The principle of personal criminal jurisdiction based on the nationality of the victim in criminal law is the national legislative and judicial jurisdiction over crimes committed against its own citizens abroad. In fact, accepting foreign punishments and sentences is a condition for the national court. The Iranian-British criminal systems are coherent in identifying this type of jurisdiction, however, the maximum range and multiple standardization in Iran versus the minimum range and single standardization of the United Kingdom indicates a kind of differential criminal policy. In Iranian law, personal jurisdiction based on the victim's citizenship can be applied extensively to all crimes with various criteria, including the victim's citizenship relationship with the country of origin, mutual criminalization, prohibition of retrial and retribution, and the presence of the accused in the country. In English Law, on the other hand, personal jurisdiction is limited to specific offenses. Despite sharing the maximum scope, there are also significant differences in multiple standardization between the two penal systems, i.e., in Iran, only in non-prescribed religious crimes, the rule of mutual criminality and the prohibition of trial and retribution of the perpetrator is accepted. Regarding the crimes of hudud, qisas and diyat, the principle of passive personal jurisdiction is applied and in addition to not being bound by mutual criminality, the trial and retribution of the perpetrator are accepted; a strategy that is not compatible with the criminal case in the UK. Therefore, it seems that the exceptional aspect of personal competence based on the citizenship of the victim requires appropriate identification. Accordingly, the British approach is more prudent.