Computer-related Forgery in the Iranian Legal System with Emphasis on the Condition of Data Admissibility

Introduction
Computer-related forgery is a modern crime and a challenging topic in criminal law. The conditions for establishing this offense, particularly the requirement of "admissibility" as mentioned by the legislator in Clause “A” of Article 734 of the Islamic Penal Code, are ambiguous. Legal scholars have proposed various interpretations of what constitutes "admissible" data. These include data with evidentiary value, legal significance, judicial weight, or admissibility in legal proceedings—whether in defense or claim. Still, some of the provided definitions are unclear and need further explanation, which can lead to different interpretations when applying them to real-world cases. This research aims to examine the concept and conditions for establishing computer-related forgery and to clarify the boundaries between this offense and other similar cases involving data creation or alteration.
Method
An analytical-descriptive approach was employed in this research. By reviewing related legislation including the Islamic Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Electronic Commerce Act, and the “Regulations on Collection and Admissibility of Electronic Evidence” enacted in 2014, legal concepts such as admissibility, undeniability, validity, and data integrity were analyzed. Additionally, scholars' opinions and practical examples were examined to enhance the understanding of computer-related forgery.
 
Findings
Article 685 of the Code of Criminal Procedure refers to three concepts related to data admissibility: “undeniability”, “validity,” and “integrity.” Considering these terms, which are also used in various parts of the Regulations on Electronic Evidence Collection and Admissibility(enacted 2014), and by taking into account the Electronic Commerce Act, the conditions for admissible data can be linked to the concept of “secure data messages” under the Electronic Commerce Act. According to Article 14 of the Electronic Commerce Act, data messages created and maintained securely are considered valid documents and “admissible” in judicial and legal authorities. Article 15 states that reliable data messages, electronic records, and electronic signatures are undeniable; one can only claim that the "message data" is forged or prove that the "message data" has been legally invalidated in some way. In other words, firstly, reliable message data is admissible according to the stipulation of Article 14 of the Electronic Commerce Law, and secondly, since reliable message data is undeniable according to Article 15 of the Electronic Commerce Law, and one of the characteristics of admissible data is that it is undeniable, it can be seen that admissible data is the same as reliable message data.
If we reject the idea that admissible data must meet the criteria of a secure data message, then implementation of security protocols within the software or system where the forgery occurs becomes crucial. In this context, it is essential that the creation or alteration of the data can be reasonably attributed to someone other than the actual perpetrator. Legal value, the potential to mislead ordinary individuals, and actual or potential harm are additional conditions of computer-related forgery, deriving from the notions of admissibility, forgery concepts, traditional forgery conditions, and legal principles. The perpetrator’s intent to present the forged data to others or authorities as original, is essential for establishing the crime.
 
Conclusion
To reduce existing ambiguities, it is necessary to revise the law and clearly define the conditions for establishing the crime of computer-related forgery. In any case, Admissible data can be regarded as equivalent to reliable data messages, or at least the implementation of security measures—such as proper authentication—should be regarded as a requirement of computer-related forgery. According to the mentioned conditions, actions like creating a receipt using receipt-generating software, producing and altering an image of a certificate, merely creating a social media account under someone else’s name and details, and sending messages without meaningful or legal content from another person’s SIM card cannot be classified as computer-related forgery. In contrast, cases such as intruding into secure banking systems and creating payment slips in the system's records, sending a message with a SIM card belonging to someone else that has legal value can be subject to the crime of computer-related forgery.