The analysis of debt collection,conceived as one form of the shadow economy operating within the sphere of litigation,demonstrates that this phenomenon leverages legal lacunae,weak judicial oversight,and the inefficiency of intermediary institutions to evolve into a self-reinforcing cycle of violence, intimidation,and strategic litigation.

This study,using a descriptive–analytic methodology informed by a criminological perspective and grounded in authoritative library resources,statutory instruments,and official secondary data,delineates the structural and behavioral dimensions of debt collection in Iran and interrogates the networks of formal and informal actors active in the debt-recovery market.The findings indicate that debt collection not only impairs the functioning of the judiciary—by saturating courts with large volumes of cases and thereby eroding adjudicative capacity—but also undermines the efficacy of legal norms, weakens social capital,and heightens legal risk within the business environment.Violent acts perpetrated by individual agents and organized threats orchestrated by debt-recovery networks destabilize economic security and foster a pervasive distrust in judicial fairness.The research demonstrates that the reproduction of debt collection is the product of a multilayered interaction among legal,economic, and social factors,and that its containment is unlikely without comprehensive reform of procedural law,the redesign of supervisory frameworks,and the strengthening of protective legal services for vulnerable groups.The study advises policymakers to devise an integrated,three-tier strategy encompassing legislative reform,judicial practice, and public-security measures to prevent the entrenchment of informal power structures within the justice system.Moreover,the research underscores the necessity of concrete operational measures,including mandatory and transparent registration of the chain of assignment of claims prior to the initiation of litigation,the establishment of pre-screening pathways for evidentiary documentation within courts,and the creation of dedicated regulatory bodies for debt-recovery firms.Implemented alongside expanded access to free legal assistance for defendants and mechanisms enabling immediate law-enforcement intervention,these measures could both curtail the influx of baseless lawsuits and contribute to the restoration of judicial capacity and public trust.