Is the unlawful collection of information about a person`s private life enshrined in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania applicable to private detectives and their clients? The aspect of complicity in a criminal act.

Lietuvoje Privačios detektyvinės veiklos įstatymas buvo priimtas tik 2015 metais, t. y. privati detektyvinė veikla buvo teisiškai reglamentuota. Kadangi privačių detektyvų veikla konkretaus asmens atžvilgiu nepradedama be užsakovo, kyla klausimas, kiek dėl teisėtumo peržengimo kaltas užsakovas. Todėl magistro baigiamajame darbe problema formuluojama klausimu: ar LR BK įtvirtintas neteisėtas informacijos apie privatų asmens gyvenimą rinkimas yra taikomas privatiems detektyvams ir jų užsakovams nusikalstamos veikos bendrininkavimo aspektu? Tyrimo tikslas – atskleisti LR BK įtvirtinto neteisėto informacijos apie privatų asmens gyvenimą rinkimo taikymo privatiems detektyvams ir jų užsakovams ypatumus bei būtinybę kelti klausimą dėl nusikalstamos veikos bendrininkavimo aspekto. Magistro baigiamojo darbo teorinei daliai parengti buvo naudotas mokslinės literatūros analizės metodas, teisės aktų analizės metodas, apibendrinimo metodas. Tyrimui atlikti buvo pasirinktas kokybinio tyrimo metodas – dokumentų (teismų praktikos) analizė. Išvados buvo rengiamos apibendrinimo metodo pagalba. Gauti rezultatai: privačios detektyvinės veiklos sutartis yra rašytinis dokumentas, kuris įtvirtina santykį tarp detektyvo ir kliento, kuris parodo jų bendrą valią tam tikros paslaugos teikimo atžvilgiu. Jų kaltė, neteisėtai renkant informaciją apie privatų asmens gyvenimą, priklauso nuo dviejų galimų situacijų: kai privatus detektyvas ir užsakovas susitaria veikti neteisėtai, abiejų kaltė – tiesioginė tyčia; kai privatus detektyvas pats nusprendžia veikti neteisėtai, o užsakovas nesuvokia veiklos neteisėtumo, kaltė tenka tik privačiam detektyvui. Darbe pasitvirtino hipotezė: bendrininkavimo institutas turi būti taikomas privačiam detektyvui ir užsakovui, jei neteisėtai buvo renkama informacija apie privatų žmogaus gyvenimą.In Lithuania, the Law on Private Detective Activity was adopted only in 2015, i.e. this was the beginning of legal regulation of private detective activity. It is necessary to analyse the intended duties, rights, principles of legal activity of private detectives after the adoption of this law. Since the activities of private detectives in relation to a particular person cannot be initiated without a client, the question arises as to the extent to which the customer may guilty of a breach of legality. Therefore, in the Master's thesis, the problem is formulated with the following question: is the unlawful collection of information about a private person's life enshrined in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania applicable to private detectives and their clients in terms of complicity in the criminal act? Private detectives are constantly balancing on the verge of legality, especially in cases where the services of a detective are ordered by a person who wishes for the detective to follow his/her spouse, partner or girlfriend/boyfriend in order to gather evidence of infidelity. The question then arises as to whether the activity of a private detective is lawful in such cases. The Master's thesis, combining the case law on unlawful data collection, scientific literature on violations of a person's privacy, the institute of complicity, legislation governing the activities of private detectives, shall demonstrate the need necessity to consider the client and the private detective as accomplices in cases of unlawful collection of personal information. The purpose of the study is to reveal the peculiarities of the application of unlawful collection of information about the person's private life enshrined in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania in regards to private detectives and their clients and the need to raise the question concerning the complicity aspect of the criminal act. The method of analysis of scientific literature, method of analysis of legal acts, method of generalisation were used in order to prepare the theoretical part of the Master's thesis. The method of qualitative study, namely analysis of documents (court practice), was chosen for the performance of the study. The conclusions were drawn up using a generalisation method. Results obtained: a private detective activity contract is a written document that establishes a relationship between a detective and a client that shows their common will in regards to the performance of a particular service. Their guilt in unlawful collection of information about a person's private life depends on two possible situations: when a private detective and a client agree to act unlawfully, the guilt form of them both shall be specific intent; when the private detective himself/herself decides to act unlawfully and the client does not realise the unlawfulness of the activity, the guilt shall lie solely with the private detective. The following hypothesis was confirmed in the thesis: the institute of complicity must be applied to a private detective as well as a client if information about a person's private life has been collected unlawfully. Conclusions: 1. Complicity is similarly defined in scientific literature, the Criminal Code and the case law. Complicity is proven when it corresponds to objective and subjective features, i.e. when the criminal act is collectively committed by persons of appropriate age with full legal capacity; when the commonality of their actions is based on the fact that they had a common objective – to commit a criminal act, realized and comprehended that they are uniting their efforts in order to commit a criminal act and are acting contrary to the Law; when the agreement between the accomplices is expressed in any way (in writing, orally, by implied action) and at any stage of the criminal act (may arise suddenly or be agreed upon in advance); when the accomplices act according to specific or general intent. 2. In Lithuania, private detective activity is regulated by the Law on Private Detective Activity, just as in Latvia, Slovenia, Ukraine, Germany and the United States of America. In Lithuania, the Law on Private Detective Activity was adopted only in 2015 and it is quite identical to the Law on Private Detective Activity in Latvia. The laws of the analysed countries (Latvia, Slovenia, Ukraine, Germany, the United States of America) similarly define private detective activities, determine the status of a private detective and provide exhaustive lists of services that can be provided by detectives. After analysing the definitions of detective activity, it can be stated that it may provided only in cases when information is needed by law enforcement authorities, by persons concerning participants in criminal or civil proceedings, concerning missing persons, relatives, lost and/or stolen property. 3. The unlawful collection of information about a person's private life is explained in detail in court practice and no significant contradictions have been observed in regards thereof. The unlawful collection of information about a person's private life is a crime where information about a person's private life (home environment, family, work environment, personal secrets, health status, views) is collected by unlawful means (by secretly following, observing, listening, photographing, filming, reading correspondence in any way that is not publicly available) when such person is not in a public place. The courts take the position that in all cases (whether a person is in a public or non-public place) it is prohibited to photograph or film him/her without his/her consent. The composition of the crime is formal, which means that it is considered complete from the moment the unlawful collection of information about a person's private life begins. The form of guilt is specific intent. 4. In the case of the unlawful collection of information about a person's private life in cases of fault of several persons, it is necessary to harmonise case law and, in all cases, to address the issue of complicity. A private detective, from the point of view of complicity, is in all cases the perpetrator of the crime, but can additionally become an abettor if he/she incites other persons to help him/her to gather information. Meanwhile, the client who ordered the performance of the service can be treated as an abettor or organiser, depending on his/her efforts to commit the crime.Teisės fakulteta