دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار، گروه حقوق عمومی و بین‌الملل، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران شمال، تهران، ایران

2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق بین الملل، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

کنوانسیون مبارزه با فساد سازمان ملل متحد که جمهوری اسلامی ایران نیز عضو آن است، جرم‌انگاری عنوان مجرمانۀ دارا شدن نامشروع را در ارتباط با افزایش چشمگیر دارایی‌های مقامات عمومی که با میزان درآمدهای مشروع آنان منطبق به‌نظر نمی‌رسد، مدنظر قرار داده است. عده‌ای از منتقدان اما بر این باورند که شیوۀ جرم‌انگاری این عنوان و نهادن بار اثبات مشروع بودن منشأ دارایی‌ها در تقابل با اصولی مانند برائت، حق بر سکوت متهم و اصل قانونی بودن جرم و مجازات است. در این نوشتار به این رهیافت رسیدیم که ارکان این جرم از شفافیت کافی برخوردار بوده و در تقابل با اصل قانونی بودن جرم و مجازات نیست. همچنین پیش‌بینی لزوم وجود اَمارات قانونی در زمان انتساب جرم، ادعای تقابل این جرم با اصل برائت و عدم لزوم اثبات از راه اقرار، تخطی آن را از حق بر سکوت متهم منتفی می‌سازد. در ضمن نیم‌نگاهی نیز به قانون اصلاح مبارزه با پولشویی (مصوب 1397) و طرح اعادۀ اموال نامشروع مسئولان انداخته شده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Islamic Republic of Iran's Issues of Illicit Enrichment Criminalization Established by United Nation Convention against Corruption

نویسندگان [English]

  • Omid Mollakarimi 1
  • Saleh Amiri 2

1 Prof., Department of Public and International Law, Faculty of Humanities, Islamic Azad University, North Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran

2 Ph.D. Student in International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran,Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

The United Nation convention against corruption, which Islamic Republic of Iran is its member state, has criminalized illicit enrichment related to significant increase in assets of public officials which is not consistent to their legitimate income. However, some critics believe that this way of criminalization contradicts to some principles such as presumption of innocence, right to silence, and the principle of legality. Scrutinizing this issue in Iranian criminal system, this study shows that the elements of illicit enrichment has enough transparency and doesn't violate the principle of legality. As well, the prediction of the necessity of existence of legal presumptions would resolve the problem of its contradiction to the presumption of innocence. In addition, the unnecessity of proving via Self-Incrimination would reject any contradictions to right to silence. In result, acceptance of illicit enrichment seems to be in accordance with the Iranian domestic law.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • United Nation Convention against Corruption
  • public officials
  • illicit enrichment
  • Presumption of innocence
  • Right to silence
  1. فارسی

الف) کتاب‌ها

  1. بکاریا، سزار (1380)، رسالۀ جرائم و مجازات‌ها، ترجمۀ محمد اردبیلی، چ دوم، تهران: میزان.
  2. کاتوزیان، ناصر (1397)، مقدمۀ علم حقوق، چ 112، تهران: گنج دانش.
  3. مظفر، محمدرضا (1378)، اصول‌الفقه، ج 2، چ هفتم، قم: دفتر انتشارات اسلامی.

 

ب) مقالات

  1. جلالی، محمود (1394)، «قلمرو انطباق رویکرد قانونگذار ایران با مقررات متحدالشکل مقابله با فساد در کنوانسیون مریدا»، فصلنامۀ مطالعات حقوق عمومی، دورۀ 45، ش 3.
  2. حبیب‌زاده، محمدجعفر (1395)، «شناسایی و مدیریت حق سکوت متهم»، مجلۀ حقوقی دادگستری، ش 95.
  3. شاملو، باقر؛ مرادی، مجید (1392)، «تحدید تضمینات دادرسی عادلانه در پرتو امنیت‌گرایی در جرم پولشویی»، مجلۀ حقوقی دادگستری، ش81.
  4. شاهچراغ، سید حمید (1391)، «بررسی تطبیقی مسئولیت مطلق کیفری در حقوق ایران با نگرشی بر نظام حقوقی کامن‌لا»، مجلۀ حقوقی دادگستری، ش78، تابستان.
  5. کاتوزیان، ناصر (1383)، «ماهیت و اثر امارۀ حقوقی»، مجلۀ دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، ش 46.

 

ج) رساله

  1. رحیمی، حبیب‌الله (1380)، «استفادۀ بلاجهت (مطالعۀ تطبیقی)»، رسالۀ دکتری، دانشگاه تهران.

 

د) قوانین

  1. قانون آیین دادرسی کیفری، 1392.
  2. قانون اساسی جمهوری اسلامی ایران، مصوب 1358 (اصلاح‌شده در 1368).
  3. ماده‌واحدۀ قانون الحاق دولت جمهورى اسلامى ایران به کنوانسیون سازمان ملل متحد براى مبارزه با فساد (1387).

 

  1. انگلیسی
  2. A) Books
  3. Cesare Beccaria (2001)‎,Traite Des Delits Et Des Peines, Tradult en Persan Par M.A.ARDEBILI, Tehran: MIZAN Publication (In Persian).
  4. Jarvis, Michael (2016), Towards a More Systematic Fight Against Corruption, The World Bank Institute, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, New York.
  5. Katouzian, Naser (2018), Moghaddameh elme hoquq, Tehran: Ganj-e-Danesh, chap 112 (In Persian).
  6. Lindy Muzila, Michelle Morales, Marianne Mathias, Tammar Berger (2012), On the Take: Criminalizing Illicit Enrichment to Fight Corruption, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/T e World Bank, Washington DC.
  7. Muzaffar, Mohammad Reza (1999), Osul Figh, Qom: daftare entesharat eslami, chap haftom, jelde dovom (In Persian).
  8. Peristeridou, Christine (2017), The Principle of legality In European Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press, Intersentia.
  9. UNODC (2010), Travaux Preparatoires of the negotiations for the elaboration of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, United nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
  10. UNODC (2016), Criminalization and Law Enforcement: the pacific’s implementation of chapter iii of The UN Convention against Corruption, UNDP-UNODC Pacific Regional Anti-Corruption (UN-PRAC) Project.

 

  1. B) Articles
  2. Abu-Morad, Mohammad Ahmad (2016), “Burden of proof and Presumption of Innocence in the Prosecution of Illicit Enrichment with Reference to Jordanian Legislation”, Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization,Vol.49, Malaysia.
  3. Dan Wilsher (2006), “Inexplicable Wealth and Illicit Enrichment of Public Officials: A Model Draft That Respects Human Rights in Corruption Cases”, 45 CRIME L. & SOC. CHANGE 27.
  4. Ferry de Jong & Leonie van Lent (2016), “The Presumption of Innocence as a Counterfactual Principle”, Utrecht Law Review, Vol. 12, Issue 1.
  5. HabibZadeh, MohammadJafar (2016),” Recognition and Management of Right to Silence” The Judiciary Law Journal, No. 95 (In Persian).
  6. Jalali, Mahmoud (2015), “Scope of compatibility of the Iranian Law-Maker’s approach with the unified provisions against corruption in Merida convention”, Public Law Studies Quarterly, Vol. 45, No.3 (In Persian).
  7. Jeffrey R. Boles (2006), “Criminalizing the Problem of Unexplained Wealth: Illicit Enrichment Offences AND Human Rights Violations”, Legislation and Public Policy, Vol. 17. University of California, Berkeley.
  8. Judith Goldstein, Miles Kahler (2012), “Legalization and World Politics, International Organization” 54, 3, University of Cambridge Press.
  9. Katouzian, Naser (2004), "Mahiyat va asar amareh hoquqi", majleh daneshkadeh hoquq va olum siyasi, No. 46 (In Persian).
  10. Laras Susanti (2015), “Criminal Liability of Public Officials For Illicit Enrichment: Comparing Approaches of The Use of Indirect Methods of Proof in Investigating Illicit Enrichment In INDONESIA and The U.S.A”, Journal Hukum Internasional, Vol. 13, No. 1.
  11. Margaret K. Lewis (2012), “Presuming Innocence, or Corruption, in China”, 50 COLUM. J. TRANSNAT’L L. 287, 291.
  12. Shacheragh, Seyed Hamid, (1391), “Comparative Analysis of Criminal Absolute Liability in Iran’s Law, with a View of the Common Law”, The Judiciary Law Journal , No. 78, summer (In Persian).
  13. Shamlu, Bagher & Moradi, Majid (1392), “Restrictions against fair trial guarantees in the light of Security- oriented approach to money laundering”, The Judiciary Law Journal, No. 81 (In Persian).

 

  1. C) Verdicts
  2. Abu-Morad, Mohammad Ahmad, Burden of proof and Presumption of Innocence in the Prosecution of Illicit Enrichment with Reference to Jordanian Legislation, Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization",Vol.49, Malaysia, 2016, p. 26
  3. DPP v. Dung [2006] WADC., High Court of Australia, available at: "Booz Allen Hamilton, Comparative Evaluation of Unexplained Wealth Orders, U.S. Department of Justice, 2011, p.116
  4. Egypt Court of Cassation, Case No 30342 of 2000 and Case No 786 of 1972 Available At:
  5. Murray v. United Kingdom, 22 Eur. Ct. H.R. 29, Para 45 (1996), Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
  6. Robert M. Chaulk v The Attorney General of Canada, 1990. Para 103, Available at: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/707/index.do
  7. Williamson v. Ah On (1926), High Court of Australia, para. 113–114. Available at: https://jade.io/article/63273
  8. And (Supreme Court of Justice), 22 December 2008, Available at: Muzila, Lindy, One Take Criminalizing Illicit Enrichment to Fight Corruption, The World Bank, UNODC, (STAR), 2012 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Washington DC, p.33
  9. Maria J. Alsogaray, (National Chamber of Criminal Appeals), 9 June 2005 Available at: Muzila, Lindy, One Take Criminalizing Illicit Enrichment to Fight Corruption, The World Bank, UNODC, (STAR), 2012 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Washington DC, p.33

 

  1. D) Documents
  2. 1998, Integrity Commission Act Guyana
  3. African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption,2003
  4. Argentina: 1964, Argentine Criminal Code, Article 286(2), And Colombia Penal Code 2004
  5. Brunei Darussalam: 1982, Prevention of Corruption Act, Possession of Unexplained Property
  6. Chile: 1999, Criminal Code of Chile
  7. China: 1997, Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China
  8. Colombia Act no. 599 of 2000. Criminal Code, Title X, Crimes against the Economic Social Order, Colombia
  9. El Salvador, Constitution, Article 240; Criminal Code, Article 333 (Illicit Enrichment), AND Egypt, Arab Rep.: Law no. 62 of 1975, Illegitimate Gains
  10. Internal Revenue Manual 9.5.9 Methods of Proof, 9.5.9.2.2 Indirect Methods, [IRS Manual 5], updated March 19, 2012, United States,
  11. Nepal: 2009, the Prevention of Corruption Act
  12. Organization of American States, Inter-American Convention against Corruption, Mar. 29, 1996
  13. Paraguay, Law no. 2.523/04
  14. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Strengthening of certain aspects of the Presumption of Innocence and of the Right to be Present at Trial in Criminal Proceedings, COM(2013) 821/2
  15. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, Art 67, available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/ADD16852-AEE9-4757-ABE7-9CDC7CF02886/283503/RomeStatutEng1.pdf
  16. The Prevention of Corruption Act, No. 49 of 1988, INDIA CODE (1988)
  17. United Kingdom, Criminal Finances Act (2017), CHAPTER 22, PART 1, unexplained wealth orders, 362A.
  18. UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION, (New York, 2004),UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME, Vienna
  19. UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME AND THE PROTOCOLS THERETO, New York, 2000, Art 6.

 

  1. C) Teases
  2. Rahimi, habibollah (1380), Estsfaade bela jahat (Motale tatbiqi , resale doctor, daneshgah Tehran (In Persian).

 

  1. Rules
  2. Qanun aiein dadresi keyfari, 1392 (In Persian).
  3. Qanun asasi jomhuri eslani iran, mosavab 1358 (eslah shodeh dar 1368)
  4. Madeh vahedeh qanun elahaaq dolat jomhuri eslaami iran be konvansiyon sazeman melal motahed baray mobarezeh ba fasad (1387) (In Persian).