Should a cross-border movement of undeclared, legally held cash be a subject to a criminal prosecution?

Šiai dienai pagal galiojantį teisinį reguliavimą už nedeklaruotų legaliai turimų grynųjų pinigų gabenimą per valstybės sieną yra taikoma baudžiamoji atsakomybė. Bet kuris asmuo, nepateikęs muitinės kontrolei gabenamų 10 000 Eur grynųjų pinigų sumą gali būti nubaustas už grynųjų pinigų kontrabandą. Analizuojant legaliai turimų grynųjų pinigų gabenimą per valstybės sieną teisinį reguliavimą, nustatyta, kad Lietuvoje taikant baudžiamąją atsakomybę nėra atsižvelgiama į grynųjų pinigų kilmę, t. y. taikoma vienoda baudžiamoji atsakomybė tiek gabenant teisėtos, tiek neteisėtos kilmės grynuosius pinigus. Grynųjų pinigų deklaravimo pažeidimo objektas pagal galiojančius teisės aktus yra muitinei privalomų pateikti daiktų gabenimo tvarka, tačiau iš esmės tai yra formalus deklaravimo prievolės neįvykdymas, kuris neturi įtakos atsirasti neigiamiems padariniams finansų ar verslo tvarkos srityse. Lietuvos teismų praktikos analizė parodė, kad ne visada teismai vadovaujasi EŽTT praktika ir turto konfiskavimo išaiškinimais. Teismai taikydami grynųjų pinigų konfiskavimą, dažnai bylos aplinkybes vertina formaliai, neįsigilindami į grynųjų pinigų teisėtumą. Todėl kyla problema, nes už formalų pažeidimą yra taikoma griežta baudžiamoji atsakomybė ir konfiskuojami teisėti grynieji pinigai, kurių vertė neretai būna šimtą kartų didesnė nei paskirta bauda. Atlikta užsienio valstybių teisinio reguliavimo analizė parodė, kad dauguma analizuotų valstybių taiko tiek administracinę, tiek baudžiamąją atsakomybę bei baudžiamojo poveikio priemonę – turto konfiskavimą. Pastebėta, kad baudžiamoji atsakomybė pažeidėjui kylą tik tuomet, jei grynųjų pinigų deklaravimo pažeidimas yra susijęs su pinigų plovimu ar teroristų finansavimu, nustatyta neteisėta pinigų kilmė. Atsižvelgiant į tai kas išdėstyta, siūlytina legaliai turimų grynųjų pinigų deklaravimo prievolės išvengimą, gabenant pinigus per išorinę valstybės sieną dekriminalizuoti, kadangi deklaravimo tvarkos vykdymo užtikrinimui pakaktų ir administracinės atsakomybės su teismo diskrecija vertinant bylos aplinkybes konfiskuoti nedeklaruotą pinigų sumą.Under the current legislation, any undeclared transportation of a legally held money across the country border is a subject to criminal liability according to the Criminal code, directive 199. A person who carries 10 000 Eur in cash and has not declared it to a customs office can be penalized for smuggling. The act of smuggling is formal therefore, the consequences do not affect the classification of the act. In this paperwork a thorough analysis of current documents was accomplished and a legal regulation of the violation of cash declarations was highlighted in order to determine the purpose and value of cash control. In accordance with data analyzed, the object and seriousness of the violation of the declaration of legally held cash has been detected and highlighted in order to determine whether certain values, defined by a directive 199, are violated by avoiding the obligation to declare cash. The analysis of the case-law delves into the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the interpretation of the proportionality of confiscation of property and gives a comparison of foreign legal regulations in the application of liability for cash control violations. In 2005 October 26 a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council was adopted, which became the legal basis for declaring outgoing and incoming cash. This regulation was based on the objective of preventing money laundering by controlling cash flows. The Regulation states that sanctions for non-compliance with the obligation to declare cash must be effective, reasonable and discouraging to act against. However, it is still debatable whether Lithuania complies with the regulation provisions towards a proportionate application of the smuggling rate, which is based exclusively on non-fulfillment of obligations to declare of at least EUR 10 000 in cash, regardless of the origin of the money transported, or personal goals, which are directly related to the essence of cash control. Thus, the obligation to declare cash is part of international cash control, aimed at combating against use of illegally acquired money and committing further criminal offenses with the use of the money. Tt is therefore necessary to ensure compliance with the obligation to declare cash. In order to promote the obligation to declare cash and to discourage tax evasion, member states should impose sanctions exclusively for non-compliance with the obligation to declare cash. It means that the imposition of a sanction should not take into account possible criminal offenses, related to the transportation of cash, which may be the subject of further investigation. Thus, the penalties imposed by the Member States must be proportionate and their severity must not exceed the intended purpose, or the purpose of ensuring declaration. In Lithuania, the origin of cash is not taken into consideration when prosecuting. In other words, the same criminal liability applies to both cases of legal and illegal origin cash. However, considering the legal origin and purpose of legally available cash and the low risk of avoiding the obligation to declare as well as a low risk of financial damage, the weight of criminal liability is debatable. Undeclared cash is also recognized in the case law of Lithuanian courts as a smuggling object, which must be confiscated in its entirety, however, the European Court of Human Rights (further – EŽTT) noted that, in accordance with the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms governing the protection of property, the court must look precisely at the circumstances of the case, rather than, general terms on the basis of broad assumptions of aserious risk of infringement. In other words, to evaluate the nature of the specific infringement and the sanctions applicable to it, especially when confiscation is of high value and applied in conjunction with another sanction. However, the analysis of Lithuanian case law showed that courts do not always follow the case law of the EŽTT and clarification of confiscation of property. When applying cash confiscation, courts often formally assess the circumstances of a case, regardless of the origin of the cash. Therefore, difficulties are encountered, as a formal violation is subject to criminal liability and the confiscation of legal cash, the value of which is often significantly higher than the fine imposed. This paperwork highlights and analyze the object and danger of the violation of the declaration of undeclared legally available cash. In accordance with current legislation t was determined that the procedure for the transport of goods is required. However, this procedure is considered as a formal breach of the obligation to declare, which does not have an adverse effect on financial or business practices. To emphasize, only particularly dangerous acts are recognized as criminal offenses or criminal offenses. Considering a low gravity of violation of cash declaration consequently it can be assumed that the application of criminal liability is disproportionate to the offense committed. It is also inaccurate to criminalize non-compliance with the formal declaration obligation in order to ensure cash controls, as the same objective can be achieved by less severe non-criminal measures. A performed comparative analysis of the legal regulation of foreign countries applying liability for violations of cash control showed that most states analyzed, in accordance with the national legislation of the country, apply a criminal sanction for the infringement, which is a confiscation of property, under the same framework both for administrative and criminal liability. It was observed that criminal liability of the offender arises only if the breach of the cash declaration is related to money laundering financed terrorism (there are significant signs, or results of money laundering). Thus, as in deciding whether to apply criminal liability or confiscation of property, the court assess the circumstances of the case relating to the determination of the origin of the cash. Therefore, criminal liability arises only if undeclared cash of illegal origin is transported across the state border. In Malta, as well as in Lithuania, a formal breach of a cash declaration for which criminal liability is applicable is sufficient, regardless of whether the breach is related to money laundering. In view of the above, the following conclusions can be made. The obligation to declare cash is an important part of cash control, therefore there is no doubt that it is necessary to ensure compliance with the obligation to declare. However, a criminal liability applied under the current legal framework to ensure compliance with the obligation can be assumed as unreasonably high. Therefore, considering a low gravity of the breach of the declaration of legally available cash, and the absence of damage to the State, administrative liability would be sufficient.Teisės fakulteta