Neteisėtas praturtėjimas : lūkesčiai ir realijos

LTStraipsnyje analizuojama Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamajame kodekse įtvirtinta, sąlyginai nauja, neteisėto praturtėjimo norma, skirta kovai su neteisėtomis pajamomis ir korupcija. Apžvelgiamos teisinės prielaidos ir siekti tikslai, įtakoję šios normos įtvirtinimą baudžiamajame įstatyme. Atsižvelgiant į tai, kad diskusijos dėl šios normos įtvirtinimo tikslingumo ir jos juridinės konstrukcijos ydingumo nesibaigia jau keli metai, apžvelgiami pagrindiniai kritikų argumentai bei nagrinėjamas jų pagrįstumas. Straipsnyje analizuojami normos taikymo rezultatai bei pagrindinės priežastys įtakojusios tai, kad iki šiol nėra pateisinti tikslai, kurių buvo tikimasi šią veiką kriminalizuojant. Taip pat identifikuojamos pagrindinės praktinio neteisėto praturtėjimo normos taikymo problemos ir ieškomi jų sprendimo būdai. Straipsnyje apžvelgiami pastaraisiais mėnesiais vykstantys teisėkūros procesai, kuriais siekiama padidinti kovos su neteisėtu praturtėjimu efektyvumą. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Baudžiamoji atsakomybė; Ikiteisminis tyrimas; Neteisėtas praturtėjimas; Problemos; Įrodinėjimas; Criminal liability; Illicit enrichment; Pretrial procedure; Problems; Substantiation.

ENIn 2010, Lithuania criminal legislation was truly "rich". Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania in 2010 has been amended nine times. These changes culminated the Criminal Code amendment, which established new criminal law institute – extended confiscation of property, and criminalized a new offense – illicit enrichment. Illicit enrichment was established in the article 1891 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. The article provides for that a person who possesses property of value of more than 65000 Litas knowing that this property could not be acquired by lawful income, should be punished with a fine, arrest or deprivation of liberty up to four years. According to the novelty, a person is considered as committing a crime if he cannot justify the lawfulness of the acquisition of the property he possesses. In addition the law requires that a person knows that their property cannot be acquired by lawful means. The main aim of this amendment was to prevent corruption, economical, financial and other acquisitive crimes and to make these offenses less attractive for the offenders. Immediately after the entry into force of the mentioned Law it received a lot of critic. The main arguments of the critics were that the norm of illicit enrichment violates the principle of the presumption of innocence and the principle of the proportionality. Also some scientists and practices blamed the amendment for its uncertainty. However not all arguments of the critics are well-grounded. To authors mind, suspects have the same rights to testify as in all other offenses. In such cases first of all the law enforcement authorities collect all evidence about the person’s legal incomes, property and only later expresses suspicion.So in such situation the suspects right to decide what kind of defense to choose, active or passive. But the author agrees that the norm of the illicit enrichment is not as comprehensible as it should be. From the Criminal Code amendment came into force was started 126 pre-trail investigations. Usually pre-trail investigations were started upon information from State Tax Inspectorate. But quite usual signs of the illicit enrichment were detected investigating other offenses, such us smuggling, drug trafficking, cars theft and others. It remains to regret that only 15 cases already reached the court. And today we have only two outcomes of the proceedings of the illicit enrichment. 20 pre-trail investigations were terminated, other investigation are still in process. To authors mind, there are some main reasons why the norm of illicit enrichment is still inefficient. First of all, the investigation of this crime is quite difficult; investigators have to collect information about the suspect’s property, legal incomes and so on. And the second and the main reason is that there is no single practice of investigation of such crimes in Lithuania. Only when the courts will form single practice of application of the norm of illicit enrichment, this norm will reach its purposes. [From the publication]