| Abstract: | Informacinių technologijų tobulėjimas ir plėtra žmonijai atvėrė iki tol neįsivaizduojamas galimybes bei tapo neatsiejama kasdieninio gyvenimo dalimi. Tačiau atsivėrusios technologinės galimybės, lygiai taip pat atvėrė naujas galimybes nusikalstamoms veikoms, kurių vykdymui pasitelkiamos informacinės sistemos ir elektroninė erdvė. Tokias nusikalstamas veikas kriminalizuojantys teisės aktai buvo įtraukti į valstybių baudžiamuosius įstatymus, tačiau nuolat tobulėjant informacinėms technologijoms, atsirandant naujoms sukčiavimo elektroninėje erdvėje, formoms, šių įstatymų tobulinimas ir priežiūra reikalauja nuolatinio dėmesio.
Šiame darbe nagrinėjama viena iš tokių baudžiamuosiuose įstatymuose įtvirtintų normų – BK 1982 str., kriminalizuojantis neteisėtą disponavimą programine įranga, skirta ar pritaikyta nusikalstamų veikų vykdymui, iškeliant esminį klausimą – ar šio straipsnio nuostatos, ir iš jų taikymo kylančios teisinės problemos neprieštarauja ultima ratio principui. Darbe aiškinamasi, kokioms nusikalstamoms veikoms vykdyti skirta arba pritaikyta programinė įranga yra BK 1982 str. dalykas. Tiriama, kokia programinė įranga gali būti laikoma skirta ar pritaikyta nusikalstamų veikų vykdymui. Nagrinėjama dvigubo panaudojimo programinės įrangos sąvoka bei programinės įrangos rūšys, patenkančios į šį apibrėžimą. Analizuojama BK 1982 str. sudėties problematika bei iš to kylančios teisinės problemos, pagrindžiančios BK 1982 str. prieštaravimą ultima ratio principui.
Baigiamajame darbe prieita išvadų, kad BK 1982 str. numatyta vienoda baudžiamoji atsakomybė tiek už pavienį disponavimą programine įranga, skirta ar pritaikyta nusikalstamų veikų vykdymui, tiek už tokių priemonių gaminimą, platinimą ar kitokį disponavimą stambiu mastu, yra neproporcinga, o numatyta maksimali ketverių metų laisvės atėmimo bausmė yra per griežta šios nusikalstamos veikos keliamam pavojingumui, nes šia teisės norma kriminalizuojamos priemonės, skirtos kitų nusikalstamų veikų vykdymui, už kurių įvykdymą numatyta švelnesnė atsakomybė. Taip pat disponavimas nusikalstamoms veikoms vykdyti skirta arba pritaikyta programine įranga, nėra nusikalstama veika, jeigu tokia programine įranga disponuojama nesant nusikalstamiems tikslams. Tačiau vien faktas, kad yra disponuojama tokiomis priemonėmis, jei tai nėra susiję su profesine ar moksline veikla, jau yra savaime keliantis grėsmę, kadangi programinė įranga, kurios paskirtis vykdyti nusikalstamas veikas, iš esmės negali būti panaudota kitaip.
Pateikiami pasiūlymai – disponavimą programine įranga, skirta ar pritaikyta nusikalstamų veikų vykdymui, įteisinti kaip licencijuotą veiklą, suteikiant teisę minėtomis priemonėmis disponuoti, pavyzdžiui, informacinių sistemų specialistams, teisėsaugos institucijoms ar mokslo darbuotojams. Bei BK 1982 str. papildyti kvalifikuojančia dalimi, kurioje būtų numatyta griežtesnė atsakomybė už disponavimą nusikalstamoms veikoms vykdyti skirta ar pritaikyta programine įranga stambiu mastu.
The enhancement in and development of information technologies opened up to mankind unimaginable and overwhelming opportunities and have become an integral part of everyday life. However, the new technological opportunities also opened up new possibilities for criminal activities, for the commitment of which information systems and electronic space are used. The laws criminalizing such criminal offenses have been incorporated into national criminal codes. However, due constant improvement of information technologies, the emergence of new forms of electronic fraud, the development and maintenance of these laws must be given constant attention.
In the implementation of the Convention on Cybercrime that was adopted on 23 November 2001 in Budapest, many acts were criminalised in Lithuania to ensure the security of information systems and electronic data. Illicit disposition of equipment, software, passwords, codes and other data for the purpose of committing criminal offenses is one of such criminal acts referred to in the Article 1982 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. The Article 1982 specifies one of the alternative ways of committing this crime - acquisition or possession of software for the purpose of committing criminal offenses for criminal purposes. However, the term software is very broad, with many examples of technical reasoning, the infringement of which may have a significant impact on the proper qualification of this criminal offense, and there are practically no more profound discussions and research for the interpretation of the elements of this criminal offense and the possible problems of qualification.
Therefore, this thesis looks into the following question: what are the specific criminal offences, for the commitment of which software is designed and adapted, which form the subject matter of the Article 1982 of the Criminal Code. The thesis analyses which software can be considered to be designed or adapted for the commitment of criminal offences, the concept of dual-use software and types of software falling within this definition. It also analyses the issues concerning the composition of the Article 1982 of the Criminal Code and the legal issues flowing therefrom that justify the conflict of Article 1982 of the Criminal Code with the ultima ratio principle. The Lithuanian, US, Estonian and German legal regulation which criminalizes the possession of software designed or adapted for the commitment of criminal offenses is also compared in the thesis.
Conclusions have been reached in the thesis that namely malware or dual-use software is the software designed or adapted for the commitment of criminal offenses. The concept of dual-use software can be interpreted very broadly and may include many programs that can be found on virtually every computer. For this reason, in assessing the criminalization of dual-use software designed or adapted for the commitment of criminal offenses, the criterion of objectivity should be observed in answering questions such as: for which primary purpose the software was designed? who it was designed by? how it is distributed? who are the potential users of such software? whether or not the software can be remade and adapted for the commitment of criminal offences?
The uniform criminal liability both for the single possession of software designed or adapted for the commitment of criminal offenses and for the production, distribution or other large scale possession of such measures, that is provided for in the Article 1982 of the Criminal Code, is disproportionate, and the provided for maximum term of imprisonment of four years is too strict when it comes to danger that arises from this offence because this legal norm criminalises the measures that are designed or adapted for the commitment of other criminal offenses for which a more lenient liability is provided for. Likewise, possession of software designed or adapted for the commitment of criminal offenses is not a criminal offence if such software is possessed for the purposes other than the criminal ones. However, the fact alone that such measures are possessed, if such possession is not related to professional or scientific activity, itself constitutes threat because software designed or adapted for the commitment of criminal offenses in principle cannot be used otherwise.
The Lithuanian, German and Estonian legal regulation in determining legal liability for the possession of software designed or adapted for the commitment of criminal offenses does not differ essentially. This is explained by the implementation of EU directives that has led to similarities. The comparison of the Lithuanian, German and Estonian legal regulation for the possession of software designed or adapted for the commitment of criminal offenses with the US regulation showed that the US applies a narrower criminalization of such measures, but a more severe criminal liability is provided for in this country.
Suggestions presented: to legalize the possession of software designed or adapted for the commitment of criminal offenses as a licensed activity by granting the right to possess the aforementioned measures for example to information system professionals, law enforcement authorities or researchers, and to supplement the Article 1982 of the Criminal Code with a qualifying part providing for a more strict liability for a large scale possession of software designed or adapted for the commitment of criminal offenses. |
