Doubts about lenient sentences that are not appropriate for major corruption crimes

[size=52]Doubts about lenient sentences that are not appropriate for major corruption crimes[/size]

[size=45][You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Corrupt and bribed money looters, especially those backed by partisans, face lenient sentences and impunity under the terms of what God has sent down from authority, sometimes “mercy for his youth” and other for “old age”, and so on, to dilute billions of dollars of corruption amid the impotence and decay of penal laws It has been advanced and circumvented by spoilers and their supporters.
The head of the Deans of Law Committee and the Dean of the University of Babylon, Dr. Miri Kazem Al-Khikani, said in an interview: “Judicial rulings are related to the Penal Code or any other punitive laws, such as Penal Code 111 of 69, and there are decisions issued by the competent authorities in a particular crime.”
He added, “The dissolved Revolutionary Command Council’s decision 160 of 83 is a decision of a punitive nature in two paragraphs. The first referred to impersonation and the second paragraph related to the crime of bribery. The legislator at the time stressed the penalty for bribery in the second paragraph with imprisonment for a period not exceeding 10 years and a fine, and therefore the The penalty for Resolution 160 of 83 is severe.”
He referred to “the issuance of Law No. 6 of 2010, which amended the fines contained in the Iraqi Penal Code, considering that it was issued a long time ago in the year 1969, when the amounts contained in it were considered high fines and the Iraqi currency was very high, as far as judicial rulings and Resolution 160 of 83 in A fine felony, if the judge sentences imprisonment, he shall also be sentenced to a fine of no less than one million dinars and not more than ten million dinars, in addition to imprisonment.
Al-Khikani indicated that “we should not confuse the complementary penalty, i.e. the fine, with the sums that were embezzled, or the criminal caused the waste of public money. The verdict on him has acquired a peremptory degree, and the fine imposed by the judge goes to the state’s public treasury.”
For his part, political analyst Wathiq Al-Jabri said in an interview with “Al-Sabah”: “The issue of rampant corruption and the failure to hold the corrupt accountable is due to two factors: the law and the values ​​that relate to the individual and sometimes to parties and political bodies. The weakness of the value system of the political authorities leads to the failure to implement the law or to use influence to circumvent it.
And he indicated that “wasting public money is not a personal responsibility to be waived, so government agencies must cooperate with the Public Prosecution to implement the penalty, especially since the violations mostly affect state institutions, but unfortunately there are legislations that allowed for the existence of corruption as the nature of investments as well as linking independent bodies and oversight in the government, and therefore the government monitors and judges itself, so there must be a separation between institutions, as the overlap between authorities was used by some forces to circumvent the law and persist in corruption.”

• Editing: Muhammad Al-Ansari
Disclaimer: All published articles represent the opinion of its authors only[/size]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]