عنوان مقاله [English]
The legislature has not regarded to the transparency of law principle, minimal substantial and procedural guarantees in criminal tool seizure and forfeiture. In current provision not only there are no clear examples and criteria for these measures but also “ criminal tool forfeiture discourse “ , based on asset criminality fiction and recidivism prevention justification, has ignored the principles of necessity, appropriation, restoration, judicial independency and impartiality, acknowledgment of owner legal position and speedy trial, thereby endangered the right to property seriously. Through some grounds such as penal purposes of state acquisition, basic characteristics of punishment in this sanction and legal ownership until committing crime, it can be shown that state acquisition of a property as a criminal tool is a financial punishment. The imposition of this punishment not only requires compliance with substantial guaranties including minimality principle, legality principle, mens rea of accessory, individual criminal responsibility and prohibition of inhuman punishment but also needs to protection of procedural guarantees including the presumption of innocence and other defense rights of defendant.