Analyzing the Reflection of the Risk-Based Approach Regarding Crime-Related Property in Iran’s Legal System in Light of FATF Standards: A Comparative Perspective

Introduction
The increasing complexity of organized macroeconomic crimes, particularly money laundering, necessitates a sophisticated and coordinated response at both national and international levels. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), as the leading global authority in this domain, has established a comprehensive framework centered on the risk-based approach (RBA) to combat financial crimes effectively. This research seeks to explore the foundational principles of the risk-based approach and assess how its requirements, particularly those pertaining to crime-related property, have been integrated into Iran’s legal system. 
Money laundering, often described as the lifeblood of organized crime, operates within intricate networks that transcend national borders. Given its transnational nature, a fragmented or inconsistent legal response can undermine global efforts to curb illicit financial flows. FATF’s recommendations emphasize the need for jurisdictions to adopt a proactive 
and risk-sensitive strategy, ensuring that resources are allocated where threats are most severe. This study examines whether Iran’s legal framework aligns with these international standards and identifies areas where legislative or procedural enhancements may be necessary. 
The research is driven by two central questions: First, what constitutes the risk-based approach as defined by FATF, and what specific obligations does it impose concerning the management of crime-related property? Second, to what extent has Iran’s legal system incorporated these requirements, and where do discrepancies or shortcomings exist? By addressing these questions, this study aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse on legal reforms needed to strengthen Iran’s anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) regimes.
 
Methodology
This study adopts a descriptive-analytical approach, combining doctrinal legal research with comparative analysis. The primary sources include Iran’s domestic legislation, FATF recommendations, and international best practices from jurisdictions with advanced AML frameworks, such as the United Kingdom and the United States. The methodology involves a thorough review of legal texts, policy documents, and scholarly commentary to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Iran’s current system. 
The research process entails three key stages. First, an examination of FATF’s risk-based approach, focusing on its core components—risk assessment, mitigation measures, and enforcement mechanisms. Second, a detailed analysis of Iran’s legal provisions related to crime-related property, including confiscation laws, financial transparency requirements, and investigative powers. Third, a comparative assessment to identify gaps between Iran’s framework and FATF standards, culminating in actionable recommendations for reform.
 
Results
The findings reveal that while Iran has taken significant steps toward aligning its legal system with FATF’s risk-based approach, several critical gaps persist. One of the most notable shortcomings is the absence of a comprehensive National Risk Assessment Document, despite its explicit provision under Article 3 of the Executive Regulations of Iran’s Anti-Money Laundering Law. This document is essential for identifying high-risk sectors, prioritizing resource allocation, and tailoring regulatory responses to specific threats. Without it, Iran’s AML efforts may lack the precision required to combat sophisticated financial crimes effectively. 
Another area of concern is the partial criminalization of money laundering. While Iran has recognized money laundering as a distinct offense, its legal framework still ties it closely to predicate crimes, limiting the scope of prosecutions. FATF standards advocate for absolute independence of money laundering offenses to ensure that illicit proceeds can be targeted regardless of the underlying crime. 
Confiscation mechanisms in Iran also exhibit gaps. The current system permits extended civil confiscation, but it lacks provisions for extended criminal and administrative confiscation, which are pivotal in jurisdictions like the UK and the US. These mechanisms allow authorities to seize assets linked to criminal activity even in the absence of a conviction, provided there is sufficient evidence of illicit origins. Their absence in Iran’s legal system weakens the state’s ability to disrupt criminal enterprises financially. 
Investigative powers remain underdeveloped, particularly in the realm of provisional measures. Tools such as unjustified wealth orders, electronic monitoring, and parallel financial investigations—which are instrumental in uncovering hidden assets—are either absent or inadequately regulated. Strengthening these measures would enhance Iran’s capacity to trace and recover illicit proceeds. 
To bridge these gaps, a series of targeted reforms are proposed. At the legislative level, Iran should prioritize the completion and implementation of the National Risk Assessment Document. This would provide a clear roadmap for identifying vulnerabilities and allocating resources efficiently. Additionally, the legal definition of money laundering should be revised to ensure its full independence from predicate offenses, aligning with FATF’s expectations. 
In the realm of provisional measures, introducing differential investigation tools would significantly bolster Iran’s AML framework. These could include: 
- Asset freezing and confiscation orders to prevent the dissipation of illicit wealth. 
- Unjustified wealth provisions to shift the burden of proof onto individuals who cannot account for suspicious asset accumulation. 
- Enhanced electronic surveillance to monitor high-risk transactions in real time. 
For the final response phase, adopting extended criminal and administrative confiscation= would bring Iran in line with international best practices. This would empower authorities to target assets tied to criminal networks more aggressively, even in cases where direct prosecution is challenging. Furthermore, integrating litigation revolution principles—such as reducing evidentiary burdens in complex financial cases—would streamline judicial processes and improve conviction rates. 

Conclusion
Iran’s legal system has made progress in incorporating elements of FATF’s risk-based approach, particularly in areas like third-party rights and civil confiscation. However, significant gaps remain, particularly in risk assessment, criminal confiscation, and investigative powers. Addressing these deficiencies through systematic reforms would not only enhance Iran’s ability to combat economic crimes but also improve its standing in international AML evaluations. 
The path forward requires a balanced approach, combining robust legislation with effective enforcement. By adopting these recommendations, Iran can build a more resilient financial system, reduce its exposure to illicit activities, and contribute to global efforts against money laundering and terrorist financing.