Baudžiamosios politikos kontrabandos ir muitinės apgaulės kontrolės srityje įgyvendinimo Lietuvos teisinėje sistemoje problemos

LTReikšminiai žodžiai: Baudžiamoji atsakomybė; Baudžiamoji politika; Baudžiamoji teisė; Kontrabanda; Muitinės apgaulė; Criminal Law; Criminal liability; Criminal policy; Customs Fraud; Smuggling; Smuggling customs fraud.

ENSubject of the article is the drawbacks of the penal policy in the field of regulation of criminal liability for smuggling and customs fraud. The purpose of the analysis is to introduce the measures for increasing the effectiveness of the combatting smuggling and customs fraud through improvement of the quality of legislation and its application. By using systemic, linguistic, teleological and mathematical methods the following hypothesis is sought to be confirmed that one of the reasons for ineffective combatting of smuggling and customs fraud is the unjustified legislation of the penal laws followed by imprecise and incomprehensive assessment of the nature of smuggling and customs fraud. The article includes three basic parts: the problems of combatting smuggling and customs fraud in the process of law-making are analysed in the first part, the problems of combatting smuggling and customs fraud in the courts practice are the subject of the second part, and the perspectives of penal policy in the field of combatting smuggling and customs fraud are analysed in the third part. The survey of public opinion on smuggling in Lithuania shows that a substantial part of society considers smuggling more as a positive than negative phenomenon.Taking that into consideration, the development of the appropriate system of punishments for smuggling and customs fraud is discussed, mainly the increase of the role of punishments that are not related to imprisonment, which is argued to be ineffective due to the non-violent character of these crimes. However, the imposition of pecuniary penalties is a challenge because of the problems of recovering the fine due to the insufficient information on the property of the convict and the lack of the precise data of the fines recovered. Another challenge is the interpretation of the laws by courts, mainly the inadequate qualification of the smuggling followed by imposition of the disproportionate penalties. The analysis of the position of the supreme Court of Lithuania on qualification of smuggling is questioned as unrelated to the specifics of smuggling by using the argument that smuggling or customs frauds followed by other offences, such as a disposal of the proceeds of the smuggling or customs fraud, as well as aiding or abetting in smuggling or customs fraud by state officials, should be considered and therefore additionally qualified as money laundering. [From the publication]