Ar nusikalstamo bankroto atveju kaltininko veiksmai turi būti papildomai kvalifikuojami kaip sukčiavimas kreditorių atžvilgiu?

Abstract

Magistro baigiamojo darbo tema – ar nusikalstamo bankroto atveju kaltininko veiksmai turi būti papildomai kvalifikuojami kaip sukčavimas kreditorių atžvilgiu? Ši tema šiai dienai aktuali, nes Lietuvoje pastebima, kaip daugėja nusikalstamų bankrotų, kurių siekiai būna ne tiksukelti bankrotą, bet kartu pasipelnyti bei išvengti susikaupusių skolų išieškojimo. Oatsiradusteismų praktikoje tokiai problemai pastebėtina, jog nėra vieningos nuomonės sprendžiant šiuos klausimus. Nusikalstamo bankroto dispozicijoje veika apibrėžta kaip “sąmoningai blogas įmonės valdymas”, kurio pasekmės – įmonės bankrotas ir didelė turtinė žala kreditoriams. Dažniausiai per šią veiką yra padaromos kitos nusikalstamos veikos.Todėl šiame darbe nagrinėjama, ar ši nusikalstama veika gali būti kaltininkui inkriminuojama papildomai kaip sukčiavimas išvengiant turtinės prievolės. Pirmoje šio darbo dalyje buvo analizuojamas tyčinio bankroto turinys, aptarta teismų praktika bei jo reglamentavimas įmonių bankroto įstatyme. Didesnis dėmesys buvo skiriamas LR BK 209 str. analizei. Aptarti nusikalstamo bankroto objektyvieji ir subjektyvieji požymiai, jų reglamentavimas Lietuvoje, išanalizuota sąvoka, kuo pasireiškia - „sąmoningai blogas valdymas“. Antroje šio baigiamojo darbo dalyje buvo aptartos sukčiavimo dispozicijoje suformuluotos keturios alternatyvos veikos, jų padariniai, priežastinis ryšys bei kiti objektyvieji ir subjektyvieji požymiai. Trečioje magistro baigiamojo darbo dalyje dėmesys buvo skiriamas vienai sukčiavimo veikai –turtinės prievolės išvengimui, kuris pasireiškiantis nusikalstamo bankroto metu veikos padarymo būdu – apgaule. Teismų praktikoje pastebima, jogteismams yra sunku inkriminuoti sukčiavimąišvengiant turtinės prievolės, nes nusistovėjusiaiteoriniai klasikinio sukčiavimo praktikai iškyla daug problemų, kaip tinkamai pritaikyti sukčiavimą išvengiant turtinės prievolės. Sunkios ekonominės padėties įmonės vadovas priima sprendimus, dėl kurių bendrovė tampa nemoki ir būtent šito siekia.Šiuo atveju darbe buvo nagrinėjama, kokie kaltininko veiksmai atskleidžia jo norą išvengti turtinės prievolės, koks kaltininko tyčios turinys - ar ji susiformavo būtent tam, kad išvengtų mokėjimų kreditoriams, kokie apgaulės panaudojimo būdai norint išvengti turtinės prievolės, kuri pasireiškia tuo, kad iki bankroto bylos iškėlimo apgaule sukuriama fiktyvi teisinė padėtis, kadbendrovė tampa beturtė, o jau po bankroto procedūros visos skolos yra nurašomos.

This topic is relevant today, because it has been noticed that in Lithuania there are increasing number of criminal bankruptcies, whose purpose is not only to profit, but also to avoid accumulated debts exaction. The case – law studies show that when this problem occurs nobody qualifies it as fraud avoiding material obligations, because applying Lithuania’s highest Court theoretical explanation, there appears many problems in practice which prevents applying it. Often there is debate on whether the offense meets all the characteristics of fraud, so this paper analyzes the possibility of additional qualification. When bankruptcy is determined not by failing of business, but by deliberate actions of company which is intermediate consequence, because of poor management occurring bankruptcy status has to be the reason of serious cause damage to the creditors. Given the rate of criminal bankruptcy, we notice that this in this composition the legislators priority was to protect the interests of creditors. Creditor protection of the interests of the debtor's insolvency has been the subject of legal regulation since immemorial times. Therefore, taking into account the modern criminal law regulation, is no exception. In the Republic of Lithuania Criminal Code Article 209, it is indicated: those who deliberately poorly managed the company, led company to bankruptcy and caused significant property damage to creditors. At the disposal of this articleact defined as "deliberately bad business management", which consequences are company bankruptcy and great material damage to creditors. During this criminal activity, material liability is usually avoided. Therefore criminal bankruptcy may be closely associated with fraud. According to the Republic of Lithuania Criminal Code Article 182, paragraph 1: those, who gained another’s property or property right by fraud, for his own or another’s benefit, avoided property liability or revoked it. However, to further incriminate the offense it is necessary to identify all the attributes of Criminal Code Article 182 which occur during fraudulent bankruptcy, because during fraudulent bankruptcy the most common violated value of Criminal Code Article 182 through property liability avoidance using deceit, as the method of fraud. In case law, there are defined criteria, which are suitable for classical fraud, therefore in this article I will try to dissociate classical fraud and avoiding property liability.When the company is in a difficult economical position, manager makes decisions on which the company becomes insolvent, and that’s exactly what they seek. In this case, its intentionally formed in order to avoid paying creditors. Avoidance of property liability shows that deception was used which consists in the fact that before the bankruptcy fraudulently creates fictitious legal position that the company would become penniless and it would be unable to be directed, and after the bankruptcy procedures all of the debts are written off. The first part of the thesis analyzed the contents of criminal bankruptcies as well as court of law regulations put into practice in a company‘s bankrupt law. However more attention will be given to the Republic of Lithuania Criminal Code Article 209 analysis. Furthermore the objective and subjective indications of criminal bankruptcy and their regulations in Lithuania with the addition of analyzing how the concept „consciously bad govern rule“ manifests. The second part of the paper will discuss four alternative fraud acts which were formed in the disposition of swindling and will also include their consequences and causal association in addition to other objective and subjective indications. The third part of this master‘s graduate thesis will emphasize on a single fraud act - avoiding material obligations during criminal bankruptcy and also the makings of a criminal deed in a fraud. From the practical experience of the court of law it can be deduced that it is difficult for the court to incriminate the fraud of avoiding material obligations, because the well-established theoretical classical fraud application faces a lot of problems while trying to correctly apply the fraud of avoiding material obligations. While the company is in a poor economical condition the executive of the company has to approve certain decisions which lead to the company becoming insolvent and this insolvency is exactly what they want. In the case described in the thesis it was investigated which actions of the culprit unfold the avoidance of material obligations, furthermore what is the culprits purposive content and if it was formed solely for the reason of bypassing the payment to the creditors. As well as what fraud methods are utilized while avoiding material obligations, this tendency manifests itself in a way so that even before the bankruptcy case begins, a fictitious legal situation is established so that the company would become insolvent thus making it insusceptible to a requisition and after the bankruptcy procedure all these debts are dismissed. According to the scientist O. Fedosiuk, in case of criminal bankruptcy the actions of the perpetrator in all cases should be classified as fraud. In the review of Lithuanian Supreme court it is indicated, that fraud can be imputed together with fraudulent bankruptcy, but you need to analyze what causes the fraud, because fraud without material obligation is not identical to the classic fraud. Applying Lithuania’s Highest Court theoretical explanation, many problems arise in practice preventing it to properly adapt. In order to adjust the composition of criminal bankruptcy fraud cases it is important to analyze the actions of the perpetrator. For example, who makes the fraud in this case – natural or legal person (the question of whether an individual has acquired some kind of material obligation, or it was acquired by legal person, which went bankrupt), what kind of fraudulent content was used, what were the perpetrators objectives and content of intention, whose financial status (natural or legal person) must be assessed to determine property liability avoidance, indicated by deliberate insolvency etc. Therefore these are the reasons, why you can agree or disagree with the interpretation of Lithuanian Highest Court.