Use this url to cite publication: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/129166
Options
Neteisėtas praturtėjimas: lūkesčiai ir realijos
Type of publication
Straipsnis kitoje duomenų bazėje / Article in other database (S4)
Author(s)
Mykolo Romerio universitetas |
Title
Neteisėtas praturtėjimas: lūkesčiai ir realijos
Other Title
Illicit enrichment: expectations and realities
Is part of
Visuomenės saugumas ir viešoji tvarka : mokslinių straipsnių rinkinys [elektroninis išteklius] = Public security and public order : scientific articles. Kaunas : Mykolo Romerio universiteto Viešojo saugumo fakultetas, 2013, T. 9
Date Issued
Date Issued |
---|
2013 |
Publisher
Kaunas : Mykolo Romerio universiteto Viešojo saugumo fakultetas
Extent
p. 272-284
Field of Science
Abstract
In 2010, Lithuania criminal legislation was truly "rich". Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania in 2010 has been amended nine times. These changes culminated the Criminal Code amendment, which established new criminal law institute extended confiscation of property, and criminalized a new offense illicit enrichment. Illicit enrichment was established in the article 1891 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. The article provides for that a person who possesses property of value of more than 65000 Litas knowing that this property could not be acquired by lawful income, should be punished with a fine, arrest or deprivation of liberty up to four years. According to the novelty, a person is considered as committing a crime if he cannot justify the lawfulness of the acquisition of the property he possesses. In addition the law requires that a person knows that their property cannot be acquired by lawful means. The main aim of this amendment was to prevent corruption, economical, financial and other acquisitive crimes and to make these offenses less attractive for the offenders. Immediately after the entry into force of the mentioned Law it received a lot of critic. The main arguments of the critics were that the norm of illicit enrichment violates the principle of the presumption of innocence and the principle of the proportionality. Also some scientists and practices blamed the amendment for its uncertainty. However not all arguments of the critics are well grounded. To authors mind, suspects have the same rights to testify as in all other offenses. In such cases first of all the law enforcement authorities collect all evidence about the person’s legal incomes, property and only later expresses suspicion. So in such situation the suspects right to decide what kind of defense to choose, active or passive. But the author agrees that the norm of the illicit enrichment is not as comprehensible as it should be. [...]
Straipsnyje analizuojama Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamajame kodekse įtvirtinta, sąlyginai nauja, neteisėto praturtėjimo norma, skirta kovai su neteisėtomis pajamomis ir korupcija. Apžvelgiamos teisinės prielaidos ir siekti tikslai, įtakoję šios normos įtvirtinimą baudžiamajame įstatyme. Atsižvelgiant į tai, kad diskusijos dėl šios normos įtvirtinimo tikslingumo ir jos juridinės konstrukcijos ydingumo nesibaigia jau keli metai, apžvelgiami pagrindiniai kritikų argumentai bei nagrinėjamas jų pagrįstumas. Straipsnyje analizuojami normos taikymo rezultatai bei pagrindinės priežastys įtakojusios tai, kad iki šiol nėra pateisinti tikslai, kurių buvo tikimasi šią veiką kriminalizuojant. Taip pat identifikuojamos pagrindinės praktinio neteisėto praturtėjimo normos taikymo problemos ir ieškomi jų sprendimo būdai. Straipsnyje apžvelgiami pastaraisiais mėnesiais vykstantys teisėkūros procesai, kuriais siekiama padidinti kovos su neteisėtu praturtėjimu efektyvumą.
Type of document
type::text::journal::journal article::research article
Language
Lietuvių / Lithuanian (lt)
Coverage Spatial
Lietuva / Lithuania (LT)