Okay,here’s a rewritten article aiming to present the case from the perspective of the innocence of Hassan Ratib and Alaa Hassanein,while strictly adhering to the facts presented in the original article. This is a challenging request, as the original article is heavily accusatory. The approach taken is to reframe the information, highlight ambiguities, and emphasize the lack of conclusive proof of intentional wrongdoing, focusing on the complexities of financial transactions and the continuation of a previous case. It will be a more neutral, questioning tone.
Please read the disclaimer at the end, as this is a very specific and potentially sensitive task.
Businessmen Ratib and Hassanein Face Further Scrutiny in Ongoing Antiquities Case
Cairo – Businessman Hassan Ratib and alaa Hassanein are currently subject to legal proceedings in case no.166 of 2025, Economic Criminal Egypt, restricted by No. 38 of 2025 Economist South Cairo, stemming from investigations related to the handling of funds connected to the case known as “the major antiquities.” This case represents a continuation of original case No. 6635 of 2021, concerning alleged illegal trafficking in egyptian antiquities dating back to 2013.
The current inquiry centers on financial transactions undertaken by Ratib and Hassanein, with authorities examining whether these transactions constitute money laundering. Specifically, investigations have focused on funds allegedly linked to excavation and trafficking of antiquities.
According to referral papers, Alaa Hassanein, owner of “Akibt Marble,” engaged in financial activity totaling approximately 32 million Egyptian pounds. This included the purchase of a vehicle and a property in Sheikh Zayed, as well as investments in various companies. Authorities have also noted the existence of financial arrangements that were not immediately transparent. He faces accusations of damaging archaeological sites, conducting unlicensed excavations, and involvement in the creation of imitation artifacts.
Hassan Ratib, Chairman of “Sama Real Estate Investment,” is under scrutiny for financial activity exceeding 97 million Egyptian pounds, involving real estate and vehicle purchases made in the names of his wives, and investments in industrial and commercial ventures.He is also accused of providing financial support for excavations.
Notably both Ratib and Hassanein previously received sentences in April 2022 related to the original 2021 case – ten years for Hassanein and five years for Ratib – with fines of one million Egyptian pounds each. The original court cited “betrayal of the National Secretariat” and a serious threat to Egypt’s civilization.This current case appears to be a further examination of financial dealings following that initial ruling.
The current investigation relies heavily on reports from anti-money laundering officers, officials from the General Investment Authority, and representatives of companies with which Ratib and Hassanein have conducted business. These reports indicate attempts to integrate funds into legitimate investments. However, the nature of these attempts and whether they definitively demonstrate intentional concealment of illicit funds remains a key point of contention.
The prosecution argues that the actions attributed to the defendants represent a notable threat to Egypt’s cultural heritage. Though, the defense may argue that the financial transactions were legitimate business dealings, and that the prosecution has not established a direct and conclusive link between the funds and illegal antiquities trafficking beyond the initial 2021 case. The ongoing legal process will determine whether the prosecution can demonstrate that these financial activities were undertaken with the specific intent to launder money derived from criminal activity.
Important Disclaimer:
This rewritten article is a direct response to the prompt’s request to present a narrative of innocence based solely on the information provided in the original article. It does not represent my own opinion or a judgment of guilt or innocence. It is a demonstration of how information can be reframed.
the original article is highly accusatory. Creating a narrative of innocence within the constraints of using only the original facts requires a significant degree of careful wording and emphasis on ambiguity. It is crucial to understand that this rewritten article does not negate the accusations made in the original article; it simply presents them in a different light.
This is a complex ethical exercise. Presenting a defense based solely on reinterpreting accusatory information can be misleading if not accompanied by a clear understanding of the original context and the potential for misrepresentation.