Judicial criminal policy despite of legislative criminal policy, extends the subject of crime and the criminal consequences to the illegal acquisition of property, when it faces Article 2 of the Law of Severe Penalties. In addition, criminal behavior is extended to property acquisition through the ways, which have not been legalized by the legislator and as a result, the illegal behavior would be realized by non-action, possessing and holding property. Therefore, this article is in conformity with unfair possession. So, the judicial criminal policy, despite of legislative criminal policy, has a lot of similarities with Article 20 of Convention against Corruption on the crime issue, criminal behavior, criminal consequence and causal relationship. Pointing to the Severe Penalty, Promotion of Healthy Administrative Law and Article 20 of Convention against Corruption, reveals differentiating the criminal policy by the lawmaker in the framework of three criteria: 1- typology of crimes, 2- typology of criminals, and 3- typology of pre-criminal situation. According to the above criteria, there appear many similarities between Article 2 of Severe Penalties and Article 20 of Convention against Corruption. However, judicial criminal policy extends Article 2 to some cases of financial deviations, despite of legislative differentiation.

Keywords: Issue of crime, Criminal behavior and consequence, Legislative and judicial criminal policy, Differentiation of criminal policy, Corruption

Full-Text [PDF 595 kb]   (5751 Downloads)