An Evaluation of the Challenges in Distinguishing the Crime of Bribery from Influence Peddling in Iranian Criminal Law and Its Impact on Judicial Uniformity and the Guarantee of Criminal Justice

Abstract

Bribery and influence peddling are among the most significant corruption-related crimes in Iran’s criminal justice system, playing a crucial role in undermining public trust, disrupting administrative and judicial integrity, and weakening criminal justice. Despite their separate criminalization under Iranian law, the practical distinction between these two offenses has consistently posed theoretical and judicial challenges. Ambiguities surrounding the material and mental elements, behavioral overlaps, and divergent judicial interpretations have resulted in inconsistent rulings and instability in judicial uniformity. This study aims to systematically evaluate the challenges of distinguishing bribery from influence peddling in Iranian criminal law and to analyze their impact on judicial consistency and the realization of criminal justice. Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology, the research examines statutory provisions, landmark judicial decisions, and empirical data derived from court practices. Through a comparative analysis of the legal, material, and mental elements of both crimes, the study identifies key points of convergence and divergence, presented through structured analytical tables. The findings indicate that the lack of clear legislative criteria, insufficient conceptual differentiation between the exchange of undue advantages and the exercise of informal influence, and inconsistent judicial interpretations constitute the primary causes of conflicting rulings and diminished legal certainty. The article concludes by proposing legislative and judicial reforms aimed at clarifying differentiation criteria and enhancing the coherence of judicial practice.