چکیده:
In Iran, economic crimes occupy three positions that are temporally aligned; first, the substantive position, where in criminal regulations, instances of crimes can be found that have the closest concept to economic crimes, with the most famous example being disruption of the economic system. Second, the judicial and executive position, where, given the policies of the Judiciary and the macro approach of the Headquarters for Combating Economic Crimes with a focus on government departments, the concept of economic crimes is introduced in the shadow of ordinary crimes. Third, the titular position, where the legislator explicitly uses the title 'economic crimes' but does not provide a definition for it. Accordingly, the fundamental issue is whether economic crimes possess substantive independence within the context of Iran's criminal policy, and whether differential criminal procedure can be applied to this phenomenon or not? The legislator's titular tendency to propose economic crimes is within a substantive law and for the application of general rules of crimes and punishments. This very challenge has caused economic crimes to acquire a judicial and formal identity, meaning they lack substantive authenticity and identity and instead possess more of a formal and superficial title. Although economic crimes have various and different procedures in criminal regulations, the reality is that the judicial system in this regard operates based on a self-made practice that was outlined through circulars from the Head of the Judiciary prior to the approval of the law; whereas the judicial confrontation with economic crimes is solely contingent upon their substantive introduction.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Although in criminal regulations, economic crimes have various and different procedures, the reality is that the judicial system in this regard does not act based on its own self-made practices that were drawn up through circulars of the Head of the Judiciary prior to the approval of the law; whereas the judicial confrontation with economic crimes is only contingent upon their substantive introduction.
Based on Article 44 of the Law on Combating Smuggling of Goods and Currency, some instances of smuggling are considered violations (not crimes), and the responsibility for handling them lies with the Government Punishment Organization.
Handling by Judicial Authorities Most instances of these crimes cannot be directly brought to court and are initially raised in the prosecutor's office; however, cases such as money laundering, due to weak and ineffective enforcement mechanisms, are considered Grade 7 punishments based on the Unification of Precedent Ruling No. 759 dated 1396/4/20 and are directly brought to Criminal Court 2 of each provincial center.
In the draft law on combating economic crimes, Articles 5 and 9 predict the formation of necessary branches in the prosecutor's office, which is established in the center of each province, and based on Article 17, if the value of the property or the proceeds from the crime exceeds five thousand billion Rials, its handling falls under the jurisdiction of the Tehran Economic Prosecutor's Office, and according to Article 19, cases that, before the formation of the organization, in general and revolutionary prosecutor's offices resulted in the issuance of a final decision –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1.
(
, 
, 
)
