With the identification of economic crimes in the Islamic Penal Code through specifying instances, the need for differential prosecution to combat economic crimes effectively has been raised in legal circles. Differential prosecution involves establishing a special authority for adjudication and deviating from some fair trial principles. It has been implemented not through legislation but through directives and regulations approved by the head of the judiciary, based on authorization from the Supreme Leader. However, such actions, besides the criticisms against them, have created new challenges. The instances of economic crimes in the law are general and ambiguous. The Islamic Penal Code, regardless of the grading of crimes and their importance, has introduced a wide range of severe to minor crimes as economic crimes. In this situation, applying differential prosecution principles to all instances does not seem justified. The strict and security-oriented approach governing the differential prosecution of these crimes, by altering some fair trial principles, aims to enhance the efficiency of the criminal justice system against severe crimes. Applying these principles to minor crimes leads to the inefficiency of the criminal justice system. This paper, by studying library resources and reviewing issued judgments, aims to explain the "impact of descriptive errors in economic crimes on differential prosecution" as the research issue. By presenting issued judgments, it seeks to prove the hypothesis that the manner of describing and defining economic crimes in the law is closely related to the differential prosecution process. Success in combating economic crimes through the delineation of differential prosecution depends on a coherent and transparent nature. As long as the conceptual and instance-related errors of economic crimes are not resolved and minor crimes are not excluded from this category, the delineation of differential prosecution will not be effective and may lead to injustice.