نظارت بر دارایی مقامات عمومی در نظام حقوقی ایران با نگاهی به نظام حقوقی امریکا

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد، گروه حقوق عمومی، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

2 گروه حقوق عمومی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

3 دانشجوی مقطع دکتری، گروه حقوق عمومی، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

10.22059/jcl.2025.374753.634628

چکیده

امروزه اعلام دارایی‌ مقامات عمومی به ابزار مهمی برای مبارزه با فساد تبدیل شده است. بر این اساس، مقام عمومی که دارایی وی در دورۀ تصدی به شکل نامتعارفی افزایش یافته و دلیل موجهی برای آن نداشته باشد، تحت پیگرد و مجازات قرار می‌گیرد. به این ترتیب، دولت‌ها با پیش‌بینی این نوع نظارت در قوانین خود از فساد پیشگیری می‌کنند. جهت تحقق این هدف، حکومت و مردم باید از امکان مقایسۀ دارایی‌های واقعی مقامات عالی‌رتبه، پیش و پس از دورۀ تصدی برخوردار باشند. به این ترتیب، دولت‌ها با مقرر نمودن این نوع سازوکار ارزیابی پیشینی در قانون اساسی یا قوانین عادی خود مانع بروز فساد می‌شوند. به این مسئله در نظام حقوقی ایران در اصل 142 قانون اساسی توجه شده و قانون رسیدگی به دارایی مقامات نیز در همین راستا تصویب شده است. در امریکا نیز در سال 1978 قانون اخلاق در حکومت به‌تصویب ‌رسید که به‌موجب آن، مقامات عالی‌رتبه قوای سه‌گانه مکلف به افشای دارایی‌های خود هستند. بر این اساس، پرسش اصلی پژوهش حاضر این است که کاستی‌های نظام حقوقی ایران در خصوص اعلام دارایی کارگزاران نظام در مقایسه با قوانین ایالات متحدۀ امریکا چیست؟ این مقایسه با روش توصیفی- تحلیلی انجام شده و نشانگر آن است که در امریکا جزئیات اطلاعات مربوط به دارایی‌های مقامات در دسترس مردم قرار گرفته است. اما در ایران، محرمانه تلقی شده، افشای آنها متضمن مجازات قانونی‌ است. افزون بر این، برخلاف امریکا که مقامات هرساله ملزم به افشای دارایی‌های خود هستند، در ایران در حین خدمت بر این امر نظارتی صورت نمی‌گیرد. همچنین در امریکا به‌منظور رعایت تفکیک قوا، مسئولیت نظارت بر این امر در قوای سه‌گانه در همان قوه مستقر شده، اما در ایران برعهدۀ قوۀ قضاییه است. افزون بر این، برخلاف امریکا، قانون رسیدگی به دارایی مقامات ایران، فاقد ضمانت اجراست.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Control of the Assets of Public Officials in Iran's Legal System in the Light of the USA Legal System

نویسندگان [English]

  • Bizhan Abbasi 1
  • Mostafa Rezaei 2
  • Morteza Ghasemabadi 3
1 Prof., Public Law Department, Law and Political Sciences Faculty, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Public Law Department, Law Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
3 Ph.D. Student, Public Law Department, Law and Political Sciences Faculty, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Nowadays, the declaration of public officials’ assets has become an important tool in combating corruption. Accordingly, a public official whose assets increase abnormally during their tenure without legitimate justification is subject to investigation and punishment. Through such oversight measures, governments aim to prevent corruption by incorporating them into their legal frameworks. To achieve this goal, both the government and the public must have the ability to compare the actual assets of high-ranking officials before and after their tenure. By establishing such preemptive evaluation mechanisms in their constitutions or statutory laws, governments can prevent corruption. In Iran's legal system, this issue has been addressed in Article 142 of the Constitution, and the Law on Investigating the Assets of Officials has been enacted accordingly. Similarly, in the United States, the Ethics in Government Act was passed in 1978, requiring high-ranking officials in all three branches of government to disclose their assets. The main question of this study is: What are the shortcomings of Iran’s legal system regarding the declaration of officials' assets compared to the U.S. legal framework? Using a descriptive-analytical method, the comparison reveals that in the U.S., the extent and details of officials' assets are made accessible to the public. However, in Iran, this information is considered confidential, and disclosing it carries legal penalties. Moreover, unlike the U.S., where officials are required to disclose their assets annually, there is no continuous oversight of this matter during officials’ tenure in Iran. Additionally, to maintain the separation of powers, oversight responsibility in the U.S. is assigned within the respective branches of government, whereas in Iran, it is under the jurisdiction of the judiciary. Furthermore, unlike the U.S., Iran’s Law on Investigating the Assets of Officials lacks enforcement mechanisms.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Public Officials
  • Asset
  • Transparency
  • Illicit Enrichment
  • Fighting Corruption

مراجع

  1. Abedi Jafari, Hassan & Zarandi, Saeed (2009). Systemic Design to Ensure the Accuracy of Declared Assets by Officials. Rahbord, 18(53), 57–74 (In Persian).
  2. Ackerman, Susan Rose (2006). Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform. 1st ed. Tehran: Pardis-e Danesh (In Persian).
  3. Afuso-Emah, W. Paati; Supramanin, Raj & Aperti, Kishor (2005). Legal Frameworks for Combating Corruption. Translated by Ahmad Ranjbar. Tehran: Majles Research Center (In Persian).
  4. Amid Zanjani, Abbasali (2008). General Principles of Constitutional Law of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 3rd ed. Tehran: Majd Publications (In Persian).
  5. Amini, Iraj (2009). Bar Bal-e Bohran: Zendegi-ye Siasi-ye Ali Amini. 3rd ed. Tehran: Nashr-e Mahi (In Persian).
  6. Assembly for the Final Review of the Constitution (1985). Official Minutes of the Assembly for the Final Review of the Constitution, Vol. 2. Tehran: Majles Public Relations Office (In Persian).
  7. Chêne, Marie (2008). African Experience of Asset, The U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre.
  8. Council for the Revision of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. (1990). Official Minutes of the Council for Constitutional Revision, Vol. 3. Tehran: Majles Cultural and Public Relations Bureau (In Persian).
  9. Dadkhodaei, Leila (2013). A Study on the Concept of Corruption and the Preventive Approach of the Iranian Legislator in the Law on Promotion of Administrative Health and Combating Corruption. Taali-ye Hoquq, 5(2), 219–240 (In Persian).
  10. Gokcekus, Omer & Mukherjee, Ranjana (2006). Officials Asset Declaration Laws: Do They Prevent Corruption?. Seton Hall University.
  11. Guardian Council of the Islamic Republic of Iran (2010). Opinion on the Draft Law Regarding Assets of Officials and Agents of the Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 41905/30/89, dated March 19, 2011 (In Persian).
  12. Hashemi, Ahmad Ali & Taghizadeh, Ebrahim (2015). Property Law and Ownership. 3rd ed. Tehran: Majd Publications (In Persian).
  13. Hashemi, Seyyed Mohammad (2000). Constitutional Law of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Vol. 2, 4th ed. Tehran: Dadgostar Publications (In Persian).
  14. Jafari Langaroudi, Mohammad Jafar (2021). Expanded Terminology of Law, Vol. 3. 8th ed. Tehran: Ganj-e Danesh Publications (In Persian).
  15. Kaabi, Abbas (2015). Analysis of the Islamic Republic System Based on the Principles of the Constitution, Vol. 1. Tehran: Yazdan Publications (In Persian).
  16. Katouzian, Nasser (2021). Preliminary Course in Civil Law: Property and Ownership. 56th ed. Tehran: Mizan Publications (In Persian).
  17. Khezri, Mohammad (2008). Pathology of Anti-Corruption Methods in Iran. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 11(42), 813–826 (In Persian).
  18. Langseth, Peter (2008). Global Anti-Corruption Programs. Tehran: Majles Research Center (In Persian).
  19. Majles Research Center (2008). Expert Report on the Draft Law on the Assets of Officials and Agents of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Returned by the Guardian Council). Report No. 9079. Tehran (In Persian).
  20. Majlesi, Mohammad Baqer (1982). Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 40. Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi (In Arabic).
  21. Makarem Shirazi, Naser, et al. (2011). Payam-e Imam Amir al-Mo’menin (a.s.): A New and Comprehensive Commentary on Nahj al-Balagha., Vol. 14. 1st ed. Qom: Imam Ali ibn Abi Taleb Publications (In Persian).
  22. Maskell, Jack (2013). Financial Disclosure by Federal Officials and Publication of Disclosure Reports, Congressional Research Service.
  23. Meidari, Ahmad (2006). An Introduction to the Theory of Good Governance. Social Welfare Quarterly, 6(22), 261–286 (In Persian).
  24. Mirmohammadi, Seyyed Mohammad (2004). Model of Supervision and Control in the Administrative System of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 1st ed. Tehran: SAMT Publications (In Persian).
