Ar BK1891 str. tyrimas neprieštarauja teisės į teisingą procesą principui?

Šiame darbe apžvelgiamas neteisėto praturtėjimo normos atsiradimas Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamajame įstatyme. 2010 m. gruodžio 11 d. įsigaliojo baudžiamojo kodekso pakeitimai , kuriais jis buvo papildytas 1891 straipsniu „Neteisėtas praturtėjimas“, numatančiu baudžiamąją atsakomybę tam, kas turėjo nuosavybės teise didesnės negu 500 MGL (dabar 25 000 eur) vertės turtą, žinodamas arba turėdamas ir galėdamas žinoti, kad tas turtas negalėjo būti įgytas teisėtomis pajamomis. Teismas kelis kartus per du metus po baudžiamojo įstatymo įsigaliojimo kreipėsi į Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinį Teismą (toliau – Konstitucinis Teismas) prašydamas ištirti, ar nėra prieštaravimo Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucijai. Tai rodo, kad galbūt ši norma nėra pakankamai konkreti ir aiški. Todėl šiame darbe, analizuojami BK 1891 straipsnio subjektyviosios ir objektyviosios pusės požymiai, aiškinama galiojimo laike doktrina, analizuojama ar ši veika nepažeidžia vieno iš svarbiausių baudžiamosios teisės principų – teisės į teisingą procesą principo. Darbe aptarinėjami tokio kriminalizavimo veikos konstitucingumo, pagrįstumo ir būtinumo, tinkamumo, atitikties „in dubio pro reo (visi neaiškumai ir netikslumai aiškinami kaltininko naudai)“ , argumentai. Remiamasi tiek Lietuvos tiek ir kitų šalių mokslininkų nuomonėmis, įvairiais Lietuvos bei užsienio šalių teisės aktais, Lietuvos ir Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismo praktikomis, Konstitucinio Teismo nutarimais, valstybės institucijų ataskaitomis. Darbe pateikiama BK 1891 straipsnio analizė, jo atitiktis aukščiau išvardintiems kriterijams, pateikiamos rekomendacinio pobūdžio išvados.

This work reviews unjust enrichment as a new criminal norm appearing in the Republic of Lithuania’s Criminal law, and its act’s equivalent to the principle of the right to a just process. On December 2nd 2010, changes to the Penal Code came into effect when it was updated with Chapter No XI-1199, which criminalized unjust enrichment (the Chapter’s wording took effect on 11/12/2010.) The content of this crime is the owning of assets that cannot be grounded on legal income and foresees criminal liability by fine or arrest, or imprisonment for up to four years to those who had assets worth more than the minimum subsistence figure of 500 by proprietary, while knowing or having and likely knowing that the assets could not be purchased by legal income. Based on law No XI-1199 of 11/12/2010, (Official Gazette 2010, No 145-7439), according to the Code’s article 1891, the only people to be prosecuted are those who gained ownership of the assets with the identified features in Chapter 1891 after law XI-1199 came into effect, i.e. after 11/12/2010. The aim of such a measure is defined in the law’s explanatory note as a means of general and special prevention, which has to decrease the appeal and profitability of criminal offences and deprive the opportunity from individuals and/or criminal groups to commit new criminal offences. In two years since the criminal law came into effect, the court applied to the Constitutional Court of Lithuania (hereafter – the Constitutional Court) twice with a request to investigate if there was a contrariety to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. These Court appliances presuppose the assumption that this new norm is perhaps not sufficiently specific and clear. Therefore, this work analyzes the features of PC Chapter 1891 subjective and objective sides’, the Chapter’s equivalent concerning the presumption of innocence, the doctrine of the period of validity is explained. It is also stated that the judgement of whether this offence violates the principle of the right to a just process includes the emphasis of substantive law, but not always emphasizes the criminal proceedings, which determine legality; also an analysis of whether the new norm of unjust enrichment meets the requirements of legal technique for legislation, which determine whether this norm violates the fundamental principles of criminal law. The violation of the right to a just process is possible when looking to the actual definition of criminal offence - PC Chapter 1891 foresees responsibility for owning assets, not for possibly illegal activities. If a person is accused of unjust enrichment, it does not mean that the accusation will be validated. The essence of this work states that the accused is not obligated to prove the legality of enrichment. To prove that the person owned assets by proprietary while knowing or having and likely knowing that the assets could not be purchased by legal income is the duty of the prosecutor, and the person’s inability to justify his assets by legal income is not a sufficient determination of guilt. The work analyzes the arguments for this criminalization’s validity and necessity, the offence’s constitutionality, suitability, compliance to in dubio pro reo and other principles of criminal law and criminal proceedings. The work refers to the opinions of Lithuania’s and other countries’ scientists, various legislations of Lithuania and foreign countries, the formed practices of the Lithuanian and European Court of Human Rights, the rulings of the Constitutional Court, the reports of public authorities. The work includes the analysis of PN Chapter 1891, its compliance to the criteria mentioned above, and conclusions in the form of a recommendation are provided.