عنوان مقاله [English]
The overriding criticism directed to the law of prevention and fighting fraud in producing scientific works enacted 1392 is focusing on combating the producer of the scientific works and has not criminalized the conduct of the consumer. With considering this point that in this offence, there are two parties means client (consumer) and agent (producer) and perhaps the role of client is more noticeable in committing the offense. This legislature’s action is not true (rightful) that it confronts the agent but has neglected to criminalize precisely the behavior of the client clearly. It is possible to think that the client’s behavior can be introduced in the form of an incitement or allurement and this thought is also in most cases is not true because the agent before and without an incitement of his client is ready to accept the consumers’ orders. From the point of actus reus, the fraud offense in ordering the scientific works is a strict liability crime. Just with ordering, supplying and delivering these works as job or profession, the offense is occurred and there is no need to any result such as the usage of the client or granting privilege and etc. but from mens rea point for its occurrence, specific intent (crime) to make profit is necessary. Actually, it is a strict liability crime that it needs a specific intent for its occurrence.