Davranış Araştırmaları Dergisi Journal of Organizational Behavior Research Cilt / Vol.: 3, Sayı / Is.: S2, Yıl/Year: 2018, Kod/ID: 81S2134
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Örgütsel Davranış Araştırmaları Dergisi Journal Of Organizational Behavior Research Cilt / Vol.: 3, Sayı / Is.: S2, Yıl/Year: 2018, Kod/ID: 81S2134 2528-9705 REFLECTIONS ON THE FRAUDULENCE IN REGISTRATION Leila GHIASABADI FARAHANI1*, Saheb FARDAEE MOQHADDAM2 1 Phd Student in Jurisprudence and Criminal Law in Ayatallah Haeri University Iran, Meybod, Iran. 2 M.A in Criminal Law in Mazandaran University Iran. *Corresponding Author Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT There have been laws enacted for registering the properties in the “Office of Registration of Property and Real Estate”, however these laws have been adopted decades ago, and over time, many problems have emerged in interpretation of them. Some of the registration crimes are considered to be fraudulent and do not match with the laws adopted during the recent years. Therefore, the mentioned crimes are only punishable for fraudulence, and instead of the use of the terms ‘swindler’ or ‘constituted as swindler’ in the registration laws, the extent of punishment considered for them, can be used. The registration crimes are usurpation or constituted as usurpation which can be absolutely, and not constitutionally, accounted for as fraudulence in order to intensify the implementation guarantee, based on the expediency of protecting the property of individuals and the security of the community. Keywords: Fraudulence, Registration Crimes, Usurpation, Expediency, Trustee. INTRODUCTION Since the true religion of Islam is a perfect religion and explains all the sentences in different subjects, the rights of individuals and the society are also protected by it, and like all other subjects, are not left without a sentence. Due to the dynamism of Imamiah Jurisprudence, the sentences are adopted in accordance with the time and society advancement, and there is not a single subject left without a sentence. In the past, determination of properties ownership was so important for obtaining the taxes and tribute and several books such as “Al-Mamalik va Al- Masalik” were written in this regard. However, in the jurisprudence subjects of Zakat (alms) and Jihad (holy war), the sentences of properties are referred to, to some extent. With the advancements of the societies, the individuals’ ownership was protected by the law, as the Article 47 of the constitutional law is enacted in this regard. With this advancement, most of the times, the properties ownership is needed to be registered in specific offices. For better establishment of the order and justice, specific laws including the ‘Law of Registration of the Documents and Properties’ were enacted in 1310 (1931CE). The problem that emerges meanwhile is the oldness of this law, since with the passage of time, the laws related to this law, such as Islamic Penal Code, were renewed, however this law has not been updated, yet. The very significant problem is that of registration crimes in the ‘registration law’ which are constituted as fraudulence. Fraudulence is an independent, public, and unforgivable crime, while some crimes in the registration law, are among the private and forgivable crimes. The fact that we only constitute some crimes as another independent crime while save for the execution of Geliş tarihi/Recieved: 07.11.2017 – Kabul tarihi/Accepted: 25.02.2018 – Yayın tarihi/Published: 21.08.2018 2 Örgütsel Davranış Araştırmaları Dergisi Journal of Organizational Behavior Research Cilt / Vol.: 3, Sayı / Is.: S2, Yıl/Year: 2018, Kod/ID: 81S2134 punishment, none of the effects of the main crime are not intended, would lead to dispersion and to some extent, mistake in identification of the type of crimes. The necessity felt for revision of some articles of the registration law requires updating this law for establishment of new fields in properties ownership, in addition to preventing from the mislead in identification of the type of crimes. The main question of the current study is how the registration crimes committers, who are considered as swindlers by registration law, are punished; and the hypothesis is the expediency of not using the term ‘fraudulence’ for this kind of crimes in which only the punishment is intended. Also, instead of using the term ‘crime’, clear expression of the crime punishment would lead to the independency, and yet, stability of the registration law. 1. General Principles Generally, the ‘Law of Registration of the Documents and Properties’ enacted in 1932/04/16, considers three registration crimes, and the ‘Law on the Issuance of Property Ownership’ enacted in 1991/05/07, considers one registration crime, as the fraudulence and each of these crimes has its own specific constituent elements. 2. Registration Crimes The registration crime is doing or forbearance of an act that is identified by the laws related to registration of documents and properties as crime, and is punishable (Pirdade, 2001, p.13; Hajiani, 2005, p.17). 