Does the legal regulation and application of extended confiscation of proporty in Lithuania not violate the principle of proportionality?

Išplėstinis turto konfiskavimas yra priverstinis turto paėmimas valstybės nuosavybėn, kuomet surinkus pakankamai duomenų esama pagrindo manyti, kad asmens turimas, teisėtomis pajamomis nepagrįstas, turtas buvo gautas nusikalstamu būdu. Šia baudžiamojo poveikio priemone siekiama padaryti nusikaltimus, iš kurių asmuo gauna turtinės naudos, neapsimokančius, nepatrauklius. Tačiau toks valstybės kišimasis į asmens nuosavybę turi būti teisėtas ir būtinas visuomenės interesams apginti bei neužkrauti asmens atžvilgiu didesnės naštos nei reikėtų. Lietuvoje įtvirtintas išplėstinis turto konfiskavimas gali būti taikomas plačiam nuteistų asmenų ratui. Be to, išplėstiniame turto konfiskavime naudojamos tam tikros nusikalstamos turto kilmės prezumpcijos nebūdingos baudžiamojoje teisėje naudojamam visiško įsitikinimo standartui. Tikėtinos nusikalstamos kilmės turtas gali būti konfiskuojamas, jeigu buvo įgytas po išplėstinio turto konfiskavimo normos įsigaliojimo arba penkerius metus iki nusikalstamos veikos padarymo už kurią asmuo yra nuteisiamas. Išplėstinė turto konfiskacija gali būti taikoma ir tretiesiems asmenims (tiek fiziniams, tiek juridiniams). Šio darbo tikslas buvo išsiaiškinti, ar išplėstinio turto konfiskavimo teisinis reguliavimas ir taikymas Lietuvoje nepažeidžia proporcingumo principo. Be to, darbe buvo analizuojama tam tikra tradicinio ir išplėstinio turto konfiskavimų konkurecija bei keliamas išplėstinio turto konfiskavimo reikalingumo baudžiamajame kodekse klausimas. Siekiant atsakyti į šiame darbe iškeltą hipotezę buvo nagrinėta Europos Žmogaus Teisių teismo ir Lietuvos teismų praktika, užsienio ir Lietuvos mokslininkų nuomonės bei kiti teisės aktai. Šiame darbe iškelta hipotezė pasitvirtino, išplėstinio turto konfiskavimo teisinis reguliavimas ir taikymas Lietuvoje nepažeidžia proporcingumo principo. Asmenys, darydami savanaudiškus, turtinio pobūdžio nusikaltimus daro didelę žalą tiek visuomenės, tiek valstybės interesams. Išplėstinio turto konfiskavimo taikymas plačiam nuteistų asmenų ratui bei normoje numatytas žemesnis įrodinėjimo standartas išplėstinę konfiskaciją padaro kur kas skvarbesne priemone lyginant su tradiciniu turto konfiskavimu. Asmenims, siekiantiems išvengti išplėstinės turto konfiskacijos, turto teisėtumo įrodinėjimas gali būti prilyginamas jų teisei, bet ne pareigai. Išplėstinio turto konfiskavimo normos galiojimas laike nepažeidžia principo lex retro non agit, o numatytas penkerių metų iki nusikalstamos veikos turto įgijimo laikotarpis gali būti įvardijamas kaip adekvatus normos taikymo ribojimas. Viešasis interesas gali pateisinti tokias asmeniui taikomas nuosavybės ribojimo priemones, todėl šiame darbe buvo prieita išvados, kad išplėstinis turto konfiskavimas numatytu teisiniu reguliavimu ir galimu praktiniu taikymu nepažeidžia proporcingumo principo.Extended confiscation is asset forfeiture by the state, when sufficient data exists to believe that the assets have been gained via criminal activities. Extended confiscation is not associated with any specific crime for which the individual bears criminal liability. The application of extended confiscation requires no obligation to prove the suspected crime committed in the past. Asset forfeiture in this case is based on the presumption of a previous crime. As organized crime seems to expand in Europe and criminal activities bring more and more financial gain, countries need to fight this problem harder than ever. Financial crimes bring high losses to the economy and finance system of countries, personal property, titles and ownership interests and business procedures, not to mention being a threat to the safety of the society. As a result, to prevent selfish crimes with the goal to obtain as much financial gain as possible, Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 obligated all members of the European Union to include the possibility of extended confiscation in their national laws. Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA sets forth extended confiscation and its possible application in cases of organized crime groups (counterfeit money, money laundering, human trafficking, child molestation, drug trafficking, etc.) and terrorism. As of December 11, 2010, Lithuania has adopted extended confiscation in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. Extended confiscation shall apply in cases where an individual is found guilty of moderate, serious or grave crime, have assets that do not correspond to his or her legal income or such assets exceed 250 minimum living level (MLL). Also, the assets must be acquired five years before the crime the individual is being tried for. Extended confiscation also applies to third parties, both natural persons and legal entities. Extended confiscation is a criminal measure helping to implement punishments. The goal of extended confiscation is not the punishment of the individual. The nature of this legal measure is more along the lines of restitution or compensation. Extended confiscation may be applied only when the individual in question has been found guilty of the crime which brought or could have brought him financial gain. The main goal of extended confiscation is to make selfish crimes of financial sort no longer profitable by depriving the guilty person of all the gain that might have been obtained illegally. The research question is as follows: Are the legal regulation and practical application of extended confiscation in Lithuania within the limits of the principle of proportionality, i.e., is the personal burden of the guilty person too high and can such restrictions on title be justified by the protection of public interests? Research objectives: 1) To analyze the concept of extended confiscation; 2) To reveal the manifestation of the principle of proportionality and its importance in the regulation and application of criminal laws; 3) To analyze the extended confiscation approved in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, especially its proving basis, asset confiscation from third parties, the period of asset acquisition and the suitability of the respective asset forfeiture as bearing criminal liability for illegal gain; 4) To analyze the similarities of extended confiscation and traditional asset forfeiture and the necessity of extended confiscation in the Criminal Code. The employed research methods included descriptive analysis, analysis of legal norms and literature sources, comparative analysis and theological analysis. The research hypothesis: extended confiscation does not breach the principle of proportionality. Extended confiscation defined in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania can be applied to many criminal activities that an individual must first be found guilty of. Such legal regulation of extended confiscation and its wide range of criminal activities enable this institute to be applied to the maximum effect. Irrespective of the gravity of the crime, the gained assets or financial gain must be seized. Confiscation of assets gained from crimes of various gravity maintains the required balance as public interests and the protection of the society against crimes can justify the restriction on title of a single person. Extended confiscation can be applied in the case where a presumption can be made that the assets have been acquired illegally. Such legal regulation of extended confiscation does not necessitate full proof which is usually required in criminal law. However, presuming and having a basis to do so do not equal abstract conclusions. According to the provisions on extended confiscation, the basis of believing that the assets have been gained illegally can be substantiated by the personality of the accused individual, previous crimes, connections with other individuals who tend to commit crimes, etc. The legal regulation of extended confiscation does not provide the guilty party with the possibility to save the illegally acquired assets even if such assets are given to third parties. The application of extended confiscation to third parties does not require any additional criminalization of the actions of the third parties in question. The third parties may prove the legality of the transferred assets and negate their unlawful gain during the criminal proceedings; however, this is their right and not an obligation. The extended confiscation can be applied when seizing assets that have been acquired five years before the crime, this way providing the possibility to seize assets obtained in the past through illegal means that have not been successfully resolved by law enforcement. This period is adequate and does not restrict the ownership rights more than it should. However, extended confiscation cannot be applied to assets that have been acquired prior to this legal norm coming into force. This principle is called lex retro non agit and it ensures the clarity of legal regulation and legal status of individuals. Application of extended confiscation in the cases where the individual bears criminal liability in accordance with Article 1891 of the Criminal Code (i.e. unjust enrichment) may be indicated as an inadequate measure. The assets seized under traditional asset forfeiture rule may be recognized as a result of a crime defined in Article 1891 of the Criminal Code. Traditional asset forfeiture is applicable to assets obtained as a tool, measure or result of a specific criminal activity. Meanwhile, extended confiscation allows seizing all assets of the individual which are disproportionate to his or her income, provided that a basis to believe that the assets have been gained illegally exists. The application of extended confiscation is based on the presumption of a possible previous crime, i.e. no direct connection between the crime the person is being tried for and the assets disproportionate to the held income is necessary. Extended confiscation can be used to seize a must larger portion of assets obtained through illegal activities; hence, extended confiscation is not deemed a too severe measure of asset forfeiture in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. The hypothesis was confirmed. The legal regulation and application of extended confiscation in Lithuania did not breach the principle of proportionality. Restrictions on personal assets can be applied only in exceptional cases stipulated in the laws. The application of extended confiscation can be justified with the aim to make selfish crimes of financial sort no longer profitable and thus eliminating the person’s motivation to commit crimes in the future. Also, the application of extended confiscation can be justified by the protection of public interests.Teisės fakulteta