| Abstract: | Magistro darbo tema - „ar pagal Lietuvoje esantį reglamentavimą pripažinus įmonės bankrotą tyčiniu, tačiau neiškėlus baudžiamosios bylos įmonės vadovams, toks sprendimas laikomas pagrįstu?“ Šio darbo tikslas - išanalizuoti tyčinio ir nusikalstamo bankroto teisinį santykį bei vadovo baudžiamosios atsakomybės taikymo sąlygas. Darbas susideda iš keturių dalių.
Pirmoje dalyje nagrinėjama tyčinio bankroto samprata ir požymiai. Tyčinio bankroto reglamentavimas keitėsi 2013 metais, todėl įstatyme jau yra aiškiai nurodyti požymiai ir prezumpcijos padedančios teismams tinkamai kvalifikuoti įmonės bankrotą, tačiau tyčinio bankroto kvalifikavimas vis dar sukelia problemų. Todėl galima daryti išvadą, jog tyčinis bankrotas nėra naujas reiškinys, tačiau nurodyti kriterijai, kuriems esant galima pripažinti įmonės bankrotą tyčiniu nėra galutinai apibrėžti, tuo labiau - praktikoje tyčinio bankroto pasekmėmis bei rezultatais nėra pasinaudojama.
Antroje dalyje nustatyta, kad įmonės vadovui gali būti taikoma tam tikros rūšies atsakomybė. Nagrinėjant tyčinio bankroto požymius neretai teismams iškyla klausimas ir dėl nusikalstamo bankroto inkriminavimo įmonės vadovui, tačiau ši veika gali būti inkriminuojama tik tuo atveju, jei vadovas sąmoningai blogai valdė įmonę ir padarė didelės turtinės žalos kreditoriams. Tačiau nagrinėjant bylą paaiškėjus, kad kreditoriams padaryta žala neviršija 150 MGL, nusikalstamas bankrotas negali būti inkriminuojamas įmonės vadovui. Šiame darbe taip pat analizuotos ir kitos BK nurodytos veikos, kurios gali užtraukti vadovui baudžiamąją atsakomybę. Ikiteisminio tyrimo metu paaiškėjus šiame darbe nurodytoms aplinkybėms, tyrimas privalo būti nutraukiamas ir įmonės vadovui baudžiamoji atsakomybė negali būti taikoma.
Trečioje dalyje nagrinėjama civilinės ir baudžiamosios atsakomybės atribojimo problematika. Šioje dalyje nustatyta, kad įmonės bankroto atveju prioritetas teikiamas civilinei, o ne baudžiamąjai atsakomybei, nes bankroto teisiniai santykiai savo esme dažniausiai yra ekonominio pobūdžio. Todėl teismo sprendimas pripažinti įmonės bankrotą tyčiniu, tačiau nepatraukti įmonės vadovo baudžiamojon atsakomybėn yra laikomas teisėtu ir pagrįstu.
Ketvirtoje dalyje lyginama užsienio valstybių (Ispanijos ir Slovėnijos) įmonių vadovų atsakomybės reglamentavimas su esančiu Lietuvoje.
Todėl atlikus tyrimą šiame darbe pasitvirtino kelta hipotezė, kad įmonės tyčinio bankroto pripažinimas nebūtinai užtraukia baudžiamąją atsakomybę įmonės vadovui.
Master’s thesis is “If According to Regulations Effective in Lithuania, the Company’s Bankruptcy was Found to be Deliberate, but Criminal Proceedings Were Not Started Against the Management of the Company, what Decision Should Be Considered Reasonable?” The objective of this paper is to analyse the legal relationship between deliberate and criminal bankruptcy and the conditions of applying criminal liability to the head of the company.
