Context & Objective: The smuggling of goods and currency is categorized as an economic crime under Iranian law, where ownership plays a pivotal role in shaping legislative criminal policy. The Law on Combating the Smuggling of Goods and Currency emphasizes identifying the owners of smuggled goods; however, challenges arise when ownership remains unclear. This article explores the dual impact of ownership status on the legislative criminal policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran and, conversely, how this policy influences the treatment of smuggled goods in terms of ownership. The central research question is whether the legislative approach toward categorizing certain goods as “ownerless,” “unclaimed,” or “fugitive-owned” aligns with Islamic jurisprudential standards and supports effective anti-smuggling policy.
Method & Approach: The article employs a doctrinal legal research methodology, focusing on statutory interpretation and critical analysis of legal texts. It adopts a critical approach to examine the alignment of Iran’s legislative criminal policy with Islamic jurisprudence, particularly the principles derived from Shi'a Fiqh and the opinions of prominent jurists such as Imam Khomeini. The research involves a close reading of legislative texts and related jurisprudential sources to evaluate the conceptual clarity and legal soundness of the categorizations used for smuggled goods with ambiguous ownership.
Findings: The study finds that the Iranian legislature, by introducing terms such as “ownerless” and “fugitive-owned” alongside “goods of unknown ownership,” has arguably expanded the legal definition of Majhūl al-Mālik goods beyond traditional Islamic jurisprudential boundaries. This broadening appears to conflict with established jurisprudential principles and contradicts the otherwise strict criminal policy the legislature applies to smuggling offenses. Additionally, the research highlights a systemic issue wherein enforcement bodies and adjudicators show limited initiative in identifying the true owners of smuggled goods, partly due to the complexities inherent in white-collar smuggling and the institutional incentives tied to unclaimed property.
Conclusion: The article concludes that the legislative treatment of smuggled goods with ambiguous ownership suffers from conceptual overreach and legal ambiguity. This misalignment with Islamic legal standards not only raises jurisprudential concerns but also weakens the effectiveness of Iran’s anti-smuggling criminal policy. By enabling both offenders and enforcement actors to benefit from unclear ownership, the current approach inadvertently undermines deterrence and legal accountability. The study recommends revisiting and refining the legislative definitions and enforcement practices to ensure both legal coherence and policy efficacy.