Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/121194
Type of publication: master thesis
Field of Science: Teisė / Law (S001)
Author(s): Šlamaitė, Simona
Title: Ar Lietuvos teisiniame reglamentavime įtvirtinti kriterijai įgalina atriboti baudžiamąją atsakomybę už apgaulingą apskaitos tvarkymą nuo aplaidaus apskaitos tvarkymo?
Other Title: Is Lithuania Legal Regulation Criterias Are Established to Enable Separation of Criminal Liability for Fraudulent Accounting from Negligent Accounting?
Extent: 69 p.
Date: 2-Jun-2016
Keywords: Apgaulingas;aplaidus apskaitos tvarkymas;atribojimo kriterijai.;Fraudulent;negligent accounting management;separation criteria.
Abstract: Dabartiniame Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamajame kodekse numatyti aplaidaus ir apgaulingo apskaitos tvarkymo nusikaltimų sudėties požymiai nėra aiškiai apibrėžti. Todėl šiuo atveju, teismai kvalifikuodami šiuos nusikaltimus pasitelkia vidine intuicija, ko pasėkoje analogiškomis faktinėmis aplinkybėmis gali būti patraukti asmenys skirtingai baudžiamojon atsakomybėn. Todėl reikalinga, išanalizuoti bei atskleisti ar teorijoje pateikiami 222 ir 223 nusikaltimų objektyvieji ir subjektyvieji požymiai atriboja šiuos nusikaltimus, atskleisti ir apibrėžti ,,aplaidus‘‘ ir ,,apgaulingas‘‘ požymių sampratas, atskleisti kokie teismų praktikoje naudojami kriterijai atribojant 222 ir 223 nusikaltimus, atskleisti ir suformuluoti kriterijus, kurie įgalina atriboti 222 ir 223 nusikaltimus, palyginti Lietuvos reglamentavimą su užsienio šalimis, atskleidžiant jų skirtumus ir panašumus, pateikti tyrimo metu padarytas išvadas bei pasiūlymus, susijusius su 222 ir 223 str. atribojimo problematika. Tyrimo objektas - apgaulingo ir aplaidaus apskaitos tvarkymo nusikaltimų reguliavimas Lietuvos baudžiamojoje teisėje. Tyrimo tikslas - atskleisti ar Lietuvos teisiniame reglamentavime įtvirtinti kriterijai įgalina atriboti baudžiamąją atsakomybę už apgaulingą apskaitos tvarkymą nuo aplaidaus apskaitos tvarkymo. Darbe naudojami Literatūros šaltinių analizė, dokumentų analizė, sisteminės analizės, lyginimo bei apibendrinimo metodai. Išanalizavus mokslinę literatūrą bei teismų praktiką buvo atskleista, kad subjektyvieji ir objektyvieji požymiai nėra tie kriterijai, kurie atribotų šias veikas. Tačiau pastebėtina, kad teismui atsižvelgus į reikiamų kriterijų visumą, t. y. atsakingų asmenų kvalifikaciją, veiksmų intensyvumą, bendrininkavimo galimybę, tikslą išvengti mokesčių bei padarytos žalos dydį, yra galima atribojimas tarp šių veikų. Išnagrinėjus užsienio šalių reglamentavimą ir palyginus su Lietuvos reglamentavimu, pastebima, kad visose nagrinėtose užsienio šalyse yra pateikiama kaltės forma pačiame straipsnyje. Tuo tarpu, lyginant Estijos padarinių požymį ,,žymiai sumažėjo‘‘ su LR BK požymiu ,,iš dalies‘‘, yra matyti, kad Estijos požymis yra aiškesnis. Kaip teigė, atsakingos Estijos institucijos, šis požymis padeda atskirti mažareikšmius apskaitos tvarkymo pažeidimus nuo atsakomybės taikymo. Taigi, tyrimo hipotezė pasitvirtino iš dalies, t.y. teorijoje pateiktų kriterijų nepakanka atriboti 222 ir 223 nusikaltimų, tačiau teismui atsižvelgus į atsakingų asmenų kvalifikaciją, veiksmų intensyvumą, bendrininkavimo galimybę, tikslą išvengti mokesčių bei padarytos žalos dydį yra galimas atribojimas tarp šių dviejų nusikaltimų.  
In the current criminal law accounting management is law protected value which regulation is designed to ensure proper managing of accounting, so it also be understandable as a tax collection mechanism. It depends on how the taxpayer will properly pay taxes to functioning state budget, which sustains the entire financial system. However, this cannot be said about established account managing offenses of the Lithuanian State criminal law, i.e. fraudulent and negligent accounting management whose separation one from another is problematic. In thesis the author is trying to reveal are Lithuania legal regulation criterions are established to enable a separation of criminal liability for fraudulent accounting from negligent accounting. Initial hypothesis discussed, that the problem of separating fraudulent and negligent accounting management is a complicated interpretation of features. Perhaps due to the fact that the legislator has not specified Articles guilt forms and presented abstract consequences formulations made a provision that these two articles become independent from the subjective side and should be interpreted differently. Hence, it is assumed that the courts basis on different interpretations to classify these offenses therefore similar actual situations might be judged differently. For this reason there is a possibility that the person will be prosecuted differently in similar actual situation. In order to determine, if established criterions in Lithuanian legal regulation are enable to separate criminal liabilities for fraudulent accounting from negligent accounting, it is necessary to analyze and reveal if in theory described 222 and 223 offenses objective and subjective features separate these offenses; reveal and define “negligent” and “fraudulent” concepts; reveal and identify by which criteria court practice guides to separate 222 and 223 offenses; reveal if courts submitted criterions empowers to separate 222 and 223 offenses; compare Lithuanian regulations with foreign countries regulations, by revealing their differences and similarities; present conclusions and suggestions made during research, related with problems caused by separating 222 and 223 art. In the first part, based on literary sources analysis, was revealed that the problem of separating fraudulent and negligent accounting management offenses is a complicated interpretation of fault and consequences features. Fault attribute in fraudulent and negligent accounting management offenses was one of essential criteria trying to separate these two offenses one from another, however the court adopted provision that negligent, as well as fraudulent accounting offense, can be intentionally committed has led to wider variety of interpretations. The same can be also applied to consequences feature, which is abstract and independent of the subjective side, so it is difficult to judge actual person intentions. Also it was revealed \"fraudulent\" and \"negligent\" terms definitions, which were interpreted differently in literature sources. Fraudulent definition in accounting management is associated with intention to incorrectly register, to group and summarize transactions and events, so incorrect information is provided to the accounting users. Meanwhile, the definition of negligent accounting management is associated with the negligent acts in registration, grouping and summarizing transactions and events. In the second part, based on document analysis, Lithuanian judicial jurisprudence were analyzed. In case that constituent elements of 222 and 223 were more identical rather than different. Based on systematic analysis was revealed what criterions the Court uses to separate those offenses. However it is noted, that the courts variously interpreters similar factual situations, so the person may be punished differently for same offense. Nevertheless, other revealed possible separation criteria, which altogether could help to separate such offenses, are: amount of damage, clarifying accomplices, intensity of acts, purpose to evade tax and responsible people qualifications. In the third part, using comparative method, were compared LR BK Articles 222 and 223 offenses with German, Sweden and Estonia terminated accounting offenses cases. In this part were revealed similarities and differences. However it was revealed that Lithuania regulation differs from other compared countries. All three countries statutes has established guilt forms. Both in Germany and in Sweden can be prosecuted for fraudulent and negligent account management offenses, meanwhile in Estonia prosecution only applied for fraudulent account management offenses. In Estonia consequences feature “significantly reduced” is clearer. As the responsible Estonian authority said, that feature helps to separate minor accounting management violations from liability regime. It can be said that it requires the least interpretation as well as least the extension of criminal liability limits, so there is a minimum risk of making mistakes classifying the acts. In this case, in Estonia established features are clearly defined and requires minimal interpretation, without extending prosecuting limits. Initial hypothesis has been only partially proved, i.e. not enough criterions were presented to separate 222 and 223 offenses, but if court assesses responsible people qualification, intensity of acts, complicity possibility, purpose to evade tax and amount of damage made, those two offenses can be separated.
Internet: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/121194
Affiliation(s): Teisės fakultetas
Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas
Appears in Collections:VDU, ASU ir LEU iki / until 2018

Files in This Item:
Show full item record
Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats
Export to Other Non-XML Formats


CORE Recommender

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.