The regulation of seizure in the new Code of Criminal Procedure tends to establish as accurately as possible the purpose of the measure, the goods that can be subject to seizure, an explicitation of opposition procedures, as well as goods that can be harnessed and obviously the conditions under which this can be done. The new regulation does not change in a conceptual or structural manner the precautionary measures in general or criminal seizure in particular, having as a goal rather a clarification of practical aspects, in line with European requirements and/or jurisprudential and doctrinal criticisms regarding the legal texts of the previous Code. Precisely from maintaining, in large part, the status quo, an important aspect of debate emerges, namely the potential conflict between criminal seizure and a possible forced execution, the new regulation failing to bring sufficient clarification to eliminate the "conflict" between the two institutions of law, leaving active the debates of jurisprudence and doctrine in this regard. Thus, the new regulation has not normatively clarified the hypothesis that asset over which the precautionary measure was established is subject to a previous conventional mortgage, for example, for guaranteeing a bank loan.
