Ar esama kyšio samprata Lietuvos Respublikos Baudžiamajame kodekse atitinka legalumo principą?

Iki 2011 m. kyšis Lietuvoje suprantamas kaip turtinės naudos gavimas, t.y. materialūs dalykai ar materialinės paslaugos. Siekiant įgyvendinti tarptautinių organizacijų teikiamas rekomendacijas bei atitikti tarptautinių konvencijų keliamas nuostatas, kyšio samprata įtvirtinama baudžiamajame įstatyme ir išplečiama: kyšis pradedamas aiškinti kaip turtinė ar neturtinė asmeninė nauda. Nors įstatymų leidėjas tiesiogiai perkeldamas ratifikuotų konvencijų nuostatas siekė palengvinti kaltinimo institucijų bei teismų įrodinėjimą, efektyviau kovoti su korupcija, toks įstatymas praktikoje sunkiai taikomas. Taigi šiame magistro darbe išanalizuoti teisės aktus, teismų praktiką bei teisės doktriną, tam, kad atskleisti kyšio istorinę raidą, esminius esamos kyšio sampratos elementus bei atsakoma į pagrindinį probleminį klausimą, ar esama kyšio samprata atitinka legalumo principą. Atlikta analizė parodė, kad esama kyšio samprata neatitinka legalumo principo. Legalumo principo pagrindiniai kriterijai – įstatymas turi būti aiškus bei tikslus, tam, kad visuomenė suprastų koks veikimas ar neveikimas yra draudžiamas ir kokios gali būti sankcijos. Šiuo atveju tiek visuomenei, tiek įstatymus taikančiom institucijom lieka neaišku, ką ši sąvoka gali apimti, kokios yra taikymo ribos bei kaip bus kvalifikuojama nusikalstama veika, kokiu būdu bus nustatoma kyšio dydžio vertė. Taip pat teismai, spręsdami galimą neturtinio kyšininkavimo atvejį, bus įpareigoti ne vien aiškinti, bet ir atlikti įstatymų leidėjo darbą, t.y. detalizuoti įstatymą bei nustatyti taikymo ribas, remiantis pagrindiniais baudžiamosios teisės principais.

Corruption is a negative phenomenon that leads to losing trust of government or other institutions, questioning the work of these institutions, and the impartiality and transparency of decisions making. Corruptive criminal activities are considered latent, because both parties have an interest in acting criminally, seeks to benefit and conceals criminal acts, which makes it difficult to detect the crime and determine criminal liability. In order to stop the spread of the corruption, international acts of the law are accepted, which are ratified by the majority of the states and respectively and respectively adjusting their criminal laws. Despite this, requiring the legal regulation to function effectively, it is very important to clearly and precisely submit dispositions, essential concepts and sanctions of the criminal law. When analyzing historical development of concept of the bribe, it is noticeable that most of the time bribe was linked with the benefit of property, i.e. material things and material services. Definition of the bribe was not formulated in The Criminal code. It was developed by the practices of the courts and doctrine of the law. Seeking to accomplish recommendations of international organizations and to conform provisions of international conventions, the concept of the bribe is established and expanded in criminal law. Currently the concept of the bribe is explained broadly including any kind of received benefit (not only material benefit but also not material personal benefit) and not including any, additional features. Thus seeking to increase consistency of the bribery incrimination whereas the market value cannot be determined due to the uniqueness of some items and this way seeking to ensure the liability for any expensive bribe for recipient. It is noticeable, that this broad definition the bribe is also submitted in in criminal laws of the other The European Union countries. Though legislator, by directly transferring provisions of the Convention, tried to facilitate institutions of allegations and substantiation of the courts, to combat with corruption more efficiently. However this law practice is hardly applicable. Currently, no practice has been formed and no clear limits have been set as to who may fall within the concept of non-pecuniary bribe, however the analysis of Conventions commentary, other countries Criminal Codes, international organization recommendation and scientific papers allow to state that current concept of bribe includes any type of property or ant type of personal gain, which has an exceptional value ( not economical value) only to the recipient of the bribe (diploma, gratitude, good feedback, honorary award, etc.). However, the law must be so clear that personal could understand what actions are illegal and what is forbidden or otherwise allowed. Otherwise, if the law is very abstract, it is contrary to the principles of criminal law, there is a risk of improperly punishing a person. The question is, are the laws on corruption really clear? Does the new concept of bribe comply with the principle of legality? This Master`s work seeks to answer the question, does the current concept of bribery complies with the principle of legality? The principle of legality is divided into for different elements (certa, stricta, praevia, scripta). Seeking to answer the main question, the important elements are: nullum crimen sine lege certa and nullum crimen sine lege stricta. The first element is identified as the principle of legal certainty and legal clearness in practice and legal doctrine. This principle requires that the norm is clear and precise, so that the person can understand what actions can be prosecuted and what punishment can be applied, also that the institutions applying the law have a clear understanding of the limits of the non-pecuniary bribe. The act must be clear, so that the law could be predictable, officials and other institutions could understand how to apply the law and legal regulation would not seem ambiguous. Nullum crimen sine lege stricta closely related with nullum crimen sine lege certa. Nullum crimen sine lege stricta prohibits the application of any analogy in criminal proceedings to the detriment of the accused. In legal doctrine, the delimiting of the concepts of analogy of law and interpretation of law raises a lot of debate. In order to delimiting these two concepts, the purpose should be assessed and if the goal is to create a new law, then it is an analogy. However, the explanation of law and the analogy of law are two different concepts. Explanation of law is a positive thing. Thus, a narrowing and expanding explanation of law is distinguished in the science of criminal law. When using expanding or narrowing method of explanation, it is important not to cross boundaries of the principle of nullum crimen sine lege stricta, i.e. not to expand or narrow the law in such a way that the situation of the accused person could be worsen. An analysis of legislation, case law and legal doctrine allow to state that the current concept of bribe does not comply with the principle of legality. The current legal regulation is unclear, raising debate as to what might fall within the definition of a non-pecuniary bribe and, to what extent the law should be applied, since the definition of bribe is not detailed. These offenses can be qualified to a wide range of subjects, both public and private public servants and persons treated as such. It should be noted that at present the classification of an act is determined by the value of the bribe, therefore it is not clear according to which part of the criminal law the criminal deed should be classified. Thus, the current concept of bribe raises many questions and is unclear. It is understood that the legislator does not have the opportunity to define or elaborate all possible situations, and courts often have to explain laws or the intentions of the legislator on the basis of respective principles of criminal law. Also, when deciding a possible case of non-material bribery, courts will be obligated not only to explain, but also to elaborate the law and to establish the limits of application, thus, in principle, to perform the work of the legislator. Thus, the hypothesis of this work that the existing concept of bribe does not comply with the principle of legality has been proven.