„De facto“ vadovo baudžiamoji atsakomybė juridinio asmens bankroto atveju
Kazlauskaitė, Miglė |
Taikant baudžiamąją atsakomybę vadovui įmonės bankroto metu susiduriama su nusikalstamos veikos subjekto nustatymo problemomis, kadangi remiantis Lietuvos įstatymais sudėtinga nustatyti, koks asmuo įmonėje laikytinas užimančiu vadovo pareigas. Todėl darbo tikslas – pasitelkus mokslinę literatūrą, teismų praktiką bei remiantis užsienio šalių patirtimi išanalizuoti „de facto“ vadovo galėjimą būti baudžiamosios atsakomybės subjektu juridinio asmens bankroto atveju. Darbe naudoti literatūros, teisinių dokumentų analizės, lyginimo bei apibendrinimo metodai. Išsiaiškinta, kad egzistuoja trys pagrindinės vadovų rūšys: „de jure“, „de facto“, šešėlinis vadovas, kurios nustatomos atsižvelgiant į šių asmenų paskyrimą vadovo pareigoms, savęs pristatymą, atliekamas funkcijas. Nustatyta, kad Lietuvoje faktinio vadovo samprata plėtojama tik teismuose. Šio vadovo tipo nustatymui reikia įrodyti, kad asmuo sistemingai vykdė vadovavimo veiksmus, būdingus bendrovės vadovui. Analizei pasirinktos bylos 2016 – 2022 m. laikotarpiu pagal šiuos atrankos kriterijus: 1) ar byloje svarstytas baudžiamosios atsakomybės taikymas „de facto“ vadovui; 2) jei taip, ar baudžiamoji atsakomybė šiam vadovui pritaikyta įmonės bankroto/nemokumo metu. Išsiaiškinta, kad yra ganėtinai mažai bylų, kuriose faktinis vadovas būtų nuteistas įmonės bankroto metu, tačiau nustatyta, kad jam taikytina baudžiamoji atsakomybė už sukčiavimą, turto pasisavinimą, iššvaistymą, skolininko nesąžiningumą, neteisingų duomenų apie pajamas, pelną ar turtą pateikimą, apgaulingą/aplaidų finansinės apskaitos tvarkymą/organizavimą, dokumento suklastojimą/disponavimą suklastotu dokumentu. Atlikta faktinio vadovo sampratos bei šiam vadovui baudžiamosios atsakomybės reglamentavimo/taikymo įmonės bankroto metu, lyginamoji analizė, pasirinktų užsienio šalių kontekste, leidžia teigti, jog šie aspektai plačiausiai išplėtoti Pietų regione, o Lietuvoje formuojami faktinio vadovo požymiai labiausiai panašūs į Ispanijos. Siekiant teisinio tikrumo bei apibrėžtumo, siūlytina įstatyme įtvirtinti faktinio vadovo sąvoką, t. y. kad bendrovės vadovu yra laikomas taip pat toks asmuo, kuris neturėdamas formalaus vadovo statuso, sistemingai ir nenutrūkstamai vykdo valdymo funkciją bendrovėje bei faktiškai atlieka vadovo pareigas. Arba, atsižvelgiant į tai, kad Lietuvos įstatyminėje bazėje vadovo sąvoka yra itin nevienareikšmė, įtvirtinti tokią vadovo sąvoka, kuri apimtų ir faktinius vadovus.
When applying criminal liability to the director during the bankruptcy of the company, one faces the problem of determing the person to whom criminal liability is applicable for criminal act since, based on the laws of Lithuania, it is not possible to make an unambiguous conclusion as to what kind of person should be considered as holding a managerial position. Therefore, the thesis aims to analyse the ability of the „de facto“ director to be the subject of criminal liability in case of bankruptcy of a legal entity, using scientific literature, case law and based on the experience of foreign countries. Methods used in the research: analyses of literature and legal documents were used to analyse scientific literature and case law. The method of comparison was used to compare the concept of „de facto“ director and the regulation/application of criminal liability to the „de facto“ director during the bankruptcy of the company in the context of selected foreign countries. The summarization method was used to present the conclusions of the work. After analysing the scientific literature and case law, it was revealed that there are three main types of directors: „de jure“, „de facto“ and a shadow director. These types of directors are determined by considering the circumstances of the appointment of these persons to the position of manager, self-presentation and the functions performed. In Lithuania, the concept of a „de facto“ director is not established in legal regulations. It is developed only in courts. In order to determine this type of director, it is necessary to prove that the person systematically performed management actions that are typical only for the manager of the company. The „de facto“ director differs from the „de jure“ director in that the latter is officially appointed to this position. In the meantime, it has been noticed that in Lithuania case law, the boundary between the shadow and the „de facto“ director of the company in unclear. Cases from 2016 to 2022 were selected for the study based on the following selection criteria: 1) whether the application of criminal liability to the „de facto“ director was considered in the case, 2) if the latter question was considered in the case, whether the criminal liability was applied to the „de facto“ director during bankruptcy/insolvency of the company. A total of 18 cases were selected based on these criteria. So in Lithuania, there are relatively few cases in which the „de facto“ director is convicted during the company‘s bankruptcy, but it is found that he is subject to criminal liability for fraud, misappropriation of assets, fraudulent financial accounting management/organization, negligent financial accounting management/organization, record falsification/disposal with forged documents. The conduction of an analysis of the regulation/explanation of the concept of „de facto“ director in case law in the selected foreign nations led to the following categorization of the selected countries: 1) a country where the „de facto“ director institute is not recognized at all (Bulgaria), 2) countries, where the concept of „de facto“ director is developed only in case law (Germany, France), 3) countries where the concept of „de facto“ director is enshrined in law and interpreted in case law (United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal and Austria). Comparing the analysed foreign countries with the situation in Lithuania, it was found that Lithuania falls into the category of countries where the concept of „de facto“ director is only explained in case law. Still, the criteria for determing the „de facto“ director in Lithuania case law are most similar to the elements identified by the Spanish court. After conducting an analysis of the regulation and application of the criminal liability of the „de facto“ director in foreign countries, the analysed countries can be divided into two categories: 1) countries where the criminal liability of the „de facto“ director in enshrined in law (United Kingdom, France, Portugal, Spain), 2) countries where the criminal liability of the „de facto“ director is developed exclusively in the courts (Austria, Germany). It has been established that although in Lithuania, as in Germany and Austria, the criminal liability of the „de facto“ director is formed only in case law, in Lithuanian case law, it is possible to find more diverse criminal acts, for the commision of which this type of director is subject to criminal liability, as is the case in the Unired Kingdom and France. Conclusions drew that the concept of the „de facto“ director and the regulation/application of criminal liability to the „de facto“ director during the bankruptcy of the company in the context of selected foreign countries is most widely developed in the Southern region (in Spain and Portugal). Based on the example of foreign countries and in order to achieve legal certainty, it is recommended to enshrine the concept of „de facto“ director in the law. For example, a person who does not have the formal status of a director, systematically and continously carries out the management function in the company and actually performs the duties of the manager is also considered the manager of the company. Or, taking into account the fact that the concept of company director is contraversial in the Lithuanian legal framework, establish such a concept of manager that would include „de facto“ directors as well. For example, establishing that the director of a legal entity is considered to be a person who systematically and continuously performs the management function in the company and holds the position of director, regardless of the formal title of the position in the company.