ضرورت جرم‌انگاری رشوۀ غیرمالی در پرتو معیارهای دو کنوانسیون‌ پالرمو و مریدا (با نگرشی به تجربۀ نظام حقوقی آلمان)

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار گروه حقوق، دانشکدۀ علوم انسانی، دانشگاه بوعلی‌سینا، همدان، ایران

2 دانش‌آموختۀ کارشناسی ارشد رشتۀ حقوق جزا و جرم شناسی، گروه جزا و جرم‌شناسی، دانشکدۀ حقوق، دانشگاه علوم قضائی و خدمات اداری، تهران، ایران

3 دانشجوی دکتری رشته فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، گروه فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، دانشکدۀ الهیات، معارف اسلامی و ارشاد، دانشگاه امام صادق علیه‌السلام، تهران، ایران، دانش‌پژوه سطح چهار خارج فقه و اصول حوزۀ علمیۀ قم، قم، ایران

چکیده

تحول در شیوه‌های ارتکاب فساد اداری، به‌ویژه در قالب رشوه‌های غیرمالی، نظام‌های حقوقی دنیا را با چالشی جدید مواجه کرده است؛ پدیده‎ای که پاسخ به آن مستلزم بازاندیشی در حدود و قلمرو جرم‌انگاری است. این مقاله با روش توصیفی‌- تحلیلی و با رویکرد تطبیقی، ضرورت جرم‌انگاریِ رشوۀ غیرمالی را در نظام حقوقی ایران در پرتو معیارهای مندرج در کنوانسیون‌های پالرمو و مریدا و با نظر به تجربۀ منسجم نظام کیفری آلمان بررسی می‌کند. بررسی کنوانسیون‌های یادشده و رویۀ کیفری آلمان نشان می‌دهد که جرم‌انگاری صریح امتیازهای غیرمالیِ غیرقانونی، همراه با تضمین قطعیت تعقیب و تسریع دادرسی، در کنار تناسب مجازات‌ها، مؤلفه‌های کلیدی تحکیم عدالت نهادی و افزایش مسئولیت‌پذیری است. برعکس، رشوۀ غیرمالی در ایران جرم‌انگاری نشده که این مشکل در کنار ابهام در مصادیق مزیت نامشروع غیرمالی، تشتت در تشخبص ارکان مادی و روانی جرم، ضعف سازوکارهای کشف و گزارش این دسته از فسادها، کارایی نظام عدالت کیفری را در مبارزه با فساد، تضعیف کرده است. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد به‌موازات جرم‌انگاری دقیق و جامع، به‌کارگیری سازوکارهای نهادی مکمل و الگوبرداری تطبیقی هوشمندانه و با نظارت بر اساس شاخص‌های بومی برای نیل به بازدارندگی مؤثر و صیانت از سلامت نظام اداری ضروری است؛ به‌گونه‎ای که مداخلۀ کیفری در چارچوب سیاست جنایی منسجم و متناسب با تحولات نظام اداری، از کارآمدی و مشروعیت لازم برخوردار باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The necessity of criminalizing non-monetary bribery in light of the standards of the Palermo and Merida Conventions (with regard to the experience of the German legal system)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hadi Rostami 1
  • Aliakbar Barati 2
  • Hamidreza Maarefi Zanjani Asl 3
1 Associate Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran
2 Master's Graduate in Criminal Law and Criminology, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services of Justice, Tehran, Iran
3 PhD Student in Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Department of Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Faculty of Theology, Islamic Studies and Guidance, Imam Sadegh University (peace be upon him), Tehran, Iran. Level Four Scholar of Jurisprudence and Principles of Qom, Qom, Iran
چکیده [English]

The evolution of administrative corruption methods, particularly in the form of non-financial bribery, has presented legal systems with a novel challenge, necessitating a reevaluation of the scope and boundaries of criminalization. This article, employing a descriptive, analytical, and comparative approach, examines the necessity of criminalizing non-financial bribery in Iran's legal system in light of the standards outlined in the Palermo and Merida Conventions and with reference to the coherent experience of German criminal law. Analysis of the above conventions and German criminal practice indicates that explicitly criminalizing unlawful non-monetary advantages, along with guarantees of prosecutorial certainty and accelerated adjudication, and the imposition of proportionate penalties, constitutes a core component for reinforcing institutional justice and enhancing accountability. In Iran, however, not only does non-pecuniary bribery remain uncriminalized, but ambiguity surrounding the scope of illicit non-monetary benefits, fragmentation in identifying the material and mental elements of the offense, and weaknesses in the mechanisms for detecting and reporting this form of corruption have all undermined the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. The findings demonstrate that, in tandem with precise and comprehensive criminalization, the deployment of complementary institutional safeguards and intelligent, comparative benchmarking monitored through context-specific indicators is essential to achieving effective deterrence and protecting the integrity of public administration. Such criminal interventions, when situated within a coherent penal policy and aligned with administrative developments, will possess the requisite efficacy and legitimacy.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Bribery
  • Criminalization
  • German Legal System
  • Iranian Legal System
  • Non-Financial
  • Palermo & Merida Conventions

