关于冻结、扣押和没收的国内法律框架载于《刑法典》第 7、14、19、21、31、 32 和 32-1 条。这些章节不仅涵盖犯罪所得，还涵盖用于或意图用于实施犯罪的工具。卢森堡尚未建立专门处置被冻结、被扣押或被没收财产的资产管理机构。被冻 结或被扣押财产的管理由国家负责。在涉及毒品贩运、洗钱和资助恐怖主义行 为的案件中，财产由国家转移至资产充公基金（打击某些形式的犯罪基金）。已被部分或者全部转变或者转化为其他财产的犯罪所得可予冻结和没收。银行单据亦可没收，但前提是它被认为是犯罪工具。反之，如果它被认为是证 据，则会被放入案件卷宗，在结案后加以销毁或归还其合法所有者（《刑事诉 讼法》第 31-35、65、66、66-1 至 66-5、67、67-1 条）。卢森堡未设立银行账户中央登记册。实行《刑事诉讼法》第 66-4 和 66-5 条后，预审法官可通过一道简 化的程序责令一家信贷机构提供关于银行账户或银行交易的资料或文件。根据该程序，命令书可通过以电子形式进行通知的方式送达有关信贷机构。该信贷 机构在接到命令书后，应在命令书规定时间内，以电子形式将要求出具的资料或文件送交预审法官。拒不遵守此类命令书的，可处 1,250 欧元到 125,000 欧元 的罚款（《刑事诉讼法》第 66-5(3)条）。此外，银行还要配合金融情报机构的 工作，对“了解你的客户”的报表负刑事责任。 根据《公约》第三十一条第八款，卢森堡曾考虑有否可能要求由罪犯证明所指称的犯罪所得或者其他应当予以没收的财产的合法来源，但最终决定不这样做，理由是此要求被认为不符合无罪推定的基本法律原则。但是，自由评估证据的原则同样适用于所指称的犯罪所得的合法或非法来源。善意第三方的权利受《刑法典》第 31(4)和 32-1(4)条保护。
The domestic legal framework on freezing, seizing and confiscation can be found in articles 7, 14, 19, 21, 31, 32, 32-1 CP. These chapters cover not only proceeds of crime, but also instrumentalities used, or intended to be used, in the commission of a crime. Luxembourg has not established an asset management agency to specifically dispose of frozen, seized or confiscated property. The administration of frozen or seized property is handled by the State. In cases related to drug trafficking, money-laundering or financing of terrorism, the property is transferred by the State to the Asset Forfeiture Fund (Fonds de lutte contre certaines formes de criminalité). Proceeds of crime that have been transformed or converted, in part or in full, into other property, is liable to freezing and confiscation. Confiscation can also comprise banking documentation if it was considered an instrument of the offence. Otherwise, if it was considered evidence, it would form part of the case file and would be destroyed or given back to its legitimate owner at the closing of the case (arts. 31-35, 65, 66, 66-1 to 66-5, 67, 67-1 CIC). Luxembourg does not have a central register of bank accounts. Following the introduction of articles 66-4 and 66-5 CIC, the investigating judge may order a credit institution to provide information or documents concerning bank accounts or banking transactions through a simplified procedure. According to this procedure, the order may be served to the credit institution concerned by way of a notification made electronically. The credit institution notified by the order shall communicate the information or documents requested electronically to the investigating judge within the time period indicated in the order. Non-compliance with such an order is punishable by a fine of 1,250 to 125,000 euros (article 66-5 (3) CIC). Moreover, banks cooperate with the FIU and are criminally liable for Know-Your-Customer statements. In accordance with article 31 (8) of the Convention, Luxembourg has considered the possibility of requiring that an offender demonstrates the lawful origin of alleged proceeds of crime or other property liable to confiscation but decided not to do so because such a requirement was considered to be inconsistent with the fundamental legal principle of the presumption of innocence. However, the principle of the free assessment of the evidence equally applies to the lawful or illegal origin of alleged proceeds of crime. The rights of bona fide third parties are protected under articles 31(4), 32-1(4) CP.