Public interest constitutes the principal foundation for legislation and for the criminalization of offenses that are classified in Iranian law as crimes against security. In English law, however, such conduct is situated within the broader category of crimes against the public interest, encompassing violations affecting security, public order, and other related domains that fall within the broader sphere of collective welfare. The theoretical and doctrinal underpinnings of public interest in English law differ substantially from its conceptualization in Iranian law. These differences_ together with specific substantive and procedural conditions associated with criminal liability _necessitate the separate examination of offenses committed against the public interest, distinguishing them from those directed merely against security or other subsidiary protected interests.

In English criminal law, three overarching doctrinal concepts_ public welfare, public order, and public confidence_ play a decisive role in shaping the classification, seriousness, and penal consequences of criminal offenses, and they influence numerous other legal constructs. In Iranian law, by contrast, public interest assumes a distinct identity grounded in Islamic jurisprudence and criminal law, particularly due to the existence of specific punishment regimes such as ḥadd and qiṣāṣ. As a result, certain offenses that are designated as crimes against security in the Iranian legal system_ such as fraud, money laundering, and terrorism_ would be classified as crimes against the public interest within the English legal framework. Despite the shared disruptive effects that these offenses may have on public security, such overlap does not justify reducing them exclusively to security-related classifications. Public interest, as a broader and more comprehensive legal concept that subsumes security within its scope, must be treated as an independent normative foundation. Accordingly, this research undertakes a comparative examination of public interest as the underlying basis for these categories of offenses in the Iranian and English legal systems. The analysis addresses the legal components (actus legis), material elements (actus reus), mental elements (mens rea), as well as the contextual and situational factors pertinent to the commission of such offenses.