Iš nusikalstamos veikos gautas turtas kaip konfiskuotino turto rūšis

Direct Link:
Mokslo publikacijos / Scientific publications
Document Type:
Straipsnis / Article
Lietuvių kalba / Lithuanian
Iš nusikalstamos veikos gautas turtas kaip konfiskuotino turto rūšis
Alternative Title:
Proceeds from crime as a type of property subject to confiscation
In the Journal:
Socialinių mokslų studijos [Societal Studies]. 2009, Nr. 4, p. 195-214
Gautas turtas; Netiesioginės pajamos; Nusikalstama veika; Nusikalstamos veikos rezultatas; Turto konfiskavimas.
Confiscation of property; Criminal activity; Indirect proceeds; Proceeds from crime.
Summary / Abstract:

LTStraipsnyje nagrinėjama vienos iš konfiskuotino turto rūšių – nusikalstamu būdu gauto turto samprata, turinys, teisinio reglamentavimo bei taikymo teismų praktikoje problemos. Daroma išvada, kad Baudžiamojo kodekso 72 straipsnio 2 dalies 3 punkte ši konfiskuotino turto rūšis apibrėžta netiksliai, todėl neapima visų galimų nusikalstamo praturtėjimo formų. Teismai, spręsdami klausimą dėl konfiskuotino turto apimties, turėtų atsižvelgti ne tik į Baudžiamojo kodekso 72 straipsnio formuluotes, bet ir į Tarybos pamatinių sprendimų, suderintų su Baudžiamuoju kodeksu, nuostatas ir tikslus. Straipsnyje taip pat analizuojamas nusikalstamos veikos dalyko konfiskavimo pagrįstumas. Remiantis Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismo sprendimais, kuriais kontrabandos dalyko konfiskavimas buvo pripažintas pažeidžiančiu Žmogaus teisių ir pagrindinių laisvių apsaugos konvencijos 1 protokolo 1 straipsnį, daroma išvada, kad egzistuojanti Lietuvos teismų praktika šiuo klausimu turės būti keičiama. [Iš leidinio]

ENThe author of the article analyses the conception of one of the types of seizable property, namely, the property acquired by criminal activity and the conditions for its confiscation. The problems of the regulations of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter referred to as the CC) and the judicial practice regarding the property acquired by criminal activity are disclosed. A conclusion is drawn that the definition of this type of seizable property established in Article 72 of the CC is too narrow, does not cover all possible forms of unjust enrichment and does not meet the international and the EU statutory requirements. The Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime adopted by the Council of Europe in 1990 binds the countries to take all requisite measures for the confiscation of proceeds from crime or property the value of which corresponds to such proceeds (the proceeds mean any economic benefit directly or indirectly received from committing a crime). Taking this into account, the property acquired by criminal activity cannot be identified only with the money or other goods of material value as stated in Article 72 Part 2 Item 3 of the CC. It has to be interpreted an acquisition of money or property of any form and volume, not only direct, but also indirect proceeds from crime. However, such benefit has to be feasibly obtained and estimated in monetary terms.The article also explores the problem of the validity of the confiscation of a crime subject. Article 72 of the CC does not define the subject of crime; therefore, it may be confiscated only when it corresponds to the characteristics of another type of seizable property. An accepted court practice is to confiscate a contraband object as a property acquired by criminal activity. In some cases of recent years, the European Court of Human Rights has dealt with a problem of the confiscation of contraband goods, the legal status of which in the applicant’s country was essentially similar to the one established in the Lithuanian court practice, and in all cases the violation of Article 1 Protocol 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was stated. For this reason, the existing court practice regarding the confiscation of a contraband object has to be revised. At the same time, it should be noted that too wide a conception of property acquired by criminal activity determines the need to strengthen the procedural mechanism of the property confiscation implementation. Therefore, it is essential to consider the possibility to apply the transfer of the burden of proof to the perpetrator, to establish the extended confiscation and to create a system of the control of property origin (for example, a declaration of property and an obligation to substantiate the origin of the available property) in other judicial branches. [From the publication]

2029-2236; 2029-2244
Related Publications:
2018-12-17 12:34:23
Views: 17    Downloads: 3