The identification of the criminal act place and its significance for the state's criminal jurisdiction.

The aim of the article is to analyze the rules of the identification of the criminal act place in the newly adopted Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania in 2000. The attention is focused on the difficulties of the identification of the criminal act place, when the act has an international aspect. It is an often case when a criminal act is started in one country and accomplished in another. In the process of investigating the conspiracy acts it often comes out that the conspirators act in different countries. The article also investigates the problem of the identification of the criminal act place when the act is committed in the virtual environment using telecommunication networks. First of all, the article draws attention to the fact, that paragraph 3 of article 4 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania preconditions the problem of the competitive jurisdiction. This conclusion is drawn on the grounds that the analyzed norm obligates to start the criminal prosecution even if only a part of the criminal act has been committed in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania. The author points it out that this is not fair and beside the purpose. Not denying the fact that the most reasoned and logic theory of the identification of the criminal act place is the theory embracing the theories of act and consequences, the author nevertheless suggests to apply the norm establishing the theory differentially. If the criminal liability is possible only for the commitment of the dangerous act, any kind of effort to detach oneself from the act theory should be recognized as ineffective. Besides, even in cases, when the composite part of the criminal act is material, the fact itself that the consequences have occurred in the territory of a definite state, is not enough to rest on the theory other than of the act while identifying the place of the criminal act. The place of the consequences may be recognized as the place of the criminal act only in case, when the consequences had the most effect there (where it actual takes effect). Therefore a conclusion is made that while solving the problem of the place of the criminal act, the practice of the idealization of the consequence doctrine and thoughtless application should be evaluated negatively. The essential questions cannot be decided only on formal arguments. In cases when the act was started abroad and ended in Lithuania, the author draws attention to the fact, that the break of the act should be related to the acts of the perpetrator, law enforcement officers or civil persons, due to whom the continuation of the criminal act is stopped. It is not reasonable to identify the end of the criminal act to the detention of the perpetrator. A lot of attention is given to the identification of the criminal act place, when the act is conspirational. The author criticizes the provision established in the Article 4 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, the application of which, may lead to a conclusion that for the perpetrators acting in different countries, the territories of the countries where the crime had been committed are considered to be the places of the criminal act ...Neretai nusikalstama veika pradedama vienoje, o baigiama daryti kitoje valstybėje. Tiriant bendrininkaujant padaromas nusikalstamas veikas dažnai išaiškėja, kad bendrininkai veikia skirtingose valstybėse. Būtent šiais atvejais nusikalstamos veikos tyrėjas susiduria su vadinamuoju nusikalstamos veikos padarymo vietos (lot. forum delicti commisini) nustatymo tarptautiniu aspektu. Straipsnyje, taikant dogmatinį, lyginamąjį, istorinį, loginį, sisteminės analizės, kritikos ir kitus metodus, siekiama išnagrinėti 2000 m. priimto naujo Lietuvos baudžiamojo kodekso normas, reglamentuojančias nusikalstamos veikos padarymo vietos nustatymo taisykles, siekiant pateikti šių normų aiškinimą bei parodyti jų trūkumus. Autorius taip pat kelia nusikalstamos veikos padarymo vietos nustatymo problemą, kai nusikalstama veika padaroma virtualioje erdvėje. Šioje erdvėje daromos nusikalstamos veikos yra kasdienis, bet Lietuvoje dar nenagrinėtas reiškinys. Be to, autorius siekia įrodyti, kad kitaip, nei įtvirtinta Lietuvos baudžiamajame įstatyme, nusikalstamos veikos padarymo vietos nustatymas nėra sudėtinė teritorinio valstybės baudžiamosios jurisdikcijos principo taikymo problema. Atkreipiamas dėmesys į tai, kad nustatyti nusikalstamos veikos padarymo vietą svarbu ir tuo atveju, jei valstybės baudžiamoji jurisdikcija įgyvendinama kurio nors baudžiamajame kodekse įtvirtinto ekstrateritorinio principo pagrindu