Insurance fraud, as one of the prominent manifestations of financial crimes, not only disrupts the functioning of the insurance industry but also represents a serious threat to public trust. Despite certain points of divergence, such fraudulent acts share common elements with non‑insurance fraud and similar offenses such as deceit (tadlīs) and swindling (kolāh‑bardāri), while in some cases, the legislator has recognized insurance fraud as an independent criminal offense.

This legal distinction—particularly in the context of insurance fraud—has produced dual effects on the consistency of judicial precedents and the proportionality of sanctions. Using a descriptive‑analytical methodology, this article aims to examine the concept of insurance fraud and to analyze and compare its criminal sanctions with fraud and other analogous offenses.

The study demonstrates that, from a legal perspective, although the Iranian legislator under the 2016 Compulsory Insurance Act has expressly referred to the specific offense of “fraud,” the absence of an independent statutory definition of fraud and insurance fraud, coupled with the limitation of criminal provisions to motor‑vehicle insurance, the divergence in punishment from general fraud, and the lack of a coherent structural framework, have collectively led to fragmentation and weakness in criminal policy.

Furthermore, analysis of the principle of good faith in contract law—particularly in the insurance contract—shows that operationalizing this principle can serve as a preventive guarantee against the occurrence of fraudulent and deceitful insurance practices.

Finally, the paper recommends legislative reform inspired by Islamic‑jurisprudential and comparative legal foundations, aiming at the development of a unified legal framework to combat fraudulent behavior—with emphasis on the principle of good faith—especially in commercial insurance, supported by proportionate sanctions to enhance regulatory coherence and the effectiveness of criminal policy.