Context & Objective: Material multiplicity in criminal law often involves acts so intertwined that they form an inseparable unit known as interrelated offences. While legal systems in Egypt and Iraq have codified specific regulations for such situations Iran currently suffers from a legislative vacuum that leaves the treatment of these crimes to inconsistent judicial discretion. This research examines the distinctive features of interrelated offences compared to general material multiplicity and explores effective mechanisms for sentencing. The central objective is to determine whether the legal experiences of Egypt and Iraq can provide a framework to resolve the existing gaps in the Iranian penal system.
Method & Approach: The research employs a doctrinal methodology and a comparative approach to evaluate the legal systems of the three nations. It involves a systematic review of statutory laws legal theories and judicial precedents to identify the essential elements of interrelated offences. The study specifically investigates objective criteria regarding the structural necessity of criminal acts and subjective criteria concerning the offender's intent and overall criminal plan.
Findings: Findings indicate that Egyptian and Iraqi laws recognize interrelated offences based on the dual requirements of an indivisible connection and unity of purpose. Egypt treats these acts as a single legal unit applying only the most severe penalty while Iraq mandates separate sentences for each act but executes only the harshest one. Historically Iran recognized this doctrine in its 1925 General Penal Code but subsequent legislative changes moved toward a formalistic multiplicity rule that ignores the cohesion of a unified criminal project. Consequently, modern Iranian courts often produce contradictory rulings in similar cases such as those involving the possession and sale of illicit goods or threats leading to physical harm.
Conclusion: The article concludes that the current legislative silence in Iran is incompatible with criminal justice and the principle of proportionate punishment. It argues that interrelated offences should be viewed as a single penal unit where the unity of the criminal goal overrides the plurality of material acts. To eliminate judicial inconsistency the study proposes a legislative amendment to the Islamic Penal Code. This proposed article would mandate that when multiple crimes are indivisibly linked by logic and a unified criminal plan the court must only impose the harshest punishment among them.