مراجع

  1. A) Books
  2. Aghainia, Hosein & Rostami, Hadi (2024). Crimes against the public interest of the country. Mizan Publications (In Persian).
  3. Billis, Emmanouil; Knust, Nandor & Peter Rui, John (2021). Proportionality in Crime Control and Criminal Justice. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  4. Chandan Kumar, Jha; Ajit, Mishra & Sarangi, Sudipta (2023). The Political Economy of Corruption. Routledge Publisher.
  5. Grayser, A. & Sidebottom, A. (2017). Corruption and Criminology. In Handbook of Crime Prevention and Community Safety (Second edition). Routledge Publisher.
  6. Hoffmann, K. (2021). Transparency in the German Legal System: Annual Reports and Access to Judicial Decisions. Springer Publisher.
  7. Holmes, L. (2015). Corruption: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
  8. Kubbe, Ina & Engelbert, Annika (2018). Corruption and Norms: Why Informal Rules: MatteR. Palgrave Macmillan Cham Publisher.
  9. Mungiu-Pippidi, Alina (2015). The Quest for Good Governance: How S13. Rose-Ackerman, A. & Palifka, B. J. (2016). Corruption, , and Government: Causes, Consequences and Reform. Cambridge University Press (Second edition).
  10. Sharifian, Mohammad Ali (2016). Legal Terminology Dictionary. Tehran: Ganj-e Danesh Publishing (In Persian).
  11. Strafgesetzbuch (StGB) (1871, 1998). Bundesgesetzblatt, S. 150, 3322.
  12. United Nations (2003). United Nations Convention against Corruption (Merida Convention). New York: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).
  13. United Nations (2000). United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (Palermo Convention).New York: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).
  14. Wolf, S. (a), (2016). Anti-Corruption Policy in Germany: Legal Framework and Enforcement. In Gllobal Corruption Report (edited by Transparency International). Routledge Publisher.

 

  1. B) Articles
  2. Bauhr, M. & Nasiritousi, N. (2016). “Digital Tools and the Detection of Non-Monetary Corruption: Challenges and Opportunities” .Crime, Law and Social Change, 66(3), 267-285. DOI: 10.1007/s10611-016-9623-4.
  3. Böhm, F. (2017). “Whistleblower Protection in Germany: Legal Safeguards and Their Impact on Reporting Misconduct”. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 25(3), 198-215. DOI: 10.1163/15718174-02503003.
  4. Chêne, M. & Dell, G. (2019). “Digital Transparency Tools in Anti-Corruption Efforts: Automating Records for Accountability”. Anti-Corruption Resource Centre U4 Issu., 2019(5), 1-20. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12345.67890.
  5. Dachak, Hadi (2021). “The Principle of Proportionality of Crime and Punishment in International Documents”. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding. 8 (4), 30-61. DOI: 10. 18415/ijmmu.v8i4. 2661.
  6. Evans, L. (2022). “Interagency Coordination under the Palermo Convention”. Global Crime Prevention Review, 15(1), 70–89.
  7. Feld, L. & Voigt, S. (2022). “Transparency and Accountability in German Governance: The Role of Public Reporting". Public Administration. 100(1), 78-94. DOI: 10.1111/padm.12803.
  8. Firoozjaeean, Ali Asghar & Mahmoudian, Masoumeh (2021). “A Systematic Review of Scientific Studies Conducted on Administrative Corruption in Iran”. Iranian Journal of Social Issues Biannual, 12(2), 201–220. DOI: 20.1001.1.24766933.1400.12.2.2.1 (In Persian).
  9. Gholinia, Reza; Shahsavandi, Esmail & Mashhadizadeh, Alireza (2024). “A Comparative Study of Commercial Managers’ Obligations Regarding Corporate Opportunities in the Legal Systems of the U.S., U.K., and Iran.” University of Tehran Comparative Law Rview Journal, 15(1), 155–184. DOI: 10.22059/JCL.2024.363133.634534 (In Persian).
  10. Graycar, A. & Prenzler, T. (2019). “Detecting Non-Monetary Corruption: The Role of Oversight Agencies and Field Inspections”. Public Integrity, 21(4), 374-389. DOI: 10.1080/10999922.2018.1511667.
  11. Hölzen, M. (2019). “Combating Non-Material Bribery in German Criminal Law”. German Law Journal, 20 (5), 689-710. DOI: 10. 1017/glj. 2019. 54.
  12. Hoseini, Sayyed Mohammad, & Bahremand, Hamid (2012). “Bribery of public officials and givind them bribes in the light of domestic laws and the Merida Convention”. Law Quarterly, 22(2), 126-146 (In Persian).
  13. Hussmann, K. (2020). “Promoting Transparency and Accountability: The Role of Civil Society in the UNCAC Framework”. Journal of Anti-Corruption Law, 4 (1), 45-62. DOI: 10. 17159/2413-3108/2020/v4n1a5678.
  14. Hussmann, K. & Peñailillo, M. (2020). “Strengthening Legal Frameworks Through Oversight Feedback: Lessons from Anti-Corruption Reforms”. Journal of Anti-Corruption Law, 4(1), 63-80. DOI: 10.17159/2413-3108/2020/v4n1a5679.
  15. Ivory, R. (2019). “Criminalizing Non-Monetary Bribery: Challenges of Definition and Evidence in Modern Legal Systems”. Criminal Law Review, 65(4), 321-335. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3456789.
  16. Izadifard, Aliakbar (2004). “Non-financial bribery”. Articles and reviews, 37(3), 11-27 (In Persian).
  17. Javadi, Mohammad & Ghorbanzadeh, Mohammad (2024). “A Study on the Concept of Bribery from the Perspective of Islamic Jurisprudence and the Laws of Iran and Afghanistan”. Islamic Jurisprudence and Legal Foundations Scientific Biannual, 18(49), 147–173 (In Persian).
  18. Jamour, Hasan & Abdolhosseinzadeh, Mohammad (2024). “An Analytical Study of Bribery in the Administrative System and Its Prevention Strategies”. Expert Reports Monthly of the Research Center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, 32(1), 1–26. DOI: 10.22034/REPORT.2024.16748.1697 (In Persian).
  19. Khezri, Mohammad (2008). “A Critique of Methods for Combating Administrative Corruption in Iran”. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 11(4), 813–826 (In Persian).
  20. Klinkhammer, G. (2017). “Ethics Training and Anti-Corruption Compliance in German Public Administration”. European Journal of Public Administration, 24(2), 145-160. DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2016.1266978.
  21. Kristen, Francois, Rose, Cecily (2018). “The Principle of Proportionality in International Criminal Law: Balancing State Sovereignty and Human Rights Protection”. Leiden Journal of International Law, 4(31), 853–876. DOI: 10. 1017/s0922156518000457.
  22. .Lambsdorff, Johann Graf (2018). “Corruption and Culture: How Norms Shape Perceptions of Bribery”. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, vol. 153, 112-130, DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2018.06.012.
  23. Leal Rodriguez, Ara Marie; Adams, Peter J.; Sayes, Edwin & Kypri, Kypros (2024). “The role of gifts in building influence with politicians: Thematic analysis of interviews with current and former parliamentarians”. International Journal of Drug Policy, No. 125: 1-8. Doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104332.
  24. Michael, J. & Rose-Ackerman, S. (2018). “The Law and Economics of Bribery and Corruption”. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 14, 219-238. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-030857.
  25. Najafi Abrandabadi & Ali Hossein (2019). “Crime Prevention of Bribery in the Administrative System”. Police Management Studies Quarterly (Amin Police University), 13(4), 75–96 (In Persian).
  26. Naeimi, Ramin; Malmir, Mahmoud & Heidari, Masoud (2022). “Principles, Standards, and Norms Governing Criminalization in the Iranian Legal System”. Interdisciplinary Studies in Jurisprudence Quarterly, 2(4), 71–98 (In Persian).
  27. Rezapour, Zahra; Farajihah, Mohammad & Roshan, Mohammad (2023). “The Evolving Role of the Judge in a Problem-Solving Approach to Domestic Violence: A Comparative Study of Common Law and Iranian Criminal Law”. Justice Legal Journal, 87(122), 135–158. DOI: 10.22106/jlj.2023.1982979.5107 (In Persian).
  28. Smith, A. & Hock, B. (2020). “The Role of Intent in Non-Monetary Bribery Cases: Legal and Evidentiary Challenges”. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, (60), 100368. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijlcj.2019.100368.
  29. Wolf, S. (b) (2016). “Access to Justice and Transparency in Germany: The Role of Open Judicial Records”. European Public Law, 22(4), 623-640. DOI: 10.54648/euro2016045.
  30. Wolf, S. & Schmidt, T. (2020). “Combating Non-Monetary Bribery in Germany: Institutional Coordination and Data Analysis”. German Law Journal, 21(5), 890-905. DOI: 10.1017/glj.2020.45.
  31. Wolf, S. & Worth, M. (2016). “Whistleblower Protection and Anti-Corruption: Enhancing Reporting Through Legal Safeguards”. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 14 (3), 527-546. DOI: 10. 1093/jicj/mqw013.
  32. Zarandi, Saeed; Hamidi Hessari, Yasin & Ma’dani, Javad (2017). “Factors Affecting Administrative Corruption in Government Organizations of the Islamic Republic of Iran”. Majles & Strategy Journal, 24(91), 165–202 (In Persian).
مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی
دوره 16، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 32
پاییز و زمستان 1404
دی 1404
صفحه 483-504

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار