Research and development in criminal law and criminology

Research and development in criminal law and criminology

Challenges of Proportional Monetary Fines in Iranian Criminal Law

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Mohammad Javad fathi 1
Hadi Karamati Moez 2
ayda ahmadi 3
1 Associate Professor of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, Farabi College, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, Farabi College, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran(Responsible author)
3 Master's degree in Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, Tolo Mehr University, Qom, Iran.
10.22034/jclc.2026.2067219.1225
Abstract
Proportional monetary fines, as a novel and purpose-driven form of financial punishment, are designed based on the principle of proportionality between the crime and the penalty, while accounting for the offender’s financial and social circumstances. These fines represent a significant measure aimed at promoting justice in response to financial crimes within the Iranian criminal justice system. Unlike fixed penalties, the amount of a proportional fine is calculated based on the illicit benefit derived from the crime, the extent of the damage caused, and the offender’s financial capacity. The objective of this mechanism is to mitigate the ineffectiveness of punishment for offenders with substantial financial resources, for whom fixed monetary penalties often lack a meaningful deterrent effect. Despite their theoretical advantages, the implementation of this criminal law institution faces several practical obstacles. These include a lack of clear legal guidelines for establishing minimum and maximum fines, the absence of consistent judicial practice regarding recidivism, potential conflicts with the principle of personal liability in punishment, the risk of inequality in the administration of justice due to inaccurate asset assessment, and the conversion of monetary fines into imprisonment upon non-payment, which may undermine the institution’s fundamental rationale. From a theoretical perspective, proportional monetary fines emerge from the convergence of two major approaches in penal philosophy: retributivism and utilitarianism. Retributivism justifies the legitimacy of this penalty by emphasizing the proportionality between the crime and the punishment, specifically regarding the illicit benefit gained. Conversely, utilitarianism views this mechanism as an effective instrument for reducing the incentive to commit financial crimes by relying on the principle of deterrence. Given the current economic context, the nexus between criminal justice and economic efficiency necessitates the strategic use of such instruments. This study, employing a descriptive-analytical methodology, examines the theoretical foundations, strengths, weaknesses, and practical challenges of proportional monetary fines. It emphasizes the necessity of legislative reforms, the clarification of the enforcement structure, and the development of coherent judicial guidelines to ensure this mechanism functions as an effective, equitable, and economically proportional tool.


Keywords
Proportional Monetary Fines
Concurrence of Offenses
Recidivism
Principle of Personal Liability
Retributivism
Utilitarianism
Subjects
Ahmadzadeh, R., & Tom, M. (2023). Sentencing principles. 1st ed. Tehran: Judiciary Press and Publications Center (in Persian).
Ardebili, M. A. (2014). General criminal law (Vol. 3, 4th ed.). Tehran: Mizan Legal Foundation (in Persian).
Ashabi, F. Hamidavi, A., & Mousazadeh Mikhush, R. (2025). Artificial intelligence and rethinking criminal justice: A retributive and utilitarian analysis. Research and Development in Criminal Law and Criminology, Online publication: doi: 10.22034/jclc.2025.2065927.1221
 
Bagheri, M., & Nasrollahi, A. (2016). Economic efficiency of criminal sanctions in the Securities Market Law. Private Law Studies Quarterly, 46(2), 187-206 (in Persian).
https://jlq.ut.ac.ir/article_58405.html
Pradel, J. (2012). History of criminal law theories (A. H. Najafi Abrandabadi, Trans., 11th ed.). Tehran: SAMT Publications.
Brooks, T. (2016). Punishment (M. A. Kazem Nazari, Trans., 1st ed.). Tehran: Mizan Legal Foundation.
Heydari, S. M. (2016). Monetary fines in Iranian criminal law under the Islamic Penal Code of 2013 (Master’s thesis). University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
Heydari, N., et al. (2016). Foundations of recidivism and multiplicity of offences in proportional monetary fines. Islamic Jurisprudence and Islamic Law Quarterly, 15(29), 1–27.
Retrieved from https://sanad.iau.ir/Journal/jijl/Article/812361
Soltani, M. R. (2018). A criminal analysis of recidivism and the process of professionalization of offenders in the current Iranian system. Qanunyar Scientific Quarterly, 2(6), 211-238.
Shaker, D. (2014). The concept and nature of punishment (H. Aghaei Jannat-Makan, Trans., 1st ed.). Tehran: Jangal Publications.
Abedi, A. R. (2020). An applied perspective on the law reducing discretionary imprisonment sentences (2019) (2nd ed.). Qom: Ketab-e Taha Publications.
Fathi, M. J. (2024). Response to crime: Punishment and security and corrective measures (1st ed.). Tehran: Mizan Legal Foundation.
Farajollahi, R. (2019). Criminology and criminal responsibility (2nd ed.). Tehran: Mizan Legal Foundation.
Keramati Moez, H. (2024). Criminology: Introducing new topics in criminological studies (2nd ed.). Tehran: Entesharat-e Sherkat Sahami Enteshar.
Mirmohammad sadeghi, M. (2020). Commentary on the law on discretionary imprisonment sentences (1st ed.). Tehran: Jangal Publications.
Mansourabadi, A., & Mansourabadi, A. (2025). Rule of law and the principle of legality in criminal law. Research and Development in Public Law, 3(3), 348-382. Doi: 10.22034/jrpl.2025.2055691.1139
Mirmohammadsadeghi, H. (2022). General criminal law III (1st ed.). Tehran: Dadgostar Publications.
Noori Zeinal, E. (2020). The costs of crime (1st ed.). Tehran: Mizan Legal Foundation.
Varvaei, A. & Moradnezhadi, Y. (2020). The general regime of recidivism in the French criminal justice system and its comparison with a similar criminalization model in Iran. International Legal Research, 13(47), 299-323.
https://journals.iau.ir/article_686178.html
Advisory Opinion of the Legal Department of the Judiciary, No.7/99/693, dated September 2, 2020.
Advisory Opinion of the Legal Department of the Judiciary, No.7/99/431, dated July 8, 2020.
Advisory Opinion of the Legal Department of the Judiciary, No.7/99/1258, dated November 29, 2020.
Advisory Opinion of the Legal Department of the Judiciary, No.7/99/693, dated September 2, 2020.
Send comment about this article
Enter Name.
Enter a valid email address.
Enter a vaid affiliation.
Enter comments (At leaset 10 words)
CAPTCHA Image
Enter Security Code Correctly.
Research and development in criminal law and criminology
Volume 3, Issue 5 - Serial Number 5
August 2026
Pages 292-324