Ar esami nusikalstamų veikų - kyšininkavimo (LR BK 225 str.) ir prekybos poveikiu (LR BK 226 str.) - atribojimo kriterijai leidžia tinkamai pritaikyti baudžiamąjį įstatymą?

Nemažėjant nusikalstamų veikų valstybės tarnybai ir viešiesiems interesams, išskirtinai kyšininkavimo ir prekybos poveikiu veikų, mokslinėje literatūroje keliama šių dviejų veikų atribojimo problema. Teigiama, jog dėl panašių veikų sudėties požymių tampa sudėtinga veikas atriboti ir tinkamai pritaikyti baudžiamąjį įstatymą. Atsiradę įvairūs vertinamieji kriterijai, teismų yra skirtingai interpretuojami ir įgalina prisitaikyti prie konkretaus atvejo aplinkybių. Tokiu būdu formuojasi nevienoda teismų praktika, kuri sukuria įstatymo taikymo spragas. Išanalizavus mokslinę literatūrą, teisinį reglamentavimą bei teismų praktiką, nustatyta, jog kyšininkavimas savo esme panašus į pasyviąją prekybą poveikiu, todėl pagrindiniai nusikalstamų veikų, numatytų LR Baudžiamojo kodekso 225 ir 226 straipsniuose, atribojimo kriterijai yra objektyvieji nusikalstamų veikų požymiai. Vienodas nusikalstamų veikų objekto ir dalyko aiškinimas veikų teisingam kvalifikavimui neturi jokios įtakos. Probleminę sritį sudaro tokių požymių kaip subjekto, aplinkybės, dėl kurios padaroma nusikalstama veika, ir tarpininko vaidmens atliekant nusikalstamą veiką nustatymas. Visgi, išanalizavus teismų praktiką pagal nustatytus atribojimo kriterijus darytina išvada, jog teismams didelių sunkumų siekiant atskirti veikas nekyla. Sprendžiant klausimą dėl subjekto nustatymo remiamasi nuostata, jog prekybos poveikiu normos taikymui, kaip kad kyšininkavimo atveju, nėra privalomas specialaus subjekto požymis ir asmuo nebūtinai turi būti valstybės tarnautojas ar jam prilygintas asmuo. Be kita ko, siekiama nustatyti, koks santykis – dvišalis ar trišalis – susiklosto tarp veikoje dalyvaujančių asmenų. Kyšininkavimo normos taikymas paremtas tuo, jog veikoje dalyvauja kyšį duodantis ir jį priimantis asmuo, o prekybos poveikiu veikoje – poveikio pirkėjas, poveikio pardavėjas ir paveikiamasis. Taip pat veikų kvalifikavimui svarbu nustatyti ir tarpininko vaidmenį: ar jis tik tarpininkavo perduodamas kyšį ar naudojosi savo turima įtaka pažadėdamas paveikti atitinkamus valstybės pareigūnus. Visų požymių nustatymas teismus įgalina tinkamai pritaikyti baudžiamąjį įstatymą. Darytina išvada, jog išanalizavus mokslinę literatūrą ir teismų praktiką bei įvertinus, kaip praktikoje atribojami panašūs veikų sudėties požymiai, nekyla problemų siekiant veikas vieną nuo kitos atskirti ir tinkamai kvalifikuoti kyšininkavimo ir prekybos poveikiu normą.

Control of corruptive crimes and legal regulation thereof is one the priority fields in the legislation which seeks to anticipate and criminalize manifestation of corruption crimes. The increase number of criminal acts related to corruption offenses, particular of bribery and trading in influence, raises the challenge to delimit these two acts and appropriately apply the criminal law, which is not capable for adjusting to quickly evolving social, economic, cultural changes. To appropriately apply the criminal law, the courts have different interpretations and different assessment measures empowering to change in accordance with the conditions of a particular case arise. This work examines the composition of articles on bribery and trading in influence. Bribery is one of oldest the corruptive criminal offenses which includes both active and passive bribery. It provides liability for the promising or agreeing to accept a bribe, demanding or provoking a bribe or accepting a bribe. Trading in influence which is considered as a specific form of passive and active bribery is provided for in the criminal law of the Republic of Lithuania, as a result of fulfilment of international obligations regarding regulation of corruptive crimes. It provides for criminal liability for an individual who taking advantage of his influence seeks to influence public officials that they act in favour of interest of bribe – giver. A case – law notices the issue of criteria recognizing between bribery and trading in influence. The crime intended in Article 225 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania is essentially similar to the influence of passive trading provides for in Article 226 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. Following the survey of scientific literature, legal regulation and case-law, it is resolved that the fundamental distinctive measures of the criminal acts accommodated in Articles 225, 226 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania are on the objective side of crime. The identical interpretation of the object and subject matter of criminal offenses does not affect the classification of offenses. The problem area consists of the determination of the subject, the circumstances leading to the commission of the offense and the role of the mediator in the commission of the offense. However, an analysis of the case-law according to the established delimitation criteria leads to the conclusion that the courts do not face significant difficulties in distinguishing between the Criminal Code of Lithuania acts. Firstly, deciding on the identification of the subject, it is important that for the bribery offense is mandatory the criteria of a special subject and in order for the effect trading in influence, a person does not necessarily have to be a civil servant or other equivalent person. That person must have some probable influence with the aim of influencing the person corresponding to the characteristics of the special subject. Secondly, the circumstance leading to a criminal offense is the bilateral and tripartite relationship between the subjects of the crime. The application of the bribery norm is based on the fact that two subjects are involved in the crime – the person giving the bribe and the person accepting it, who must comply with the characteristics of a special subject. There are 3 subjects that trading in influence involve – the person who buys the influence, the person who sells it, which is seeking to influence the third person that he acts in favor of interest of the bribe giver. Lastly, the role of mediator in the commission of the crime. The bribery norm applies when the function of mediator is only to pass a bribe to a civil servant or a person considered as such. In case of the trading in influence, the person trading the influence is not just the person passing the bribe. He accepts the bribe himself and using his influence, promises to influence the person who acts in favor of interests of the bribe-giver. The role of the mediator in the commission of the offense must be determined in the light of all the circumstances of the case and in determining whether the person merely mediated by passing over a bribe or used his influence by promising to influence the specific public officials. According to the case law, in determining all the criteria enables the courts properly apply criminal law. The objective imposition of the sentence is conceivable after the appropriate use of the criminal law and the legitimate classification of the criminal act. The execution of the sentence requires clear and unambiguous rules that would empower to separate criminal acts, the attributes of which are alike. To sum up, it can be stated that that the criteria defined in theory for distinguishing between bribery and trading in influence are successfully applied in case law as well. It is assumed that with regards to the arrangement of criminal offenses under Article 225 of Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania or Article 226 of the Criminal Code, the separation of the criminal acts performed by courts ought to consider the conditions such as subject, the circumstances leading to the commission of the offense and the role of the mediator in the commission of the offense. In the wake of investigating the scientific literature and case – law, it can be stated that there are no problems in distinguishing norms from each other and properly qualifying the bribery and trading in influence.