The increasing use of cryptocurrencies as a new financial tool has created numerous challenges in the legal and jurisprudential systems of countries. In Iran, these challenges are due, on the one hand, to legal gaps in the management of this technology and, on the other hand, to jurisprudential complexities in the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the use of cryptocurrencies. In the meantime, the phenomenon of money laundering using cryptocurrencies has become one of the serious risks to the economy and national security. This article, emphasizing the comparative approach in criminal jurisprudence and utilizing jurisprudential principles such as the rules of "no harm", "barrier of means" and "contribution to sin", analyzes the position and role of these principles in Iran's criminal policy for managing cryptocurrencies and preventing related abuses.

The purpose of the research is to identify the capacities of jurisprudential principles in strengthening Iran's criminal policy framework for regulating cryptocurrencies and providing solutions to prevent money laundering. The research method is descriptive-analytical with a comparative approach and jurisprudential, legal and legal sources are used to provide comprehensive analyses. The findings of this study show that jurisprudential principles can provide a strong theoretical basis for regulating and formulating criminal laws specific to cryptocurrencies. The “do no harm” rule can be a justification for intervention in opaque cryptocurrency markets, while the “barrier of means” as a preventive tool has significant capacity to combat cryptocurrency money laundering. Also, comparing jurisprudential principles with similar examples in Islamic countries shows that the use of jurisprudential principles in criminal policy can contribute to more precise regulation and more efficient prevention.