Civil Spending Practices of Bribed Assets in the Iranian Banking System and International Documents

Document Type : Scientific Research

Authors

1 Ph.D. in International Law, Faculty of Humanities, Islamic Azad University, Qom Branch, Qom, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Public and International Law, Faculty of Law, Mofid University, Qom, Iran

Abstract

Most of the assets and property resulting from usury and bribery crimes are taken out of the territorial territories of countries and access to them is generally associated with many problems. However, if they access this property by returning it to the country where the crime took place, the issue of their Kurdish expenses arises. Countries usually punish perpetrators of public bribery with imprisonment and fines. While there are no transnational anti-bribery laws in many countries - the present study concludes that there are weaknesses in anti-bribery mechanisms in terms of Iranian banking law compared to international instruments. One of the weaknesses is the more focused attention to public bribery than private bribery. Because criminal law in modern law tends to provide more protection to public property than to private property, Damage to property implies a loss of citizens' trust and confidence in the ruling forces and as a result a threat to public welfare. He pointed out the elimination of conflicts between existing laws, effective support for informants of corruption, reform of the banking system, especially transparency and public access to the allocation of banking resources and expenses.

Keywords

References

امین، سیدحسن (1386). تاریخ حقوق ایران. چاپ اول. تهران: انتشارات دایره­المعارف ایران­شناسی.
حبیب­زاده، محمدجعفر (زمستان 1379). «رشوه از دیدگاه حقوق کیفری ایران و فقه». فصلنامه مدرس علوم انسانی، شماره 4، ص 46.
حسینی، سیدمحمد (بی­تا). جرم تحصیل منفعت از معاملات دولتی. پایان­نامه کارشناسی ارشد حقوق جزا و جرم­شناسی.
دادخدایی، لیلا (1390). فساد مالی - اداری و سیاست جنایی مقابله با آن با تکیه بر کنوانسیون سازمان ملل متحد برای مبارزه با فساد. چاپ اول. تهران: نشر میزان. ص 189.
دادوئی دریکنده، حمیدرضا (1384). رشوه و احکام آن در فقه اسلامی. چاپ دوم. قم: بوستان کتاب قم.
رمسیس بهنام (1986م.). الجرایم المضره با المصلحه  العمومیه. اسکندریه: منشأه­المعارف. ص 9. به نقل از دکتر حسین میرمحمد صادقی. همان منبع. ص 368.
طالبی کلیشمی، علی­مراد (1396). ارتشا و اختلاس در حقوق ایران و اسناد بین المللی. چاپ اول. تهران: انتشارات خرسندی. ص 57.
کاظمی، علیرضا (1395). مسئولیت بین­المللی دولت­ها در قبال رشا مقامات دولت خارجی در معاملات تجاری بین­المللی: نگاهی به تعهدات دولت­های عضو کنوانسیون مبارزه با فساد در ماده (1)16 مندرج در مجموعه مقالات همایش کنوانسیون سازمان ملل متحد برای مبارزه با فساد: دستاوردها و چالش­ها، انجمن ایرانی مطالعات سازمان ملل متحد. چاپ اول. تهران: نشر میزان. ص 127.
منصورآبادی، عباس (بهار 1379). اختلاس در حقوق ایران، مصر و آمریکا. رساله دوره دکتری حقوق جزا و جرم­شناسی. دانشگاه تربیت مدرس. صص 236-231.
مهربان، وحید (1388). بررسی تطبیقی رشوه در حقوق کیفری ایران و مقررات فدرال آمریکا. پایان­نامه کارشناسی ارشد رشته حقوق جزا و جرم­شناسی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.
میرمحمد صادقی، حسین (1388). حقوق کیفری اختصاصی، جرایم علیه امنیت و آسایش عمومی. چاپ چهاردهم. تهران: بنیاد حقوقی میزان. ص 356.
همراهی، راضیه (1397). نقش مؤسسات گزارش اعتبار در پیشگیری از فساد در پرتو اصل شناخت اطلاعات مالی. مندرج در سیاست جنایی در برابر بزهکاری اقتصادی به کوشش امیرحسین نیازپور. چاپ اول. تهران: نشر میزان. ص 517.
یاری حاج عطالو، رحیم (1387). بررسی ابعاد جرم­شناختی یقه سفیدها. پایان­نامه کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.
Act on Credit Institution.
African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption.  
Agreement Establishing the Group of States Against Corruption.
An Act to Prevent Frauds upon the Treasury of the United States.
Asheesh Goel, International Anti-Bribery and Corruption Trends and Developments 166 (2012). available at http://www.ropesgray.com/files/upload/2012 0521_ABC_Book.pdf
Bantekas, Ilias (2006). “corruption  as an international crime and against Humanity”. Journal of international criminal Justic (oxford university press).
Bruce Zagaris & Shaila Lakhani Ohri (1999). Emergence of an International Enforcement Regime on Transnational Corruption in the Americas. 30 LAW & POL’Y INT’L BUS. 53, 70. (describing active bribery as defined by OECD Anti-Bribery Convention to include bribery that is “committed by the person who promises or gives the bribe”).
