Confiscation of the proceeds of unlawful behaviour

Straipsnyje analizuojamos 2010 m. gruodžio 2 d. įstatymo, kuriuo buvo pakeista Baudžiamojo kodekso 72 straipsnio „Turto konfiskavimas“ redakcija, be to, BK papildytas dviem naujais straipsniais – 723 „Išplėstinis turto konfiskavimas“ ir 1891 „Neteisėtas praturtėjimas“, – nuostatos. Analizuojamas naujos BK 72 straipsnio redakcijos nuostatas autorius vertina praktinio taikymo požiūriu, aptaria turto konfiskavimo nuostatų raidą LR BK ir kitų valstybių įstatymuose bei keisti įstatymą paskatinusias taikymo problemas. Straipsnyje analizuojama turto konfiskavimo iš trečiųjų asmenų praktika. Ji, autoriaus nuomone, iki šiol buvo labai skurdi. Teigiama, kad nusikalstamu būdu gautas turtas gana retai konfiskuojamas ir iš pačių nuteistųjų. Jo paprastai neieškoma, apsiribojama iš paskutinio nusikaltimo gauta turtine nauda, tai ką kalbėti apie trečiuosius asmenis. Taigi, šios įstatymo dalies pakeitimai, autoriaus nuomone, neturi didelės prasmės. Analizuojama termino „išplėstinis turto konfiskavimas“ atsiradimas ir raida. Daugiau dėmesio skiriama BK 723 straipsnio „Išplėstinis turto konfiskavimas“ nuostatų aiškinimui, kritiškai žvelgiant į naujo įstatymo galimybes siekti tų tikslų, dėl kurių įstatymas priimtas. Aptariamos išplėstinio turto konfiskavimo taikymo galimybės BK 3 straipsnio dėl baudžiamųjų įstatymų galiojimo laike šviesoje. Aiškinamos ir BK 1891 straipsnio „Neteisėtas praturtėjimas“ nuostatos bei jų taikymo galimybės atsižvelgiant į BK 3 straipsnio nuostatas.The author tries to explore several new amendments to the penal code of Lithuania, made by the Law on 2 December 2010. The first amendment concerns article 72 of the Penal code of Lithuania (confiscation of property). Prior to the year 2003, confiscation of property implied the right of the court to confiscate any property in possession of the sentenced person. However the Penal code of 2003 set up a new concept of confiscation: just proceeds of the crime or objects intended to be used in committing a crime should be confiscated. However practice was very poor. New law aimed at boosting practice of confiscation, particularly from third persons, to whom usually the offender transfers property. Previous wording of the law provided for that the property should be confiscated from the third person just in case the person knew or could know that the property that he possesses is from a crime. The law of 2010 added new alternative conditions. The Law of 2 December 2010 established new article 723 Extended confiscation (erweitere verfall in German) to the Penal code. Extended confiscation should be applied when a person commits a crime punishable with imprisonment for more than six years. In addition, he possesses property acquired up to five years before committing the crime, or after committing crime and the value of the property is inadequate to the lawful incomes of the person and the difference is more than 32500 Litas or 9400 Euro. The person cannot justify the lawfulness of the acquisition the property. The author makes the explanation of the provision of the law and finds weak points of the law. Also attention is paid to the fact that the law also provides that only property that was acquired after the law came into force should be confiscated. The author considers this provision as not justified. The new amendments are criticized and presented as a good example provisions of Penal code of Germany on Vermogenstrafe (Property punishment) provided for in article 43a Penal code of Germany. The last amendment added to Penal Code by the Law on 2 December 2010 was new article 1891 of Unlawful enrichment. The article provides for that a person who possesses property of value of more than 65000 Litas (18840 Euro) 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. Article 7 of abovementioned law provides for that a person who possesses the property after the law comes into force is liable. No matter when the property is acquired