Document Type : Research Paper
Author
Assistant Professor of Royan Institute, Department of Medical Ethics and Law, Reproductive Biomedicine Research Center, Royan Institute for Reproductive Biomedicine, ACECR, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
In the Iranian legal system, transactions involving foreign currencies have consistently been subject to governmental supervision and legislative scrutiny. This is due to the intrinsic relationship between foreign currencies and the value of the national currency, as well as their impact on matters of export and import. A further factor is the desire of the general public to invest in foreign currencies in Iran. This is motivated by a desire to maintain the value of their money, which is achieved by purchasing and holding foreign currencies, or by engaging in currency speculation and brokering. So many regulations have been passed regarding currency transactions including: circulars and monetary-banking regulations; Acts regarding the terms and conditions of foreign currency transaction; method of currency's price discovering; competent institutions; maximum volume of permitted exchangeable currencies, etc. The last legislative step regarding currency transactions in Iran, is the amendment Act of the "Combating Goods and Currency Smuggling Act" enacted on 1 January 2022. In these regulations, some requirements and formalities are prescribed for concluding and validating foreign currencies transactions. In the meantime, two legal descriptions of currency transactions are subject of this article: "Solemn", and "Real" description. So, we should examine that if these legal formalities make the currency transactions as a solemn contract? And moreover, is the "Delivery", a condition for validity of the currency transactions, and therefore it should be considered as a real contract?
The method of this research is library and documentary, and the research approach is descriptive and analytical. Materials, includes Acts and regulations, as well as legal theories. The technical analysis will also refer to the legal principles and rules, including the general principles of contracts, as well as analogy and induction, and logical interpretation.
The research plan will commence with an explanation of the concept of foreign currency and currency transactions. This will be followed by a separate analysis of each objective and formal statutory condition for concluding such a transaction, based on legal regulations and theories, as well as principles and rules. Thereafter, the legal description will be discussed, and finally, the research proposal will be presented.
The research questions are: what formalities are prescribed in Iranian law, and especially in the latest legal amendments, for conducting currency transactions? Are the formalities as such a way that currency transactions become a solemn contract? Is the delivery a condition for the validity of such transactions and therefore currency transactions should be considered as a real contract? Assuming these two descriptions, what are the effects of them? And finally, whether these two works reasonable, acceptable and enforceable in Iran's current legal system or not?
It seems that in the current Iran's legal system, and considering the set of foreign currency regulations and especially the recent amendments in the "Combating Goods and Currency Smuggling Act ", currency transactions should be considered as both solemn and real contract. As in the aforementioned Act, at the first, foreign currency transactions must be done with the intervention of imposed intermediary institutions; i.e. Banks and Exchanges and Financial & Credit Institutions (Paragraph (C) of the Supplementary Article 2 bis), that is considered a form of imposition on the contract parties, which is against the consensual principle. Also, it is necessary to register currency transactions in some governmental "Currency Registration Systems" (Paragraph (F) of Supplementary Article 2 bis), which is also an unusual formality for concluding a contract. Secondly, from the point of view of real contracts, not only currency transactions are a type of "Bay al-Sarf" (the classic contract for exchanging the gold and silver against each other, or exchanging the money for money) which is an obvious example of real contracts in Iran (Article 346 of the Civil Code); the Act of Combating Goods and Currency Smuggling, considers the delivery of currency, as an essential factor in all currency transactions (Paragraph (D) of the Supplementary Article 2 bis). Based on this definition, not only the statutory formalities in currency transactions are as legal condition for their concluding, and therefore in case of non-compliance with these formalities, the transaction should be considered "Null"; the delivery is also a condition for validity of the contract. Moreover, the mechanism of currency's ownership proof has changed. So, despite the fact that currency is movable property, in many cases, possession does not prove the holder's ownership; Rather, proving the ownership will require the registration's receipt in the governmental currency systems (Paragraph (G) of the Supplementary Article 2 bis). Also, the ownership of currencies which have been obtained before or after the recent amendments Act, is subjected to two different types of proving mechanisms (Paragraph (H) of the Supplementary Article 2 bis): based on possession (old system), and based on governmental currency system's receipts (new system), which theoretically and practically, contains many difficulties. Finally, despite what said as a rule about the nullity of currency transactions without complying the statutory formalities, it seems that the "inopposabilité" (non-invocability, i.e. the contract is valid between its parties on one hand, and is invalid to the government and other third parties on the other hand), is fairer, more efficient, and more compatible with the practical position of foreign currencies in Iran, and therefore it is suggested to the legal doctrine, judicial precedent, and legislator.
Keywords
)