Security-based criminalization is one of the most important tools of the criminal policy of governments in the face of new security threats, terrorism, violent extremism and organized crime. However, the expansion of criminal interventions in the field of security always raises the question of how to balance the need to maintain public security and respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens. The present study examines the patterns of security-based criminalization in the criminal laws of Iran and France with a comparative approach and analyzes how these two legal systems deal with preliminary, supportive, risk-oriented behaviors related to electronic and financial evidence. The research findings show that the Iranian legal system has a significant capacity for criminal intervention in the early stages of the formation of security threats and in many cases allows for early response. In contrast, the French legal system emphasizes, above all, a documented risk assessment, proportionality of intervention, multi-level judicial control and guaranteeing the rights of individuals. A comparative study of the two systems reveals that the effectiveness of security-oriented criminal policy does not depend solely on the expansion of the criminalization domain, but also on the existence of clear criteria for intervention, the determination of the limits of criminal liability, the reliability of evidence, and the possibility of effective judicial oversight.