Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
PhD student, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Sari Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sari, Iran.
2
Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran
3
Assistant Professor, Department of Fiqh and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Sari University, Sari, Iran
10.22034/jccj.2026.578127.1859
Abstract
Embezzlement constitutes one of the most significant manifestations of administrative corruption and economic crime, consistently recognized as a serious threat to the integrity of public administration, public trust, and the effectiveness of governmental institutions. Consequently, examining the jurisprudential (fiqhī) and legal dimensions of this offense, as well as analyzing the manner in which the legislator has addressed it, is of particular importance. This study seeks to answer the following question: What are the respective approaches of Islamic jurisprudence and law toward the offense of embezzlement, and how has Iran’s legislative criminal policy been implemented in relation to this crime in both its reactive (punitive) and proactive (preventive) dimensions? The findings indicate that the concept of embezzlement in Islamic jurisprudence does not fully correspond to the offense criminalized under this title in Iranian criminal law, and considerable differences exist between the two frameworks. Furthermore, an examination of Iran’s reactive legislative criminal policy reveals that the legislator has predominantly adopted a repressive approach characterized by the intensification of criminal sanctions. Nevertheless, practical experience demonstrates that the imposition of severe punishments, such as capital punishment or lengthy terms of imprisonment, has not necessarily resulted in effective deterrence. Rather than reflecting an innovative criminal policy, such measures appear to embody a traditional approach to crime control. In this regard, the utilization of financial sanctions—particularly the imposition of proportionate and effective monetary penalties—may play a more significant role in reducing the economic incentives underlying embezzlement, given that financial motives constitute one of the principal contributing factors to the commission of this offense. Moreover, the results of the study suggest that proactive (preventive) legislative criminal policy has received considerably less attention from the legislator than reactive penal policy, despite the fact that strengthening preventive mechanisms could contribute more effectively to the control and reduction of embezzlement. The present research was conducted using a descriptive–analytical methodology, and its data were collected through library-based research and systematic review of relevant sources and documents.
Keywords
