Appellant's Request for Premature Release of Seized Vehicle in Fraud Case Denied

In a criminal investigation concerning fraud related to the importation of high-value automobiles with mismatched chassis numbers, the appellant sought the premature release of a seized vehicle, subject to a prohibition on changing ownership. The court reasoned that the premature return of a seized asset to the rightful person under Article 267 para. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code constitutes anticipating a final decision ordering restitution to the injured party for the restoration of the lawful state, and therefore cannot be governed by Article 267 para. 1, which only allows for premature return to the person affected by the seizure, not the injured party. The court further stipulated that such early release requires undisputed proof that the asset was directly deprived from the entitled person by the crime, which was not met for the appellant who was merely affected by the seizure but not the proven victim of theft.