|Abstract: ||Lietuvos teisiniame reglamentavime už neteisėtą vertimąsi ūkine, komercine, finansine ar profesine veikla yra numatytos dvi teisinės atsakomybės rūšys - baudžiamoji ir administracinė. Įvardintos abi normos savo turiniu yra beveik identiškos. Toks tai sukelia atribojimo problemų, kurios atsispindi prieštaringoje teismų praktikoje. Tyrimo objektas – ūkinės, komercinės, finansinės, profesinės veiklos reguliavimas Lietuvoje. Darbo tikslas – patikrinti ar Lietuvos Respublikos teisiniame reglamentavime įtvirtinti kriterijai įgalina atriboti baudžiamąją nuo administracinės atsakomybės už neteisėtą vertimąsi ūkine, komercine, finansine ar profesine veikla. Atliekant tyrimą buvo naudojami šie metodai: mokslinės literatūrinės analizė, lyginamoji analizė, dokumentų analizė, analitinis ir apibendrinimo. Analizuojamos veiklos yra suprantamos kaip ekonominę naudą teikiančios verslo formos. Esminis šių sampratų panašumas – pažeidimo būdai. Atsižvelgiant į LR BK 202 str. 1 d. ir LR ATPK 173 str. 1 d. objektyviuosius ir subjektyviuosius požymius, manytina, kad normos savo turiniu yra beveik identiškos. Esminiai šių normų panašumai yra veika ir versliškas pobūdis, o skirtumas - veikos masto požymis. Atsižvelgiant į dvigubą ekonominių veikų reglamentavimą, pažymėtina, kad tai buvo pastebėta ir užsienio valstybėse, pavyzdžiui, Estijoje, Latvijoje, Rusijoje. Atliekant Lietuvos ir užsienio valstybių teisinių normų lyginamąją analizę, buvo nustatyta, kad užsienio valstybėse įtvirtinti kriterijai įgalina atriboti baudžiamąją nuo administracinės atsakomybės už įvairių ekonominių veiklų pažeidimus, nes jų normos savo turiniu nėra tokios panašios kaip Lietuvoje įtvirtintos normos. Lengviausią šių atsakomybių atribojimą įgalina Rusijos Federacijoje numatytas reguliavimas. Lietuvos teismų praktikoje siekiant atriboti baudžiamąją nuo administracinės atsakomybės už minėtas veikas yra vadovaujamasi versliškumo ir stambaus masto kriterijais. Pažymėtina, kad kartais teismai siekdami atriboti šias dvi veiklas remiasi ir papildomais požymiais, t. y. parengiamųjų darbų atlikimu, didelės organizacinės pastangos bei kt. Remiantis prieštaringą teismų praktikos analizę, manytina, kad baudžiamosios ir administracinės atsakomybės už neteisėtą vertimąsi ūkine, komercine, finansine ar profesine veikla, atribojimas vadovaujantis tik stambiu mastu ar tik versliškumu yra sąlyginis.|
For illegal economic, commercial, financial or professional activities, the Lithuanian legal regulation provides for two types of legal liability, i.e. criminal and administrative. Criminal liability is governed by Article 202, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, and administrative liability is provided for in Article 173, Paragraph 1 of Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Lithuania. The norms of both legal liabilities in respect of their content are almost identical. Such regulation of two analogous norms in the different codes of law branches requires a clear definition of the criteria according to which the division between the criminal and administrative liability for those acts can be found. When applying some form of legal liability it is important to take into account the gravity of the offence. In the Republic of Lithuania, legal liability for offenders who illegally engage in economic, commercial, financial or professional activities, both in the Criminal Code and in accordance with the Administrative Code, arises when the illegality of the actions is proven, such illegality in the case law is linked to activities for which the persons must have necessary licenses or permits. Criminal liability under the said paragraph arises only when it is determined that the offender carried out the illegal activities for business purposes or on a large scale. These criteria for criminal liability are alternative, which implies that for such liability it is sufficient to prove at least one of the mentioned criteria. According to the existing legal regulation, failing to prove any of the above criteria, the persons who have been illegally engaged in economic, commercial, financial or professional activities are subject to administrative liability. According to the said paragraph of Code of Administrative Offences it becomes clear that the administrative liability for offenders arises for the illegal activities. One of the most important criterion according to which the criminal liability is delimited from the administrative liability is the illegal activities for business purposes or on a large scale. However, it is noted that in the case law the problems arise when trying to delimit the criminal liability from the administrative one for activities based on entrepreneurship and large scale criteria. The main