  25. Mirsaeidi, Seyyed Mansour & Najjarzadeh Ahari, Hojjat (2012). Unjust Enrichment in Iranian Law in the Light of the UN Convention Against Corruption. Legal Research Journal, 11(21), 57–80 (In Persian).
  26. Molakarimi, Omid & Amiri, Saleh (2021). Challenges of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Criminalizing Illicit Enrichment under the UN Convention Against Corruption. Public Law Studies, 4(51), 1–22 (In Persian).
  27. Moradkhani, Fardin & Sabaghi Valashani, Ebrahim . (2022). A Critique of the Guardian Council's View on the Development of the Authorities Mentioned in Article 142 of the Constitution. Administrative Law Journal, 9 (30), 157-176 (In Persian).
  28. Najjarzadeh Ahari, Hojjat; Ardabili, Mohammad Ali; Mehra, Nasrin; & Mahdavi Sabet, Mohammad Ali (2020). Prevention of Financial Corruption Through Supervision of Public Officials’ Assets. Judicial Law Journal, 84(110), 1–25 (In Persian).
  29. OECD (2011). Asset Declarations for Public Officials: A Tool to Prevent Corruption.
  30. OECD (2016). Asset Declarations by Public Officials: A Tool for Preventing Corruption. Translated by Gholamhossein Homayouni. Tehran: Center for Studies on Administrative Health and Anti-Corruption (In Persian).
  31. Premchand, Arigapudi (2006). Financial Accountability in the Public Sector. Translated by Afshin Khakbaz & Mohammad Ghasemi. Majles va Pajouhesh, 13(51), 299–334 (In Persian).
  32. Rasakh, Mohammad (2006). Intrinsic and Accidental Features of Law. Majles va Pajouhesh, 13(51), 13–40 (In Persian).
  33. Rasakh, Mohammad (2011). Supervision and Balance in the Constitutional System. 2nd ed. Tehran: Derakh Publications (In Persian).
  34. Research Institute of the Guardian Council (2021). Annotation of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Vol. 2. 1st ed. Tehran: Nashr-e Pazhouheshkadeh-ye Shoray-e Negahban (In Persian).
  35. Rossi, Ivana; Laura, Pop, & Tammar Berger (2017) Getting the Full Picture on Public Officials: a How-to Guide for Effective Financial Disclosure. are available at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/2172
  36. Rostami, Vali & Ghasemi, Mohammadreza (2018). Legal Mechanisms for Activating the Capacity of Whistleblowers: A Comparative Study of Iran and the United States. Comparative Law Studies, 9(2), 639–659 (In Persian).
  37. Sadeghpour, Abolfazl & Moghaddas, Jalal (1993). Organization, Management, and the Science of Management. 2nd ed. Tehran: Markaz-e Amoozesh-e Modiriyat-e Dolati (In Persian).
  38. Saleh-Ahmadi, Saeed (2021). The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Current Legal Order. 1st ed. Tehran: Ketab-e Ava (In Persian).
  39. Taghizadeh, Javad & Behroozinejad, Shirin (2019). Investigation of the Property and Assets of Officials in Iran’s Legal System. Administrative Law Quarterly, 7(21), 83–113 (In Persian).
  40. Tayebi Tavakkol, Hassan (2016). The Legal System and Frameworks for the Transfer of State Real Properties. 1st ed. Tehran: Jangal Publications (In Persian).
  41. Torki, Gholamabbas (2021). An Analysis of Financial Corruption in Iran. 2nd ed. Tehran: Mizan Publications (In Persian).
  42. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2008). Legislative Guidelines for the Implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption. Translated by Hamid Bahremand Beknazar. Tehran: Majles Research Center (In Persian).
  43. Vakilian, Hassan & Derakhshan, Davar (2017). The Efficiency of Asset Disclosure Laws in Reducing Administrative Corruption: A Comparative Approach. Judicial Legal Perspectives, 22(77), 225–250 (In Persian).
  44. Watnick, Valerie (2007). Whistleblower Protections under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act: A Primer and a Critique, Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, Vol. 12 (5), 831-879.
  45. Ethics in Government Act (1978).
  46. Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act or the STOCK Act (2012).
  47. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act or SOX Act (2002).
مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی
دوره 16، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 32
پاییز و زمستان 1404
دی 1404
صفحه 617-640

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار