According to Titrsanat, the relationship and proximity between economic crimes and financial corruption, economic corruption, and commercial or business-related offenses are such that, in certain cases, they overlap. When comparing financial corruption with economic crime, it can be said that financial corruption is characterized by the abuse of delegated power for personal gain, whether in the public or private sector. In this context, the identity of the offender—typically holders of power, public officials, or individuals affiliated with the government—is a defining element.
By contrast, perpetrators of economic crimes may belong to any segment of society, including government employees as well as other social groups. Therefore, acts of financial corruption that merely undermine public trust in government officials, without exerting a tangible impact on economic activities, cannot necessarily be classified as economic crimes.
Economic corruption, in itself, is not automatically regarded as a crime; rather, it may serve as a criterion for identifying economic crime. More precisely, economic corruption refers to conduct that threatens the country’s economic foundations and disrupts the economic system, whereas economic crime specifically concerns acts that interfere with economic policies and activities.
A practicing attorney stated that the law deliberately avoids providing a general definition of economic crime and instead adopts a case-based approach, similar to the method used by the Council of Europe. This approach had already been applied prior to the enactment of the current law through a directive issued by the Head of the Judiciary concerning major economic crimes. An examination of these two regulations indicates that their listed instances do not fully coincide.
The wording of the relevant provision is drafted in a restrictive manner, meaning that the enumerated instances are exhaustive and prevent the extension of the title of “economic crime” to other offenses. Consequently, other forms of conduct that disrupt economic order, regardless of their significance, do not qualify as economic crimes unless they fall within the explicitly listed categories, and therefore are not subject to the aggravated punishments предусмотрed under the new Islamic Penal Code.
The Friday prayer leader stated that among the shortcomings that can be raised regarding judicial practice in handling cases involving defendants accused of disrupting the economic order is the absence of a precise and legal definition of the concept of “disruption.” He added that there are also serious disagreements in establishing criminal intent and the mental element of the offense. A review of some issued verdicts suggests that the charge of disrupting the economic order has, in certain cases, been applied without sufficient legal precision.
In conclusion, one of the key challenges in combating crimes that disrupt the country’s economic order lies in the ambiguity of the concepts used in the Law on Punishment of Disruptors of the Economic System, enacted in 1990. For instance, one of the major ambiguities in this law concerns the concept of “disruption,” which has not been defined in any statute.
Given that most of the offenses listed in this law are result-based, and that the outcome intended by the legislator is “disruption” of one of the pillars of the economic system—such as the monetary, foreign exchange, export, and related systems—the existence of ambiguity surrounding the concept of disruption is, in principle, another factor that can negate the establishment and proof of this crime.
Another major issue is the inconsistency in criminal court rulings when adjudicating cases related to disruption of the economic order. This inconsistency stems from differing judicial interpretations of existing laws, particularly the Law on the Punishment of Disruptors of the Economic System, as well as from the type of court handling the case. Over the past decades, judicial practice, in light of successive legislative enactments, has produced divergent approaches to addressing economic crimes.
Furthermore, the nature of the competent court—whether a general criminal court or a Revolutionary Court—also plays a significant role in determining the criminal classification of the offense and the severity of the sentence imposed. In general, Revolutionary Courts tend to adopt a harsher approach toward economic crimes.
Comments