmental 
crimes, in addition to imprisonment: 

- Failure to comply with environmental regulations 
set by the National Environmental Protection Agency 
(NEPA) results in fines ranging from 60,000 to 100,000 
Afghanis (Penal Code of  Afghanistan, 2017).

- Illegally cutting down trees or destroying green spaces 
in public areas results in fines between 5,000 and 10,000 
Afghanis (Penal Code of  Afghanistan, 2017).

CONCLUSION
This study aims to scrutinize the criminal protection 
enacted for the purpose of  protecting public property in 
Afghanistan and look for gaps or deficiencies in the legal 
structures and enforcement mechanisms. In this study, 
a descriptive-analytical research method was used, and 
data were collected through library studies to examine the 
relevant legal statements. It also attempts, on a limited 
basis, to assess how jurisdictions have dealt with similar 
problems, and the lessons to be learned from other states 
that could apply to Afghanistan. The results show that 
in Afghanistan’s legal system, public property is defined 
as property that has been allocated to be used for the 
common good and benefit of  society. All criminal 
penalties such as capital punishment, imprisonment, 
fine, and reparation, according to the seriousness and 
character of  offense punish such a gainful assault on the 
possession. In practice, however, frequent problems with 
enforcement and no population-specific laws significantly 
reduce the effectiveness of  these sanctions. For effective 
and uniform enforcement of  these criminal protections, 
Afghanistan’s criminal policy must be strictly applied 
to violators. “Crimes against state property are serious 
and impact the nation as a whole, and a stringent penal 
approach combined with reforms in institutions and 
awareness among the public on legal affairs, is the only 
way for society to gradually accept the importance of  the 
rights of  public property, and also avoid any unlawful 
attack on such property,” it said. Moreover, the review 
and adoption of  the appropriate international best 
practices and the strengthening of  mechanisms of  legal 
oversight can reinforce the protection of  public property 
in existing and new legislation in Afghanistan It outlines 
the gaps in criminalization and enforcement of  crimes 
against public property, and argues for much more 
comprehensive institutional reform in addition to existing 
patchwork laws. Though Afghanistan’s legal framework 
allows for different kinds of  penalties, corruption, lack 



Pa
ge

 
33

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 26-33, 2025

of  coordination, and poor implementation tarnish the 
effectiveness of  such sanctions. However, based on 
tested comparative legal frameworks, the protection 
of  public assets in Afghanistan could substantially 
improve with a focus on international best practices in 
relevant law. However, based on tested comparative 
legal frameworks, the protection of  public assets in 
Afghanistan could substantially improve with a focus on 
international best practices in relevant law.

REFERENCES 
Amid, H. (2010). Amid Persian dictionary. Shafi’i 

Publications. 
Bromley, D. W. (1991). Environmental and economy: Property 

rights and public policy. Blackwell. 
Cole, D. H., & Grossman, P. Z. (2002). The meaning of  

property rights: Law versus economics? Land Economics, 
78(3), 317–330. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146892

Gholipour, F. (2013). Criminal protection of  air and water 
(Master’s thesis, Islamic Azad University, Tehran 
Branch). 

Hasanzadeh, A. (2011). Alternative sentences to imprisonment 
in the new draft of  the Islamic Penal Code (Master’s thesis, 
Imam Khomeini International University). 

Hilal, M. T., Bahir, B., & Noori, A. N. (2023). Reasons 
for acquiring defective property in Afghan Civil Code 
and Islamic Shariah. American Journal of  Society and 
Law, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.54536/ajsl.v2i2.1603

Jafari Langroudi, M. J. (2007). Legal terminology. 
Ketabkhaneh Ganji Danesh. 

Katouzian, N. (1998). The Civil Code in the current legal system 
(1st ed.). Dadgostar Publishing. 

Ministry of  Justice. (1976). Civil Code of  Afghanistan 
(Official Gazette No. 353, Serial No. 2418). 

Ministry of  Justice. (2017). Penal Code of  Afghanistan 
(Official Gazette No. 1260, Serial No. 256). 

Qasemzadeh, S. M., & Others. (2011). Interpretation of  the 
Civil Code (5th ed.). SAMT – Center for Research and 
Development of  Humanities. 

Rasouli, A. (2017). Property law (2nd ed.). Farhang 
Publications. 

Safari, A. (2008). Penology. Jungle Publications. 
Underkuffler, L. (2005). The idea of  property: Its meaning 

and power. Oxford Journal of  Legal Studies, 25(4), 793–
805. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqi042

Wyman, K. M. (2017). The new essentialism in property. 
Journal of  Legal Analysis, 9(2), 183–246. https://doi.
org/10.1093/jla/lay002


