Many of the financial accused are not guilty./ The story of my going to prison - [part four]

In the previous post, I mentioned that many judges imprison the defendant without comprehensively examining the financial cases and simply because he is in debt. Some friends wrote from a legal point of view that the prosecutors were right and they imprisoned the financial defendants who were unable to pay their debts within the framework of the law. The law is clear that if the issuer of the check or any other financial obligee is unable to meet his obligations, he is recognized as a criminal and must be imprisoned to pay his debts.

Of course, what I wrote about the financial defendants with whom I met Darwin was based on my two-month acquaintance with them. I have neither legal expertise nor knowledge of financial laws and regulations. I saw people behind bars due to financial charges that I could not define as criminals and criminals by any moral criteria. A factory owner with more than one thousand personnel; A merchant who has been a cloth merchant in the Tehran market for more than fifty years; A contractor who has been in charge of several large construction projects; A specialist doctor who has worked in the production of disposable medical clothes; A miner who owns one of the largest iron ore mines in Kerman and Isfahan iron smelter is one of his clients and many other similar cases. How can they be defined as criminals and imprisoned?

The answer of some legal friends was that the defendant who had bounced checks or other legal debts and could not pay them, the law dictates that he will be imprisoned as a defendant until he pays his debts. In other words, the judge simply implemented the law. My question to these friends is that if the judge's duty is only to see the check issuer's name and then issue a verdict of guilt, any other person who can read and write can do this. Shouldn't it be important for the judge to find out how the accused reached that situation?

How can imprisoning an economic activist help him repay his debts? Moreover, according to existing laws, with the passage of time, the accused's debt regularly increases with the official interest rate.

There are not a few debtors whose debts to banks have increased several times the initial amount within a few years. How can the accused who failed to provide the initial amount be able to provide the multiplied amount?