نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق جزا و جرم شناسی دانشگاه قم، قم، ایدان
2 دانشیار حقوق کیفری و جرم شناسی دانشکده حقوق جزا و جرم شناسی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران
3 استادیار حقوق کیفری و جرم شناسی دانشکده حقوق جزا و جرم شناسی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
This article adopts a comparative analytical approach to examine the challenges of judicial criminal policy in the field of economic security in Iran and Iraq. It argues that judicial effectiveness in confronting economic crimes cannot be sustained without strengthening procedural guarantees and ensuring normative coherence. The core problem in Iran lies in the fragmentation and overlap of economic criminal charges and the ambiguity of key legal concepts, which generate inconsistent judicial practice and reduce the predictability of judicial decisions. At the same time, practical constraints on access to specialized legal counsel and the media management of economic cases may place the presumption of innocence and judicial impartiality under pressure. In Iraq, in addition to legislative shortcomings and institutional inconsistency, conflicts of jurisdiction, the impact of political and security pressures on proceedings, and the heavy reliance on reports issued by oversight bodies affect judicial independence and the right to defense. Focusing on three main axes, jurisdiction and specialization, criminal procedure and evidentiary rules including financial tracing, digital evidence, and banking confidentiality, and defense rights including publicity of trials and the role of the media, the article identifies both shared and country specific vulnerabilities. It concludes by proposing a reform framework that, in Iran, emphasizes legislative clarification, the consolidation of standards for consistent judicial practice, the reinforcement of effective defense rights, and stronger judicial control over access to financial and banking data. In Iraq, it stresses reducing institutional overlap, setting clearer criteria for case transfer, providing institutional support for judicial independence, and strengthening independent expert capacity.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)