Challenges in the Detection and Prosecution of Economic Crimes and Strategies for Enhancing Institutional Coordination in Iranian Law

Abstract

The detection and prosecution of economic crimes, particularly in complex cases, require the effective regulation of relationships among competent authorities, information-holding institutions, and individuals affected by criminal justice measures. This study aims to identify and evaluate the deficiencies of Iranian criminal procedural law and to propose strategies for enhancing institutional coordination. It employs a descriptive-analytical method with a critical-normative approach, relying on library-based and documentary data collection. The functional examination of French law is limited to the regulation of specialized jurisdiction, adversarial assessment of evidentiary materials, and the management of seized assets. The findings of the legal analysis indicate that the multiplicity of competent authorities or the expansion of their powers does not, in itself, constitute a basis for determining inefficiency or guaranteeing effectiveness. Rather, the principal issues concern the clarity of the boundaries of authority and responsibility, the conditions governing the transfer and judicial use of information, and the adequacy of safeguards for the rights of defense and the right to challenge decisions. Accordingly, the separation of supervisory, analytical, and law-enforcement functions; the documentation of the acquisition and transfer of financial and digital evidence; the reasoned justification and review of restrictive decisions; and the determination of the legal grounds and scope of seizure, together with the preservation of asset value and protection of third-party rights, constitute essential requirements for reforming the procedural response. The study formulates a model of “coherence of the procedural response with guarantees of individual rights” based on three complementary and non-substitutable pillars: “capacity for lawful action,” “judicial usability of the results of such action,” and “protection of individual rights,” all operating under the overarching requirement of “judicial oversight and accountability.” The model is intended to facilitate the evaluation of reform proposals by identifying the appropriate level of intervention, the responsible authority, the conditions of implementation, and the mechanisms of supervision and challenge. The findings are legal and normative in nature; therefore, assessing the prevalence of the identified deficiencies or the practical effectiveness of the proposed solutions requires an independent empirical investigation.