Nusikaltimo padarymo priemonių konfiskavimo problematika bylose del neatsargių nusikaltimų

• Žurnalo archyvas: straipsnio tekstas

LTStraipsnyje keliamas klausimas – kiek pagrįstas nusikaltimo padarymo priemonės sąvokos aiškinimas, neleidžiantis šio nusikaltimo požymio nustatyti nusikaltimuose, padarytuose dėl neatsargumo, ir atitinkamai priemonės kon„fiskuoti. Autorius stengiasi įvardinti ir apmąstyti įvairius galimus argumentus sprendžiant šią dilemą – vertybinius (teisės principais paremtus), norminius-sisteminius, funkcionalius (grindžiamus kon„fiskavimo prevencine paskirtimi ir jo efektyvumu). Straipsnyje prieinama prie išvados, kad vienareikšmis ir kategoriškas požiūris nebūtų pagrįstas – tiek vienareikšmis imperatyvas kon„fiskuoti nusikaltimo, padaryto dėl neatsargumo, padarymo priemone visais atvejais, tiek aiškinimas, kad tokio nusikaltimo padarymo priemonė negali būti kon„fiskuojama. [Iš leidinio]

ENThe article focuses on road traffic crimes and discusses the idea that is widely accepted both in the Lithuanian doctrine of the criminal justice and the judicial practice that the instrumentalities of negligent crime may not be confiscated. Interestingly, the Lithuanian criminal code does not prohibit confiscation of instrumentalities in negligent crime but, in contrary, provides for general rule that instrumentalities must be confiscated in every case without any exception. The author employs the spectrum of arguments for solving the dilemma of confiscation. In favor of confiscation speak the effectiveness of confiscation of instrumentalities in seeking the goal of prevention. It is particularly relevant in cases of dangerous repeated driving. Also the fact that confiscation is allowed in cases of some negligent administrative offences of dangerous driving provides the argument that the position against confiscation in cases for more dangerous road traffic criminal offences may not be regarded as consistent. On the other hand there are arguments that speak against confiscation of instrumentalities in some cases of road traffic offences. In the cases where the road incident is rather accidental and no grossly dangerous driving is involved, the punishment and recovery of damages may be suWcient measures and confiscation of the vehicle might be unnecessary and even disproportional measure. The author concludes that no imperative and categorical solution is possible. The court should possess the discretion to decide if confiscation in particular case of negligent crime could be efficient and proportional measure. [From the publication]