Turto pasisavinimo subjektas : ypatumai ir problematika

LTStraipsnis skirtas vienam iš turto pasisavinimo sudėties elementų - subjektui, jo požymių ypatumams ir asmens patraukimo baudžiamojon atsakomybėn už šią nusikalstamą veiką problemoms. Privalomi subjekto (fizinio asmens) požymiai straipsnyje nagrinėjami tik tiek, kiek jiems turi įtakos specialusis subjekto požymis - specifinis kaltininko ir svetimo turto santykis. Daugiausia dėmesio yra skiriama išaiškinti „patikėto“ ir „esančio žinioje“ turto sąvokas, diskutuojamas jų atskyrimo pagrįstumas. Taip pat pateikiama materialiai atsakingo asmens samprata, kurią baudžiamoji teise perėmė iš darbo teisės normų Kadangi turto pasisavinimo subjektu gali būti tiek fizinis, tiek juridinis asmuo, straipsnyje taip pat aptariami juridinio asmens baudžiamosios atsakomybės už šią nusikalstamą veiką pagrindai ir sąlygos. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Turto pasisavinimas; Materialinė atsakomybė; Baudžiamoji atsakomybė; Misappropriation; Materially responsible person; Criminal liability.

ENThough the criminal responsibility for misappropriation was formulated in the criminal laws of the Republic of Lithuania before World War II and in the Criminal Code of 1961 that was in force over the half an age, the new Criminal Code made us take a new point of view to that crime. The specificity of the subject of misappropriation is based on the indication of the special subject, i.e. the property is entrusted or given to offender's disposal. That is the explanation why an offender is usually not younger that 18 though the criminal responsibility for misappropriation is provided by criminal laws to a person from 16. The special authorization to transact the property may be delegated to a person by documents, by verbal agreement with the owner of the property or by person's professional duties. The corporate criminal liability for misappropriation occurs exclusively in case the property is entrusted to the corporation on the basis of civil relations between the corporation (represented by the offender who is a person) and the owner of the property (who may be either a person or the corporation). The relations between the offender and the corporation may be based either on labour or on civil law. It is significant that the objective side of misappropriation should be realised by the offender who acts in favour or interests of the represented corporation. The offender should not trespass to the limits of his warrant, too. [From the publication]