Company bankruptcy is not a new phenomenon in the Lithuanian legal system but when courts settle the issue of declaring a bankruptcy as deliberate, problems arise. The Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy of the Republic of Lithuania specifies what is to be considered a deliberate bankruptcy, however it is not always possible to clearly distinguish the features and causes specified in the law, which is why when settling cases of deliberate bankruptcy, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the courts to accurately qualify it. One of the most significant changes to the regulation of deliberate bankruptcy was made in 2013, when a new revision of the Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy was passed, as the law now included clearly defined features and presumptions aiding the courts in appropriately qualifying a company’s bankruptcy. Analysis of case-law shows that even though the features for qualifying deliberate bankruptcy are provided, it remains problematic. Even though parts 2 and 3 of article 20 of the Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy of the Republic of Lithuania include features and presumptions of deliberate bankruptcy, when courts are deciding on whether to declare a company’s bankruptcy as deliberate, it is necessary to ascertain all of the causes to the bankruptcy of that company. Analysis of case-law also shows that the number of opened cases of deliberate bankruptcy is quickly increasing but there are have not been many decisions to declare a company’s bankruptcy deliberate. Therefore, it can be concluded that deliberate bankruptcy is not a new phenomenon but the provided criteria according to which a company’s bankruptcy may be declared deliberate are not defined in a finite manner, and especially in practice, the consequences and results of deliberate bankruptcy are often failed to make use of.
Often the head of the company is responsible for the management of the company, and therefore their actions or damage caused to the operation or assets of the company may incur certain types of liability: disciplinary, administrative, civil or criminal. Usually, civil liability applies to the head of the company for causing bankruptcy, however, in the presence of features of a criminal bankruptcy, criminal liability may also apply. Analysis of case-law suggests that courts run into problems when separating civil and criminal liability. It is important to stress that if a court declares a company’s bankruptcy to be deliberate, the issue of the liability of the head of the company is not immediately settled. If a decision is made to declare a company’s bankruptcy deliberate, the court has an obligation to address a respective institution on starting a pre-trial investigation. Therefore, it can be concluded that the head of the company, in performing their actions, must evaluate all possible risks and avoid taking advantage of their position.
After a company’s bankruptcy has been declared deliberate, the issue of applying article 209 of the Criminal Code (CC) of the Republic of Lithuania is also often discussed, but in the recorded case-law, criminal liability is rarely applied to the head of the company after declaring the bankruptcy of their company deliberate. This activity may be incriminated onto the head of the company only in the case where their actions show a conscious mismanagement of the company and significant material damage is caused to the creditors. According to article 212 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, significant damage is considered to be a sum that exceeds 150 MLS. In case of company insolvency, creditors may also suffer significant material damage, but if the fault of the head of the company is not established as the cause of the damage, the issue of applying criminal liability according to article 208 of the Criminal Code may not be settled.
Criminal liability may also apply to the head of the company for attempts to perform a criminal bankruptcy, since if the person had the goal to perform the activity defined in article 209 of the Criminal Code but failed due to circumstances that are out of their power, the overlapping part 1 of article 22 and article 209 of the Criminal Code may be applied to the head of the company.
Criminal liability may also apply to the head of the company if there are indications that they perform their duties improperly or do not perform them at all, or exceed their authority, or otherwise seek to worsen the state of the company. This paper also analysed other activities defined in the Criminal Code that may incur criminal liability for the head of company, i.e. Embezzlement (CC article 184), Asset misappropriation (CC article 183), as well as Deceptive management of accounting (CC article 222). Criminal liability for the violations of Deceptive management of accounting specified in article 222 of the Criminal Code may only be applied to the head of the company in the case where they themselves manage the financial accounting rather than being responsible for organising said management. Criminal liability of the head of the company is regulated by the CC, but the indicators provided in the article 2 of the Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy are also closely related to the criminal activities specified in the CC. If a pre-trial investigation uncovers circumstances specified in article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code , as well as other circumstances described in this paper, the procedure has to be terminated and criminal liability may not be applied to the head of the company. Therefore, before reaching a decision, the court has to evaluate all of the circumstances.
This paper also analyses the issues of separating civil and criminal liability. It has been ascertained that in the case of company bankruptcy, priority is given to the civil rather than criminal liability, as the legal relationships of bankruptcy are usually economic in their nature. Therefore, the court decision to declare a company’s bankruptcy deliberate but to not apply criminal liability to the head of the company is considered legal and reasonable. |
