Ar LR BK 189-1 straipsnyje numatyta norma dėl neteisėto praturtėjimo neprieštarauja baudžiamosios teisės specialiesiems principams?

Abstract

2010 m. gruodžio 2 d. įstatymu Nr. XI-1199 Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamasis kodeksas buvo papildytas nauja norma, kriminalizuojančia neteisėtą praturtėjimą. Šio nusikaltimo turinį sudaro turto, kuris negali būti pagrįstas teisėtomis pajamomis, turėjimas. Įstatymo aiškinamajame rašte tokios priemonės įtvirtinimas argumentuojamas bendrosios ir specialiosios prevencijos tikslais, siekiu mažinti nusikalstamų veikų pelningumą ir patrauklumą, atimti iš pavienių asmenų ir ypač nusikalstamų organizacijų galimybę daryti naujas nusikalstamas veikas. Iš pirmo žvilgsnio nagrinėjama norma atrodo paprasta, tačiau apžvelgus teisinę mokslinę literatūrą, teismų praktiką bei statistinius duomenis matyti, kad neteisėto praturtėjimo aiškinimas ir taikymas kelia ypatingai daug klausimų. Baigiamajame darbe analizuojama, ar nagrinėjamo įstatymo nuostatos sudaro pakankamą pagrindą abejoti BK 1891 straipsnio atitiktimi baudžiamosios teisės specialiesiems principams. Pirmame baigiamojo darbo skyriuje analizuojama neteisėto praturtėjimo nusikaltimo sudėtis, išskiriant tiek objektyviuosius, tiek subjektyviuosius požymius, dėl kurių teisės mokslininkams ir praktikams kyla neaiškumų, taip pat pateikiama neteisėto praturtėjimo kriminalizavimo Europos Sąjungos šalyse apžvalga. Antrame baigiamojo darbo skyriuje atskleidžiama baudžiamosios teisės specialiųjų principų samprata ir reikšmė, tuo pačiu atliekama BK 1891 straipsnyje numatytos neteisėto praturtėjimo normos analizė šių principų kontekste. Atlikus analizę prieita prie išvados, kad asmens pripažinimas kaltu dėl neatsargiai padarytos neteisėto praturtėjimo veikos neabejotinai pažeistų vieno iš kertinių baudžiamosios teisės specialiųjų principų sistemos – nullum crimen sine culpa – kaltės principo nuostatas. Vertinant BK 1891 straipsnyje įtvirtintą neteisėtą praturtėjimą kriminalizuojančią normą ultima ratio principo aspektu manytina, kad Lietuvos įstatymų leidėjas kovai su korupciniu ir ekonominiu nusikalstamumu pasirinko netinkamą priemonę.

On the 2nd of December, 2010, the new norm which criminalizes illicit enrichment was added to the Criminal Code of Republic of Lithuania (further – the CC). The content of this crime is having an asset which can not be justified by person‘s legal income. According to explanatory report, such measure has been established because of prevention, herewith to pursue reduction of profit and attraction which originated from corrupt and economic crimes. At first sight it seems like this is a very simple norm which is easy to apply. However, after the legal research, case law and statistic data review, it can be claimed that there are many issues related to this norm. Scholars who analyzed the norm of illicit enrichment raised a lot of relevant questions related to responsibility and the nature of this crime. Is the offense defined appropriately and clearly? Is the value of the asset as the subject of crime of illicit enrichment adequate? Can this crime exist independently with no overlap to other crimes from which the person got rich? Should it be the special subject provided in this offense according to the recommendation of United Nations Convention against Corruption? Are the circumstances related to the person’s guilt defined appropriately and don‘t they presume the objective responsibility of the suspect? The article 1891 of the CC according to the content and expression is not traditional indeed. This can be confirmed by fact, that many Courts of Republic of Lithuania have already referred to the Constitutional Court of Republic of Lithuania in order to clarify out does the norm of illicit enrichment object to Constitution and to constitutional principles. It is important to notice that on the 15th of March, 2017, during the writing process of this thesis, the Constitutional Court published the act in which were analyzed five applications of Lithuanian Courts with the requests to investigate does the first section in article 1891 of the CC object to Constitution and to constitutional principle – the rule of law. Thus the purpose of this final work is to answer a question does the norm of illicit enrichment which is established in article 1891 of the Criminal Code of Republic of Lithuania object to the special principles of criminal law. In order to achieve this purpose five tasks were raised: 1. to submit the analysis of the offense which is established in article 1891 of the CC, also to identify the problems related to the interpretation of illicit enrichment crime construction; 2. to review the criminalization aspects of illicit enrichment in European Union countries; 3. to introduce with the conception of the special principles of criminal law; 4. to analyze the norm of illicit enrichment, which is established in article 1891 of the CC, with respect to the special principles of criminal law. 5. to present the recommendations to Lithuanian legislator in order to improve the quality of illicit enrichment norm. The hypothesis is raised that the norm of illicit enrichment which is established in article 1891 of the Criminal Code of Republic of Lithuania object to the special principles of criminal law. The consist of illicit enrichment crime is analyzed in the first section of this final work. Also there is a short review of criminalizing illicit enrichment aspects in the European Union countries. The conception and the value of the special principles of criminal law are presented in the second section of this final work, herewith is analyzed the norm of illicit enrichment, which is established in article 1891 of the Criminal code of Republic of Lithuania, with respect to these principles. It is concluded that prosecution of person in committing illicit enrichment crime by negligence would infringe the provisions of one of the most important special principles of criminal law – nullum crimen sine culpa. Assessing the analyzed norm through the provisions of ultima ratio principle, it must be held that Lithuanian legislator chose the incorrect measure to combat against corrupt and economic criminality.