Identifying which of the criminal behaviors the crime is documented to, has always been one of the problems in criminal claims. This problem changes into a serious challenge when the conducts are effective in the criminal consequence in a longitudinal way. By avoiding objective and material criteria and distinguishing causation from citation using customary concepts, the 1392 lawmakers tried to create basic and fundamental changes in causation and citation rules. Some of the changes in causation rules are the acceptance of sharing responsibility, the possibility of citing a crime to a perpetrator and to a cause simultaneously and the effect of the element of intention in citing the crime to a criminal act which can be due to the legislative deviation from the material and philosophical approach in the category of citation. Although the 1392 lawmakers, have tried to get the rules of causality closer to justice and fairness, following the changes mantioned, but in some cases such as non acceptance of the sharing responsibility in the aggregation of transverse causes and also the existing conflict in provisions 527 and 528, it hasn't been able to have a comprehensive look to this issue. In the present study while reviewing the subject of differentiating the case of causation from citation, we are seeking to evaluate these developments which are based on a customary view to causational and citational rules.