| Abstract: | Magistro baigiamajame darbe buvo siekiama nustatyti kaip ir ar išvis Lietuvos teismų praktika atriboja sukčiavimą nuo nusikaltimų finansų sistemai. Aptariamos Lietuvos Aukščiausiojo Teismo baudžiamosios bylos, kuriose kriminalizuojami sukčiavimo ir nusikaltimų finansų sistemai Baudžiamojo kodekso straipsniai. Iš analizuojamų bylų pastebėta, jog teismams kyla problemų ne tik šių veikų aiškinime, bet ir pritaikyme konkrečiose situacijose. Aiškinamos sukčiavimo ir nusikaltimų finansams sąvokos, jų objektyvieji bei subjektyvieji požymiai, objektai, nusikalstamos veikos padarymo tyčia ir kita, kad būtų galima suprasti, kokiu būdu padaromos šios nusikalstamos veikos ir kaip teismai taiko tam tikros nusikalstamos veikos požymius skirtingose situacijose. Taip pat buvo pastebėta, jog Lietuvos Aukščiausiojo Teismo formuojama praktika baudžiamosiose bylose dėl šių nusikalstamų veikų yra nevienareikšmiška, todėl ir buvo siekiama nustatyti ar Lietuvos teismai atriboja sukčiavimą nuo nusikaltimų finansų sistemai ir kokius kriterijus tam taiko.
Su Baudžiamojo kodekso 182 straipsnyje kriminalizuojamu sukčiavimu susiduriama vis dažniau ir su įvairiomis šio straipsnio formomis, todėl tai yra vienas iš aktualiausių šių dienų Baudžiamojo kodekso straipsnių nagrinėjamas Lietuvos teismuose, kuris teismų aiškinamas nevienareikšmiškai. Lietuvos teismai nevienareikšmiškai aiškina tiek apgaulės požymį sukčiavime, tiek turtinės prievolės išvengimą ir panaikinimą, kas trukdo teismams atriboti šią veiką nuo kitų nusikalstamų veikų. Aptariant Baudžiamojo kodekso XXXII skyriuje kriminalizuojamus nusikaltimus ir baudžiamuosius nusižengimus finansų sistemai, pastebima, jog šių bylų kur kas mažiau nei sukčiavimo, tačiau tuo pačiu, taip pat pastebimas ir šių veikų taikymo ir aiškinimo nevienareikšmiškumas Lietuvos teismų praktikoje. Lietuvos teismams sunku pritaikyti atitinkamą straipsnį konkrečioje situacijoje vien iš Baudžiamojo kodekso XXXII skyriaus, todėl dar sunkiau suvokti, jog padaryta veika yra ne nusikaltimas finansams, o būtent sukčiavimas.
Išanalizavus mokslinę literatūrą, Lietuvos teisės aktus, Lietuvos teismų praktiką, galima daryti išvadą, jog teismams kylančios problemos tinkamiems veikų: tiek sukčiavimo, tiek nusikaltimų finansų sistemai, išaiškinimo ir pritaikymo kriterijams, lemia šių nusikalstamų veikų tinkamų atribojimo kriterijų nebuvimą Lietuvos teismų praktikoje, todėl labai dažnai pritaikomas ne tas Baudžiamojo kodekso straipsnis.
Master thesis focuses on the concept if Lithuanian judicial system distinguishes fraud from other types of crimes to financial system as well as if Lithuanian courts have developed concrete criteria which allow to delimit these two criminal activities one from another; if the delimitation is possible, what are the criteria to do this. The thesis concentrates on criminal cases of Lithuanian Supreme Court where the articles of Criminal Code with the content of fraud and crimes to financial system are criminalized. After the analysis of criminal cases it has been noticed that the courts experience problems both with the explanation of such activities and the application of them in real life situations. Taking into consideration a great variety of scientific articles as well as the cases of Lithuanian judicial system, the Master thesis mostly defines and analyzes the fraud and crimes to financial system. The focus is on the concepts of fraud and crimes to finances, their objective and subjective features, the objects, the crimes with the concept of intention in order to understand the methods of such criminal activities as well as having the clear view how courts apply concrete features of similar activities in different real life situations. The author took into consideration comparative method while comparing the articles by diverse authors, judicial practice with the purpose to find the answer to the question: if judicial practice delimits the crime of fraud from other crimes to financial system.
Besides, it has been noticed that the practice of Lithuanian Supreme Court in such criminal cases is not unambiguous. Consequently, the aim of the thesis is to define if Lithuanian courts separate fraud from other crimes to financial system and what criteria they apply.
The chapter XXVIII of Lithuanian Criminal Code defines the crimes which determine the responsibility for the crimes to the property having the aspect of the crime of fraud. Criminalized fraud (Criminal Code art. 182) is a frequent crime and the article itself is the most frequently used in practice and analyzed in Lithuanian courts although the application of it is frequent yet rather diverse in all courts of Lithuania. Lithuanian courts define both the crime of fraud and escaping or abolishing of liability of property in different ways. This situation causes serious difficulties to courts while distinguishing this activity from other criminal activities, especially from the crimes to financial system. The Master thesis deals with both concepts of fraud and the abolishment of liability and their use in Lithuanian judicial practice. Excluding the qualification of the crime of fraud and the problems of its usage in Lithuanian judicial system, the problem became evident concerning the delimitation of the correct tax fraud from the crimes to financial system. In this case, Lithuanian courts experience the problems with the delimitation of the crime of fraud from other crimes as well as their qualification from being similar to other types of crimes and the appropriate applying in judicial practice. While analyzing the crimes and criminal offences to financial system defined in chapter XXXII of Criminal Code, it must be noticed that the latter cases are far more rare than frauds although it has been observed that the criminal offences to financial system are not as frequent as frauds and, moreover, they are not analyzed and applied unambiguously in Lithuanian courts. The thesis analyses the 219-222 articles of the Criminal Code. The mentioned articles are crucial while delimiting the crimes to Lithuanian financial system and which undoubtedly are connected with fraud. The articles 219, 220 221 and 222 of Lithuanian Criminal Code define the activities which are judicially weak from the point of the aspect that property damage is caused by the actions when a person avoids paying taxes. Besides, there are certain cases when courts treat that to some similar mentioned activities the damage is not caused by avoiding paying taxes or another possible situation is that Lithuanian courts apply a wrong article of the Criminal Code. According to the articles 219, 220, 221, 222 of the Criminal Code, in most cases the damage is caused to the state because the taxes have not been paid. There are cases when courts wrongly define the situation when the damage is not caused after avoiding paying taxes and not paying them. Lithuanian courts experience problems while applying a concrete article to a concrete situation on the basis of XXXIII chapter of the Criminal Code. This leads to a complicated defining if the crime is considered as a crime to finances or is it a fraud. The following aspect influences the complexity of analysis and application of such cases which is of vital importance in separating frauds from other criminal cases to financial system.
After the analysis of scientific literature, Lithuanian laws, Lithuanian judicial practice one can come to the conclusion that Lithuanian courts experience problems with separating frauds from other types of criminal offences to financial system because Lithuanian judicial system does not have appropriate criteria of differentiation of these crimes. As a consequence, a wrong article of the Criminal Code is applied in practice. Courts in many cases are prone to criminalize the crime as a crime to financial system rather than a fraud and vice versa. The theoretical criteria of delimitation of such activities are quite clear and vivid although in practice the mentioned criteria are not sufficient in order to appropriately delimitate these two criminal activities one from another. The Master thesis involves the hypothesis that Lithuanian judicial practice does not have clear and vivid criteria in delimitating the crime of fraud from other types of crimes to financial system. |
