The text is: “This is a beautiful flower.”
Mohammad Mohabbai

The story of cutting off the hand of a thief in Khorasan on Thursday, January 18, 2018, once again revealed the injustice of laws related to the punishment of financial criminals in Iran. According to Khorasan newspaper on Friday, January 19, 2018, “Several years ago, a series of thefts began in the surrounding areas of some cities in Khorasan Razavi and South provinces, while unknown individuals were breaking into and stealing sheep from the homes of villagers at night. Police investigations and complaints from victims showed that every time thieves attacked the sheep pens, a large number of sheep were stolen. Eventually, police officers found clues that led to a 28-year-old man as the main perpetrator of these thefts. Therefore, he was arrested in a coordinated operation and with legal permits in 2011 and was interrogated. The criminal court judge, after examining the contents of the case and all aspects of the mentioned thefts, ruled for “cut

Following the spread of this news, a wave of anger and various opinions erupted on social media. Many users expressed their wish for the hands of embezzlement perpetrators to be cut off. While this anger can be understood, the desire for a horrific punishment for other criminals is truly dangerous and concerning. If this punishment is inhumane, ethical and legal principles dictate that it should be considered inhumane for all. Perhaps a century ago, and even a few decades ago in most parts of the world, punishments such as execution, amputation, and flogging seemed natural and were supported by public opinion. But with current human rights standards and legal philosophy, amputation is not a punishment; it is torturing and mutilating the criminal. Just as execution is not a punishment; it is state-sanctioned murder. It is clear that all criminals, from a simple thief to someone who has embezzled billions, should be punished, not have their limbs cut off, be killed

To have principle in this matter means being a supporter of rule of law and equal enforcement of the law for all, and of course being an advocate for the establishment of human and modern laws and the abolition of inhumane and anti-human rights laws, and ultimately opposing any arbitrary and ideological treatment, and any actions driven by anger and hatred.

The punishment for embezzlement in Iranian laws -in no situation- is not cut off; the possibility of issuing a sentence of several years in prison and, in some cases, execution for the crime of embezzlement exists. However, for reasons that we will mention below, embezzlement is not defined as theft in Iranian criminal law and its punishment is of course different from the punishment for theft. So why do we demand a punishment for criminals like embezzlers that even the outdated laws of the Islamic Republic have not imposed on them? Having this mindset means that we demand a change in the law to cut off the hand of the thief and deal with all criminals and thieves (both simple thieves and astronomical embezzlers) proportionate to the level and quality of the crime. We must spread this mentality and prevent, as much as possible, the reproduction of anger and hatred; we must be afraid of the day when we cultivate and strengthen an anti-law mentality within

The punishment for theft in Iranian laws.

Stealing is one of the crimes that is inherently abhorrent and has been considered a condemned and undesirable act since the beginning of human life. In the Code of Hammurabi – one of the earliest laws in human history – the punishment for theft was execution in Article 7. Later, in some regions of the Middle East, including the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula, the punishment for thieves was cutting off their hands. And later, in the religion of Islam, this punishment was accepted with some changes.

The punishment of cutting off the hand of a thief is not a fundamental law of Islam, but rather a secondary law. This means that this punishment was practiced in various regions, including the Arabian Peninsula, hundreds or perhaps thousands of years before the advent of Islam, and Islam has implemented and limited this punishment. The definition of theft in Iranian law is also similar to the definition and perception of people thousands of years ago; a completely traditional definition based on jurisprudence. Article 267 of the Islamic Penal Code (approved in 2013) provides a simple and traditional definition of this crime: “Theft is the act of taking someone else’s property without their consent.” This definition belongs to a time when property was mainly tangible and movable. At that time, phenomena such as banks, checks, bank accounts, commercial documents, etc. did not exist and theft was the act of taking someone else’s property. In the mentality of the time when the rules of jurisprudence were established, the

The first type is the maximum punishment that is mentioned in the book of the limits of the law of punishment.

Article 278 – The punishment for theft is as follows:

”

Firstly, the thief cuts off four fingers of the right hand, leaving only the thumb and palm intact.

B- In the second step, the left leg of the thief is lifted from the ground in a way that half a step and a portion of the wiping area remain.

In the third degree, it is eternal imprisonment.

“In the fourth degree, it is execution, even if it is theft in prison…”

The second type of punishment for theft is disciplinary punishments that are mentioned in the Penal Code (approved in 1996) from Article 651 to Article 667, based on the severity of the theft crime. Various punishments such as imprisonment and flogging have been considered.