problem is the identical interpretation of the concepts “taking the activities for business purposes” and “engaging in activities” in the case law, because they both are treated based on recurrent illegal activities and fixed income received from such activities. This problem is also emphasized in the legal literature, as the interpretation of the concepts for entrepreneurship and engaging in activities based on the same features makes the delimitation of criminal and administrative liabilities almost impossible. Such analogous interpretation and explanation of the two concepts make the delimitation of the criminal and administrative liabilities for illegal economic, commercial, financial or professional activities even more complicated. In assessment of the entrepreneurship feature, as the delimitation criterion of the two types of legal liability, it can be said that the limits are not defined, therefore assessing whether the mentioned feature is present in the offenders acts, the court has to rely on its inner conviction, which leads to the assumption that this is one of the reasons why the judicial practice is not uniform. Consequently, the case law shows that if the entrepreneurship feature is found in the acts of offenders both the criminal and the administrative liabilities can be applied. Another criterion which is followed by courts trying to delimit the criminal and the administrative liability is a large scale. In defining the above criteria, the case law is guided by a systematic interpretation of the law, according to which a large scale is recognized only in cases where the income of the offenders received from the illegal activities carried out or the value of the goods that were not entered into accounts exceeds the amount of 500 MSL. If it is determined that the illegal activities were carried out on a large scale, the offenders are subject to criminal liability. However, it is important to mention that in cases when it is determined that individuals were engaged in illegal activities and received income or did not enter the goods into accounts according to the procedure and the value of such goods does not exceed the amount of 500 MSL, such offenders are subject to administrative liability. However, it is important to mention that the case law does not apply criminal liability in all cases where the personal income received from the illegal activities exceeds the amount of 500 MSL. In assessment of the large scale criterion it is necessary to take into account not only the amount of the income received and the value of the goods that were not entered into accounts according to the procedure, but it is also important to take into account whether the activity was carried out more than once, because in the classification of illegal activities under Article 202, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, it is very important to determine a permanent operation of illegal activities. Such permanent performance demonstrates the offender's desire and purpose to constantly engage in illegal economic, commercial, financial or professional activities and to derive maximum financial gain. In view of such assessment of a large scale as a criterion of criminal and administrative liability, it can be stated that in such case if a person engaged only once in one of the mentioned activities, and the amount of income received is in excess of 500 MSL, then the offender will not be subject to criminal liability. Therefore, it is important to properly assess the circumstances of each case. Both the legal literature and the case law assess the entrepreneurship of the activities and a large scale as alternatives, i.e. the autonomous and independent of each other delimitation criteria of criminal and administrative liability for illegal economic, commercial, financial or professional activities. However, in view of the case law where the entrepreneurship is linked to the permanent nature of the activity and to stable income, but at the same time on the contrary is interpreted as a sign showing an increased scale of the criminal activity, and the same large scale criterion according to the systematic interpretation of the law is determined when the income received by the unlawful ways or the value of the goods that were not entered into accounts exceeds the set limit of 500 MSL, however when identifying this feature it is necessary to prove the operational continuity. In view of this controversial case law it is necessary to write a scientific work and to determine Whether Lithuanian Legal Regulation Criteria Allows to Dissociate Punitive Responsibility from Adminstrative Responsibility for Unauthorized Engagement in Economic, Commercial, Financial or Professional Activities.