Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/34969
Type of publication: Magistro darbas / Master thesis
Field of Science: Teisė / Law
Author(s): Siniauskas, Eitvydas
Title: Ar bitkoinas gali būti nusikaltimo nuosavybei dalyku?
Other Title: Can bitcoin be the subject of property crime?
Extent: 46 p.
Date: 1-Jun-2017
Event: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Teisės fakultetas
Keywords: Bitkoinas;Nusikaltimas nuosavybei;Nusikaltimo nuosavybei dalykas;Bitcoin;Crime against property;Subject of property crime
Abstract: Bitkoinas – virtuali valiuta neturinti jokių fizinių parametrų, tuo pačiu būtina pridurti, kad Lietuvos įstatymuose, nėra pripažinta jokia turtine ar pinigine forma, tačiau jo naudojimas, taip pat įstatymo nėra uždraustas. Didėjant bitkoino, kaip atsiskaitymo priemonės, naudojimo tendencijai, iškyla pagrindinė problema, bitkoino praradimo atveju, keliamas klausimas, ar jis yra ginamas teisinis gėris, atitinkantis nuosavybės dalyko kriterijus. Šio darbo tyrimo objektas - bitkoino pripažinimas kaip turto, kuris yra ginamas kaip nuosavybė, įtvirtinta Lietuvos Respublikos Baudžiamajame kodekse. Užsienio valstybėse, bitkoino samprata, aiškinama plačiau. Jungtinėse Amerikos Valstijose, bitkoinas teismų praktikoje pripažintas, kaip atitinkantis lėšų sąvokai, kas prilyginama pinigams, Vokietijoje virtuali bitkoinų keitykla, tapo pirmoji tokio pobūdžio keitykla, kuri vadovaujasi Vokietijos finansų rinkos nustatytomis nuostatomis. Darbe naudojami: aprašomasis, loginės analizės, lingvistinis ir lyginamasis metodai, darbo tikslui ir uždaviniams atskleisti. Darbo tikslas – atskleisti bitkoino turtinį santikį ir pripažintį jį, kaip ginamą teisinį gėrį. Nusikaltimo nuosavybei sudėtis – materialioji, reikalaujanti konkrečių padarinių, materialios žalos. Šios nusikalstamos veikos dalykas apibrėžiamas, kaip svetimas turtas. Ekonomikos teorijos, bei teismų praktikoje, turtas aiškinamas, kaip objektų išreiškimas piniginiu ekvivalentu, pabrėžtina, kad bitkoinas nėra uždraustas ir gali būti išreiškiamas į tradicinę valiutą, pasinaudojus veikiančiomis keityklomis arba pasinaudojus tam tikra bitkoinų mokėjimo kortele, kurią, kaip atsiskaitymo priemonę, priema visur, kur yra naudojamos tradicinės mokėjimo kortelės. Darbo eigoje supažindinama su teisinėmis problemomis, kurios kyla bitkoino vartotojui, bei teisėkūrai. Pateikiami ir galimi sprendimo būdai, neteisėto bitkoinų pasisavinimo atvejais.
Bitcoin is virtual currency which does not have any physical dimensions functioning in the decentralised network of P2P (peer-to-peer) where consumers exchange this currency directly without any institutional supervision. This currency appeared in the market in 2009. It should be noted that the number of consumers using it is increasing. As the using of Bitcoin increases, it develops legal loopholes which do not ensure the safety of the consumers using this virtual currency. There raises a question if Bitcoin corresponds to the criteria of defended property under criminal law. Bitcoin is widely known in the world, and some countries regulate Bitcoin pursuant certain rules defining the peculiarities of its using. The United States of America apply certain legislative framework to Bitcoin, and it is recognised as corresponding to the conception of funds and is considered as money in the case-law of courts. The virtual office of Bitcoin exchange operating in Germany is the first currency exchange office of this type which cooperates with the Bank of Germany and follows the provisions set by German financial market. Island is the first country which has mentioned the conception of electronic money in its official notification and distinguishes between virtual currency and electronic money in this way. Most other countries do not regulate virtual currency or defines the criteria of its using anyhow; however, most of them warn about dangers of its using in their official notifications. This Thesis distinguishes between virtual currency and electronic money, as well as provides definitions. Electronic money is regulated by law, and the law provides who are its issuers. Meanwhile, using of Bitcoin is not regulated basing on any; it is controlled by people. Moreover, when applying the conceptions of currency or money, Bitcoin corresponds to them in part, because virtual currency has certain features and functions typical to money; however, it has not any power granted by a legal authority. There raises a question concerning to universal acceptance. It should be also noted that Bitcoin is not recognised as any form of property or money in Lithuanian laws but the law does not prohibit its using. The object of this Thesis research is the acceptance of Bitcoin as property when the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania defends it as property. To display the goal and the tasks of the Thesis, the following methods were used: a descriptive method which helps in understanding the main conceptions in order to refer them to the applicable legislation because the conception of Bitcoin within Lithuanian territory is quite a new one, and it has not been completely displayed and investigated in legislation of case-law of courts. In the method of a logical analysis, reasons are provided by applying legislation to regulate Bitcoin and by displaying its material expression. A linguistic method helps in explaining legislation in this Thesis. A comparative method is used to compare the definitions of Bitcoin provided by foreign countries and legal attitude towards virtual currency. The goal of the Thesis is to display the relationship between Bitcoin and property and to accept Bitcoin as a defended legal good. Composition of crime against property is material requiring real consequences, material damages. By applying the conception of Bitcoin to the articles of the Criminal Code, it is important to analyse certain articles of the chapter of crimes against property and to adjust them to virtual currency. The Thesis presents which article of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania the criminal acts against Bitcoin correspond to the most. It should be noted that the subject of this criminal act is defined as the assets of others, property right; therefore, in order to constitute a criminal act against property, this criminal act requires material consequences, the person mast suffer material damages. For this reason, to consider Bitcoin as a defended legal good, the Thesis provides the conception of property. Property in economical theory and case-law of courts is explained as expression of objects in a monetary equivalent, and it should be emphasises that Bitcoin is not prohibited and is not considered as the object taken out of civil circulation. By analysing the definitions of property, Bitcoin is shown as satisfying the criteria of the definition of property, because it can be completely expressed in a monetary equivalent. Within the territory of Lithuania, there are certain virtual offices of currency exchange where Bitcoin can be realised by exchanging it into traditional currency, while USA have physical automatic teller machines of virtual currency which pay Bitcoin in the traditional currency of this country. Moreover, it should be highlighted that there is a possibility to pay in various establishments by a payment card of virtual currency; therefore, Bitcoin can really function as a payment tool in various establishments. The course of the Thesis presents legal problems raising to the users of Bitcoin such as application of jurisdiction, a problem of anonymity of consumer’s virtual currency “wallet” and determination of the market price of Bitcoin.
Internet: https://eltalpykla.vdu.lt/1/34969
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/34969
Appears in Collections:2017 m. (TF mag.)

Files in This Item:
eitvydas_siniauskas_md.pdf728.69 kBAdobe PDF   Restricted AccessView/Open

Show full item record

Page view(s)

238
checked on Mar 28, 2020

Download(s)

22
checked on Mar 28, 2020

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.