Under what circumstances is theft subject to the punishment of amputation (cutting off the hand, etc.)? Article 268 of the Islamic Penal Code (approved in 2013) has set 14 conditions for the implementation of the punishment of amputation for thieves, all of which must be met. This means that if 13 conditions are met and one is not, the punishment of amputation will not be carried out and the thief will be sentenced to disciplinary punishments.

Article 268 – “Theft, if it meets all of the following conditions, is punishable by law:”

A – If something is stolen, it must have legal ownership.

Beware of stolen property in the market.

The thief is breaking the lock.

The thief takes the money out of the safe.

It should be a secret violation and theft.

The thief is not the owner of the father or the paternal grandfather’s property.

The value of stolen property at the time of being expelled from the sanctuary is equivalent to four and a half gold coins.

Stolen property from government or public funds, cannot be considered a public endowment or a charitable endowment.

Stealing should not be done during times of famine.

The owner of the property complains to the judicial authority about the thief.

The owner of the property does not forgive the thief before proving the theft.

Stolen property should not be placed under the ownership of the owner before the theft is proven.

“Before proving the crime, stolen property belongs to the thief.”

J- Stolen property is not necessarily stolen or seized property.

The meaning of “حرز” in section (b) of this article is “a suitable place where the property is kept safe from theft by custom”. For example, a safe, in the case of protecting property such as gold, coins, banknotes, etc. A locked knife in the case of protecting property such as cows, sheep, and other livestock. And this is the ruling on this. Also, the value of “four and a half gold coins” (section 3 of the above-mentioned article) is currently around 150,000 tomans. This means that if the value of the stolen property is 150,000 tomans or more and meets all 14 conditions of article 268, the punishment of cutting off the hand will be carried out. Furthermore, since theft of government property is not punishable by cutting off the hand according to section (h) of the mentioned article, embezzlement of government property, even if it falls under the category

The conditions stated in Article 268 show that the legislator does not have a tendency towards enforcing strict punishment for theft, which is why the cutting off of thieves’ hands is rarely carried out. However, even these rare cases are shocking and horrifying, and it is necessary to sincerely demand its abolition. In the case of the sheep thief, which unfortunately resulted in the cutting off of hands, it was possible to prevent the execution of this punishment. For example, one could have used clause (d) of the aforementioned article and requested forgiveness from the owners of the stolen property, in order to waive one of the 14 conditions and avoid the execution of the cutting off of hands, and instead the criminal would be sentenced to a disciplinary punishment.

The punishment for embezzlement crime in Iran.

Embezzlement is a new crime; meaning it has been defined with the requirements of the new world and modern business relationships, and in the past, no one really had a concept of such a crime. In criminology, crimes such as embezzlement, money laundering, and the like are referred to as “white-collar crimes” or “corporate crimes”. The definition of embezzlement in Iranian laws is different from theft. Embezzlement is actually a type of “breach of trust”. This means that there is a “fiduciary relationship” between the agent and the government employee who embezzles money, and it is not considered theft. This is because the assumption of the criminal legislator in Iran is that theft means secretly and tangibly taking property from the place where it is kept.

While in the laws of most developed countries, a definition of theft has been presented that also includes embezzlement. For example, in English law, theft is defined as “taking someone else’s property into one’s own possession”. This taking of someone else’s property can also have both a violent and non-violent aspect. In embezzlement, an employee takes possession of property that does not belong to them and according to the rules of criminal law in developed countries, embezzlement is also a form of theft.

Regarding the punishment for embezzlement in Iranian laws, it should be noted that if the amount and quality of embezzlement is considered to fall under the category of “corruption on earth” (Article 286), the possibility of issuing a death sentence exists. However, if the embezzlement is not considered to fall under the category of “corruption on earth”, the punishment is determined based on Article 5 of the “Strengthening the Punishment of Bribery, Embezzlement, and Fraud Offenders” law (approved by the 1988 Expediency Council). According to this article, if the amount of embezzlement is less than 5,000 tomans, the embezzler will be sentenced to 6 months to 3 years of imprisonment and 6 months to 3 years of separation from government services. And if the amount of embezzlement is more than 5,000 tomans, the

It may be surprising for many that in current laws of Iran, embezzlement of more than 5 thousand toman, 2 to 10 years of imprisonment, complete separation from government services, and a fine of twice the amount of embezzled property, is punishable; but for example, where is the punishment for embezzlements of 6 thousand toman and above 5 trillion toman? Although according to this law, a person who has embezzled 5 trillion toman must not only face imprisonment, separation from government services, and return of embezzled property, but also pay a fine of twice this amount, which is 10 trillion toman. This part of the law is very progressive and modern, and has a completely fair, just, and deterrent aspect. Therefore, civil society and social media users should support the real and equal implementation of this law instead of fantasizing about violence and wishing for the hands of big criminals to be