Is it possible to punish a legal person without setting guilty of a natural person?

Darbe analizuojama juridinio asmens baudžiamosios atsakomybės neidentifikavus kalto fizinio asmens problematika. Lietuvoje su 2016 m. BK ir BPK pakeitimais įsitvirtino naujos juridinio asmens baudžiamosios atsakomybės taikymo galimybės. Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamojo kodekso 20 straipsnio 5 dalyje numatyta, kad juridinio asmens baudžiamoji atsakomybė galima ir tuomet, kai fizinis asmuo nėra traukiamas atsakomybėn „dėl kitų priežasčių“. Tačiau iki dabar nėra naujos teismų praktikos, kuri remtųsi šiandieniniu juridinio asmens baudžiamosios atsakomybės reglamentavimu, dėl tos priežasties nėra aišku kokiais kriterijais remiantis ir kokioms sąlygoms esant galima bausti juridinį asmenį nenustačius kalto fizinio asmens. Siekiant įvertinti, ar šiandieninis juridinio asmens baudžiamosios atsakomybės reglamentavimas Lietuvoje suteikia galimybę nubausti juridinį asmenį neidentifikavus kalto fizinio asmens, darbe buvo analizuojamos ir lyginamos tokiu atveju užsienio valstybių taikomos juridinio asmens baudžiamosios atsakomybės doktrinos bei vertinama ar juridinio asmens baudžiamosios atsakomybės sąlygos Lietuvoje jas atitinka. Mokslinėje literatūroje ir užsienio šalių teismų praktikoje siekiant nubausti bendrovę nenustačius kalto fizinio asmens, naudojamasi kolektyvinės kaltės ir korporacinės kultūros doktrinomis. Kolektyvinės kaltės doktrina pasižymi išvestine juridinio asmens atsakomybė, kuri nustatoma remiantis bendrovės darbuotojų veiksmų ir kaltės elementų vertinimu kaip bendra visuma, sudarančia juridinio asmens kaltę. Taip pat remiamasi ir korporacinės kultūros doktrina, kuri baudžiamąją atsakomybę juridiniam asmeniui taiko tiesiogiai, vertinant nusikalstamos „verslo kultūros“ egzistavimą pagal bendrovės politiką, praktiką ir požiūrį. Darbe daroma išvada, kad galima bausti juridinį asmenį nenustačius kalto fizinio asmens, kadangi juridinio asmens baudžiamosios atsakomybės reglamentavimas Lietuvoje numato sąlygas, kurios atitinka užsienio valstybių naudojamos kolektyvinės kaltės ir korporacinės kultūros doktrinų požymius.The research paper analyses the problem to apply criminal liability for legal persons without identification of a guilty natural person. Lithuania’s on a purpose to join the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (below - OECD), it was needed to harmonize the criminal laws of the Republic of Lithuania with the requirements of the 1997 OECD Convention. For this following reason changes were in regulation of legal persons criminal liability. In 2016 November 10 by changes of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania article 20 legislator established new possibilities for criminal liability of a legal person. Paragraph 5 of this Article provides that the criminal liability of a legal person may be exercised not only when a natural person who has committed a criminal offense is exempt from criminal liability but also when a natural person is not held liable for "other reasons". However, until now there is no new case-law based on today's legal regulation of criminal liability of a legal person, for which reason it is unclear on what basis and under what conditions a legal person can be punished without a guilty natural person. To find out whether today‘s legal regulation of the criminal liability of a legal person in Lithuania provides an opportunity to punish a legal person without identification of a guilty natural person, this research was analysed and compared the criminal liability doctrines applied by a foreign states (only those used in cases where a guilty natural person is not identified). Also was assessed whether the characteristics of these doctrines correspond to the conditions of criminal liability of a legal person in Lithuania. Today‘s legal regulation of criminal liability of a legal person in Lithuania provides that in the event that the complex corporate structure or other circumstances, such as use of collegial bodies secret ballot or electronic means identifiable only by the legal person, acting through authorized agents or an offshore company, it is impossible to identify a specific guilty natural person. Also, in other cases when the criminal proceedings are not initiated against the natural person who has committed a crime, the criminal proceedings of the legal person may be started or executed separately from the natural person. However, it should be noted that in all these cases of criminal offense must be identified a “natural person who may have committed a criminal offense”, but it do not oblige to prove his guilt. Since the liability of a legal person in Lithuanian case-law is derived from the liability of a natural person, it is required to establish a link between a legal person and a criminal act and the natural person who committed it in order to apply criminal liability to a legal person. For this reason, if a concrete natural person who has committed criminal offense is not identified, there must be grounds for believing that the offense was committed by one or more employees (referred to in Article 20 (2) and (3) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania), as this makes it possible to identify the existence of the required link. The analysis of scientific literature and foreign case law has revealed that on purpose to punish corporation without identification of a guilty natural person is used doctrines such as collective knowledge doctrine and corporate culture doctrine. Collective knowledge doctrine has a nominalistic approach, which considers the liability of a company derived from the liability of a natural person. Based on this model, the liability of a legal person is set by evaluating the actions and fault elements of the company's employees that forms the fault element of the legal person. Meanwhile, the corporate culture doctrine applies criminal liability to a legal person based on a realistic view, when liability is applied directly. Based on this model, the legal person is assessed, whether there is a criminal „corporate culture“ that allows or stimulates criminal acts for company employees or representatives. Such culture is identified by the company's policies, practices and attitudes. The analysis and the research presented in this paper has led to a conclusion that it is possible to punish a legal person without establishing a guilty natural person, because the regulation of criminal liability of a legal person in Lithuania provides for conditions that correspond to the features of the collective knowledge and corporate culture doctrines used by foreign states. It is also concluded that corporate culture doctrine in Lithuania is not directly enshrined in legal norms and it is therefore unclear what criteria should be used to determine the existence of a criminal culture, so it can be more complex to use corporate culture doctrine than collective knowledge doctrine.Teisės fakulteta