2.1. Legal Cases: In this chapter, the related articles and constituent elements of the mentioned crime are explained and determined. Before doing so, it is required to make the concept of registration crime clear. 2.1.1 Request for Registration of Property Belonging to Others: 2.1.1.1. Explanation of the Articles: The above title has five articles of the Law on Registration of Documents and Properties, which will be further elaborated, and the subject of each one will be explained. 2.1.1.1.1. Request for Registration of Property Belonging to Others and Demonstration of Ownership Without Having the Right to Do it: The articles 105 and 106 of the Registration Law mention the above subject. The articles 105 has expressed 5 cases for which the fraudulence punishment is determined: 1. Request for registration of a property whose ownership has been formerly transferred by the applicant. 2. Request for registration of a property whose ownership has been formerly denied from the applicant and he/she has intentionally applied for registration of it. 3. Obtaining the ownership document by someone who, after application for registration, has transferred it to someone else and yet applied to obtain the document. 4. Obtaining the ownership document by someone who, after application for registration, is denied from ownership in a way or another, and he/she is intentionally obtaining the ownership document. 5. Absence in the registration office for approval of the party’s right in the cases in which the registration applicant, after the application, transfers it to someone else and does not apply for obtaining the ownership document for himself, however after the noticing him/her by 3 FARAHANI and MOQHADDAM the registration office, he/she is not present in the office for approval of the party’s right (Shahri, 1989, p.246). Seemingly, there is a problem and that is considering the registration applicant as a swindler, since resort to fraudulent means and the consent of the victim due to his deception, which is one of the cornerstones of the crime of fraud, do not exist in the crime of property registration. The mentioned crime is among the most important examples of crimes constituted as fraudulence, i.e. in terms of punishment, we consider the crime to be fraudulence. So, considering the mentioned crime as fraudulence by the article literally leads to the obscurity in identification of the fraudulence crime which, it seems, should be revised in future terms of registration law. Actually, considering the committer of the mentioned crime as a swindler may lead to the ambiguity in interpretation of the law. Among the other examples of registering the property of others is the heir’s claim for a devisor’s property, which is constituted as fraudulence. 2.1.1.1.2. Request for Registration of Other’s Property as the Ownership Despite Being Trustee of the Property In this chapter, the cases of property registration by the trustee’s application, either for himself/herself or someone else, are investigated. Regarding the commitments of the trustee in different laws, various implementation guarantees have been considered. For example, in article 616 of the civil law, in case of denial of property transference on request, the fiducial responsibility of the trustee turns into a guaranteed responsibility. In the registration law also, a more severe implementation guarantee, which is the very fraudulent punishment, has been considered, compared to the trustee’s treachery. What should be noted for article 107 of the registration law is that there are two kinds of trustees: one is who has been trusted by the owner and the property is delivered to him; such as the tenant and the owner of the right to live in residence for life interest and a prescribed time. The other one is who has been legally chosen as trustee such as the wards and legal guardians of the minors and the legally incompetent individuals (Abazari Fumashi, 2007, p. 299), since it is clarified in the text of the law that (generally, anybody to a property …), the article applies for both kinds of trustees. Also, from this article, we infer the universality and publicity; and since the article is in the form of a statement, if one of the two types of trustees is to be considered, the allocation of this generality should be mentioned. Usurpation is the possessory treatment of the property, i.e. someone takes someone else’s property under his possession and treat it in a way the owners usually treat their property (Mir Mohammad Sadeghi, 2013, p.177). Regarding what’s been mentioned so far, we’d find out that the trustee’s crime is treachery; and the reason the fraudulence punishment is considered for the treachery committer, according to some lawyers, is that the legislator has considered a severe punishment, in order to protect the order of the registration law and avoid the chaos in this regard, so nobody would dare to play with the country’s Registration Law by any means, and make the country chaotic and disrupt the order of society (ibid, p.300).