Justifying differential treatment for economic crimes: the threat of crime or perpetrator's risk?

In justifying a differential criminal prosecution of economic crimes, there are three basic criteria: first, the characteristics of the perpetrator, influence, or intent that the victim of economic crime has a high risk. The same does not mean that criminal prosecution can not trap such offenders. Second, the character of the nature of criminal behavior: economic crime, which sometimes accompanies economic disruption or economic corruption, the economic crime is a threat to the economy and beyond, national security. Third, the consequence of crime, which brings economic crime closer to corruption. The selection of each of these three measures can justify the differentiation mechanisms of criminal proceedings for economic crimes, but each has challenges and shortcomings that may offset the legality of the case, along with the definition of differential treatment. The present article specifies that in the criminal system of Iran, economic crimes are more than the result of a differential offense that results from the triple bond of media activity, the political and economic situation of Iran, and the position of the perpetrator for communicating with executive agencies. These three factors simulate economic crime, whether it be a criminal offense, and a differential criminal procedure based on this principle