Abstract:
The developments of Iran's criminal system regarding the deprivation of liberty for financial convicts have been due to the country's legislative system being focused on restrictive jurisprudential institutions such as insolvency and liability; however, these developments in the English criminal system are rooted in the increase in the scope of imprisonment intervention and the expansion of prison mechanisms in 18th-century England. A comparative study in the field of deprivation of liberty resulting from financial convictions in two different criminal systems such as Iran and England identifies the strengths, weaknesses, approaches, progress, and flexibility of the criminal justice system in each country on a single subject. In this way, while analyzing the evolution and development of regulations resulting in the deprivation of liberty for financial convicts in Iran and England, one can arrive at the conclusion of which institutions have been defined as alternatives to deprivation of liberty for financial convicts in the global legal developments of recent years in the criminal policies of Iran and England. It seems that regarding the payment of debt to the private claimant (and not the payment of a fine), Iran's criminal policy does not have an independent tool at its disposal and is forced to refer to general rules of insolvency. However, in English law after the 19th century AD, a mechanism was recognized in which the debtor, during the period of deprivation of liberty, engages in several months of activity outside of prison in the direction of serving the creditor and paying the debt.
Machine summary:
According to Advisory Opinion No. 7/1401/958 dated 1401/09/14, although it is assumed that at the time of issuing the installment judgment, the court has verified the convict's ability to pay installments, and in the event of non-payment of installments, the application of Article 3 of the Law on the Method of Executing Financial Convictions passed in 1394 is possible; nevertheless, since the solvency and insolvency of persons is a variable matter and many factors, including inflation, etc.
" On July 2, 1972, another law for financial crimes was also approved by the Parliament, which, according to the third note of Article 1 of this law, states: "In the event that the convict, after serving half the term of detention instead of the crime, is unable to pay the monetary penalty or the damages of the private claimant and is also declared insolvent by the court issuing the criminal judgment, they shall be released from prison, but the right of the private claimant shall be reserved, and whenever property is obtained from the convict, they may proceed to recover their claim.
If an insolvency ruling is issued and it is subsequently discovered that the individual did this to escape debt, he shall be sentenced to imprisonment, or according to Article 21 of the Law on the Method of Executing Financial Convictions approved in 1394, "transferring property to another by any means by the debtor with the motive of escaping debt repayment in such a way that the remaining assets are insufficient to pay the debts, shall result in discretionary imprisonment or a 6th-degree fine, or a fine equivalent to half of the convicted amount, or both punishments; and if the transferee has also acted with knowledge of the matter, they are considered an accomplice to the crime.
(
, 
, 
)
