خلاصة:
Obtain Property by unlawful, which was criminalized in accordance with Article 2 of the Aggravation Act of Perpetrators Punishment of Bribery, Embezzlement and Fraud in 1988, again, provide Note 3 of Article 2 in the Anti-Money Laundering Act, Amendment 2019. This Note, does not contravene the provisions of Aggravation Act, each of which is applicable in a particular situation. Obtain Property by unlawful in Aggravation Act, according to the ultimate interpretation, only be performed by persons with state privileges. Note 3 of Article 2 on the Money Laundering Act also apply where there is a "suspicion close to certainty" for unlawful Obtaining and the legitimacy of Obtaining is not established. In this case, the strong suspicion is reinforced that property is most likely the result of criminal behavior, but the type of criminal behavior is not specific for the judge. If it is proven, property is the result of a specific crime; the acquisition of such property is considered money laundering and is not subject to the abovementioned provision. Charges of unlawful obtaining will not be admissible, if it is established that property were not the result of the crime and were a result of a civil violation. The provisions of Note 3 include property that whose unlawful source is in serious doubt, with evidence of the sudden and unusual increase in assets. So, the basis of "suspicion close to certainty" it is assumed that the money was obtained through the commission of the crime
ملخص الجهاز:
This research, by differentiating between the illicit acquisition of property in the aforementioned two laws and also the relationship of this crime with money laundering and other crimes, such as receiving stolen goods, ultimately emphasizes that Note 3 covers properties whose origin and method of access are questionable given an unusual increase in assets or lack of a tracking code, in which case, with the criterion of “suspicion close to knowledge,” it is assumed that the property was obtained through the commission of a crime.
Article 2 stipulates in this regard: “Anyone who, in any way, puts privileges that are delegated to specific persons due to having special conditions, such as export and import licenses, and what is conventionally referred to as principled approval, for sale or purchase, and misuses them, or commits fraud in the distribution of goods that were supposed to be distributed according to regulations, or generally acquires money or funds whose method of acquisition lacks legal legitimacy, shall be considered a criminal and, in addition to returning the principal amount, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for three months to two years and a fine equal to twice the amount obtained.
”¹ Thus, a person who purchases valuable property from another without observing legal formalities and receiving a receipt and product identification at a low price, and considering the evidence and indications, there is a strong suspicion that the sold property is likely derived from fraud or other crimes, has in fact committed the offense of acquiring property through illicit means, and if the judge does not ascertain the perpetrator’s knowledge of the criminal origin of the property, and at the same time, the perpetrator cannot prove legitimate acquisition or a legitimate origin of the property, they are subject to prosecution for the aforementioned offense.
(
, 
, 
)