Bruce Zagaris (2010 International White Collar Crime 96); David Hess & Thomas W. Dunfee (2000). Fighting Corruption: A Principled Approach. 33 Cornell INT’L L.J. 593, 594, 596–97.
CMS Legal Services, Anti-Bribery and Corruption Laws: An  International Guide 15, 23, 26, 32 (2011). available at http://www.cms-cmck.com/ Hubbard.FileSystem/files/Publication/e3ca4c34-f31c-4e69-9ca9-01000b628b26/Presentation/Publication Attachment/2e7a1cc4-22b6-4327-b4c0-0434b2ea7417/Anti-bribery%20 and %20corruption%20laws%20guide.pdf (noting the presence of private bribery legislation in Russia, China, the United Kingdom, Germany, Austria, among other countries).
Convention on the Fight against Corruption involving Officials of the European Communities or Officials of Member States of the European Union.
Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (1998). S.C., c. 34 (Can.)
 Council of Europe, Civil Law Convention on Corruption art. 2, (Sept. 9, 1999). C.E.T.S. No. 174. available at http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/174.htm (defining “corruption” as the offering, giving, requesting or accepting a bribe or any other undue advantage).
Council of the European Union Framework Decision on Combating Corruption in the Private Sector.
David Hess & Cristie L. Ford (2008). Corporate Corruption and Reform Undertakings: A New Approach to an Old Problem. 41 Cornell INT’L L.J. 307, 320.
Deming, Stuart H. (2014). Anti-Bribery Laws in Common Law Jurisdictions.  Oxford University Press.
Ernst & Young (2012). Growing Beyond: A Place for Integrity 12th Global Fraud Survey 4. available at http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/GlobalFraud-Survey-a-place-for-integrity-12th-Global-Fraud-Survey/$FILE/EY-12th-GLOBALFRAUD-SURVEY.pdf.
Franklin A. Gevurtz (2007). Rethinking Corruption: An Introduction to a Symposium and a Few Additional Thoughts. 20 Pac. Mcgeorge Global Bus. & DEV. L.J. 237, 238.
http://www.oecd.org/corruption/sweden-s-laws-on-corporate-responsibility-for-international-bribery-need-urgent-reform.htm.
International Chamber of Commerce [ICC}, ICC Rules on Combating Corruption 4 (2011). available at http://www.iccwbo.org/Data/Policies/2011/ICC-Rules-onCombating-Corruption-2011. See also Rohlfsen, supra note 99 at 156 (“ICC makes no distinction between public officials or private persons, whether foreign or domestic.”).
Jamila Lajcakova (2003). Violation of Human Rights Through State Tolerance of Street-Level Bribery. Case Study, Slovakia, 9 BUFF. HUM. RTS. L. REV. 111, 123.
Jeffrey R. Boles (2014). Examining the Lax Treatment of Commercial Bribery in the United States: A Prescription for Reform. 51 AM. BUS. L.J. 119, 119-23.
John P. Rupp & David Fink (2012). Foreign Commercial Bribery and the Long Reach of U.S. Law. available at http://www.cov.com/files/Publication/6f93a9ee-340d-49b3-83fe-252d3ddc 8ced/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/5af5fff4-f264-42f2-aace-2781d6869cd9/Foreign_ Commercial_ Bribery_and_the_Long_Reach_of_U.S._Law.pdf.
John S. Siffert & Jed S. Rakoff (2012). 5–22 BUSINESS CRIME P 22.01. (noting that “there has been limited prosecutorial activity” in the area of private bribery).
Jones, Caitlin (2005). “Magnetic and Environmental Influences of Criminal Behaviour”. Rochester in Statitute of Techbilogy.
JSG Trading Corp. v. Dep’t of Agric., 235 F.3d 608, 615 (D.C. Cir. 2001)
Lum v. McEwen, 57 N.W. 662, 663 (Minn. 1894).
Man-Seok Choe v. Torres, 525 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that Korea’s public bribery statute mirrors the corresponding U.S. statute in that both criminalize the corruption of public officials); In Town Hotels Ltd. P’ship. v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 246 F. Supp. 2d 469, 481 (S.D.W.V. 2003) (describing private bribery as corruption of the principal-agent relationship).
Ministerial Conference on the Draft African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption
     Novartis Corp. v. Luppino (In re Luppino), 221 B.R. 693, 703 n.4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998) (noting that commercial bribery is almost certain to cause economic harm to the principals of the bribed agents).
 Peter Burckhardt & Benjamin Borsodi (2007). Switzerland Tightens Anti-Corruption Laws, Focuses on Private Sector Bribery, 23 INT’L ENFORCEMENT L. REP. 213.
Philip M. Nichols (1999). Regulating Transnational Bribery in Times of Globalization and Fragmentation. 24 YALE J. INT’L L. 257, 274–79.
R.I. GEN. LAWS § 11-7-5 (2012). (violators of private bribery statute face up to twenty years in prison and/or fines up to $50,000 or three times the amount of the bribe, whichever is greater) with VA. CODE ANN. §§ 18.2-444, 18.2-11 (2012) (violators of private bribery statute simply face “a fine of not more than $ 500.”). See also Boles, supra note 53, at 131 (detailing state law private bribery penalty disparities).
Rudolf Callmann. The Law of Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies § 49 (3d ed. 1968). See also BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 204 (8th ed. 1999) (defining commercial bribery as “[t]he knowing solicitation or acceptance of a benefit in exchange for violating an oath of fidelity, such as that owed by an employee, partner, trustee or attorney.”) (citing MODEL PENAL CODE § 224.8(1).
Ryan J. Rohlfsen (2012). Recent Developments in Foreign and Domestic Criminal Commercial Bribery Laws. 2012 U. CHI. LEGAL F. 151, 153–57. (discussing international conventions and positions regarding private bribery).
Smith, A.T.H. (1994). property offences. London: sweet and maxwell.
The 1959 European Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters.
The 2010 Bribery Act.
The Code of Conduct on Gifts ,Rewards and Other Benefits in Business.
The European Convention on Extradition of 1957.
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
The International Code of Conduct for Public Officials.
The Marketing Act.
The OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).
The Swedish Anti-Corruption Institute.
Timothy, Martin (2006). “The Development  of International Bribery Law”. International Canadian Occidental Petroleum Ltd, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. p 1.
U.N. Secretary-General, Statement on the Adoption by the General Assembly of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (Oct. 31, 2003). http://www.unodc.org/ unodc/en/ treaties/CAC/background/secretary-general-speech.html.
U.S Department of Commerce International Trade Administration (2001). “Addressing the Challenges of International Bribery and Fair Competition”. The Third Annual Report under Section 6 of the International Anti-Bribery and Fair Competition Act of 1998.
United Kingdom Law Commission, Reforming Bribery – A Consultation Paper 27 (2007). available at http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/cp185_Reforming_Bribery_consultation.pdf (“The principal and agent model regards the impropriety in bribery (connected to an advantage conferred or to be conferred on the
agent) as the breach of a duty of loyalty owed by an agent to his or her principal.”).
United Kingdom Ministry of Justics, The Bribery Act 2010 – Guidance 2 (2011) available at http://www.justice.gov.uk/ downloads/legislation/bribery-act-2010- guidance.pdf (“At stake is the principle of free and fair competition, which stands diminished by each bribe offered or accepted.”); Joint Action, 1998 O.J. (L 358) 2 (European Union Joint Action finding that private bribery “distorts fair competition and undermines the principles of openness and freedom of markets, and in particular the smooth functioning of the internal market, and also militates against transparency and openness in international trade”); Heine, supra note 14, at 616–17 (analyzing international responses to private bribery’s effects upon free competition).
United Nations Convention Against Corruption, supra note 55, art. 1.
United Nations Convention Against Corruption, supra note 55, pmbl.
United States v. Carson, No. SACR 09-00077-JVS, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154145, at 3–4, 28 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2011).
United States v. Fagan, 821 F.2d 1002, 1009 (5th Cir. 1987). The principals’ economic losses translate into corresponding losses for shareholders and others with ownership interests in businesses. See Heine, supra note 14, at 613–14 (detailing how private bribery adversely affects corporate assets).
United States v. Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 303, 309 (5th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitteed).
United States v. Tonry, 837 F.2d 1281, 1284 (5th Cir. 1988).

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics