Problem of intermediary offence in the Criminal Code of Lithuania

Straipsnyje analizuojama tarpinio vykdymo problema, kuri ilgą laiką buvo pamiršta ir bent jau oficialiai teisinėje literatūroje detaliai neanalizuota. Autorius pripažįsta labai svarbią įstatymų leidėjo poziciją naujame Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamajame kodekse įteisinti ir taip išspręsti ilgai praktikoje egzistavusią tarpinio vykdymo problemą. Autorius pastebi tam tikrų teisinių šio klausimo sprendimo trūkumų, kurių atsiranda dėl kritikuotinos tarpinio vyk-dymo numatymo vietos ir nepakankamai tikslaus šio baudžiamosios teisės instituto galimų situacijų pateikimo Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamajame kodekse. Stengdamasis išspręsti dabartinės situacijos keblumus, kurie praktikoje iškyla kaip neteisingas veikos kvalifikavimas ir dviprasmiškas įstatymo aiškinimas, straipsnio autorius siūlo konkrečius analizuojamų pro-blemų sprendimo variantusWhen we speak about a person who commits an actus reus, usually we speak about a criminal. The same person in the case of complicity in a crime is a principle. Thus, principal is the one who participates in a crime and commits it. Almost always, of course, he will be the person who committed the crime him or herself. But occasionally this will not be so. For the crime may have been committed by the hands of an innocent agent incurred no criminal liability by doing it. This innocent agent has no blamable intentions in what he did. In such a case, the man who instigates this agent is the real offender. Criminal law of Lithuania also foresees other situations of intermediary offence or mediate principal. Criminal Code of Lithuania under subsection 24 (3) provides for such cases of indirect committing of a crime: 1. When the real offender commits a crime by the hand of irresponsible; 2. When the real offender commits a crime by the hand of the person, who is juvenile offender and cannot incur the criminal liability; 3. When the real offender commits a crime by the hand of a person, who isn’t guilty. The author of this article analyses the third situation, taking into account that the first two were not even provided for in the Criminal Code of Lithuania of 1961, but were described in the theory, and the last one is totally new for the Criminal Code and for the theory. The author notices, that the parliament made a right decision envisaging an intermediary offence in the Criminal Code of Lithuania of 2000. However, there are some problematic aspects of this concept. It is not a secret, that when we are talking about complicity, we have in mind a deliberate act of the principal and other accessories. Hence, if two persons committed a crime, and one of them is not guilty, there will be no complicity and the second one will carry full responsibility as a mediate principle. But how should we qualify an act of the persons, when one of them instigates another to commit a crime, and this one is not guilty, but not enough to pronounce him an innocent agent. It is possible that instigator acts intentionally and the person, who commits a crime by own hands, commits it by negligence. The author of this article is afraid, that in such cases an instigator will not be amenable, because we cannot use the rules of complicity and the rules of indirect committing of a crime too, taking into account that such situations are out of the borders of institute of intermediary offence. These are the reasons why the author is proposing to amend subsection 24 (3) of the Criminal Code of Lithuania of 2000, including into institute intermediary offence and the situation when the real offender uses the hands of a person who acts by negligence for the committing of a crim