The conflict and justification of the reversal of the burden of proof in money laundering with the principles and rules of jurisprudence

Money laundering means legalizing the origin of dirty money, among new crimes that the legislator has more sensitively approved due to its specific characteristics and apparent conflict with some jurisprudential foundations and documents. Also, its jurisprudential documentation is not well clarified and at the first glance, it seems to be in conflict with some jurisprudential principles and rules among which is the burden of proof process. In criminal lawsuits, the prosecuting attorney basically proves the cause, and based on this, one is obliged to prove the elements of the alleged crime. But this issue is reversed in the crime of money laundering and the burden of proving the legality of the obtained money is placed on the accused. Therefore, apparently, the process of prosecution, trial, and proof of a crime is in conflict with such fundamental rules as the rule of "Al-Bina Ala Al-Mada'i", the rule of "Yad", the principle of "quietus" and the principle of "authenticity". In this regard, the text of the amendment of the Anti-Money Laundering Law approved in 2017 states that the legislator has paid attention to this point, and in notes 1 and 3 of article 2 of this law, he considers the meaning of knowledge to be the same as the knowledge of a judge as stated in the Islamic Penal Code. Therefore, if the meaning of suspicion is close to judge knowledge in this law, relying on the evidence of the authority of the judge's knowledge, the crime can be easily proven, and the issue of reversal of the burden of proof is eliminated. And, if a problem is stated that the strength of the evidence of suspicion is close to the knowledge, it does not reach the level of knowledge of a judge. Here, with the objectivity of suspicion and the incompleteness of its evidence, the mentioned conflict will be created, which must be resolved. The leading research with jurisprudential and principled approach and with descriptive-analytical method has expressed and resolved the mentioned conflicts and finally, the non-conflict of these rules has been concluded.