جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "تصرف غیرقانونی" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

The access of state-owned employees to state funds and funds, which stems from employment and employment, has led the legislature to prohibit the use of unauthorized use of property and public funds and criminalize the crime of illegal seizure. The Social Security Organization is also included as a public non-governmental organization, which receives huge funds from a premiums payment, subject to this regulation. This research, using a descriptive-analytical method, seeks to consider the inclusion of Article 598 of the Sanctions Act in relation to the social security investment company known as Shasta. The legal personality of the subsidiaries and affiliates under the control and management of the holdings, the investment company and, ultimately, the social security organization, indicates that Shasta is a non-governmental public institution and therefore, in accordance with the statute of the organization and the law of general calculation, any use Unauthorized access to the property and funds of the Social Security Organization, in particular through the insurance rights of individuals affiliated with the organization, will result in criminal liability arising out of unlawful seizure of property and funds

Although one of the requirements of the implementation of the Merida Convention is the criminalization of "bribery in the private sector", the Iranian legislature has not yet considered this issue and there is no clear approach in the judicial process in this regard. From the point of view of international instruments and comparative law today, there is no doubt that bribery in the private sphere, as well as doing it in the public sphere, can be a manifestation of financial and administrative corruption that should be specifically criminalized and punished. However, in Iranian law, the question is what is the nature of paying and receiving bribes in the private sector. And, what is the reaction to it? Findings of the research indicate this: in Iranian criminal law, according to Article 588 of the Criminal Code of 1996, a specific type of private bribery (a receipt of money or property by judges, auditors and experts) has been criminalized. The judicial practice seeks to extend this prohibition to all private sectors responsible for public services in accordance with the principles of the crime and other related provisions. In particular, it seems that the provisions and basis of the "Unanimous Vote of Procedure No. 798 of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court", which has just been issued, have made this possible even more. Because, in this vote, by considering the criterion of "public services" and considering the employees of private banks as "public service agents", the said employees are considered to be subject to Article 598 of the mentioned law. According to this rule and the stipulation of "public service officers" in Article 3 of the Law on Intensification of Punishment for Perpetrators of Embezzlement, Bribery and Fraud, there is no distinction between the mentioned crimes and a single procedure should be established for them. However, jurisprudence cannot compensate for the shortcomings of the legislation in this area.

In the unanimous decision No. 798 of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court, the employees of private banks, including public service agents, are considered and their seizure of the bank's property and funds is considered illegal. While this criminal behavior can be attributed only to those who have the description and characteristics provided in Article 598 of the 1375 (1996) Islamic Penal Code. Because, the description of "public service agents" mentioned in the mentioned article and other articles of the criminal law, only includes the agents mentioned in the "Law on Trial and Punishment of Public Service Officers approved in 1315 (1936)". The repeal of this law has no effect on changing the concept and examples of this group of employees. Undoubtedly, the legislator has paid attention to that law in all legal articles before 1394 (2015) and has not considered any other concept or example until this date. The meaning and examples of this phrase are clear and there is no ambiguity in it and there is no way that the court, in the position of providing a correct interpretation of the law, can issue a unanimous decision on it. The law is silent about the employees of private banks and the employees of the private sector in general, and based on the principle of legality of crime and punishment, in the silence of the law, there is no place for the Supreme Court to provide an interpretation, but the legislature must assign a task on such an issue. In such cases, the court must base its decision on a verdict of innocence for a unanimous vote to provide a basis for substantive legislation. Therefore, it is not possible to interpret and infer from the phrase "public service agents" a concept and example other than those mentioned in Law 1315 (1936).