Our site uses cookies to ensure you quality of service. By continuing browsing you agree with LTI cookie policy. Learn more

news

News

2018 / 10 / 15

Inconsistency in the field of criminal liability of a legal person

Upon a model of the aggregation doctrine for the criminal liability of a legal person being established in Lithuanian law, a certain inconsistency of legal regulation can be observed where in certain cases, the condition that was valid prior to the amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure to identify the natural person who has committed a criminal offence for the benefit of a legal person is left in place.

Such a conclusion is presented in the scientific article “New Criteria of Criminal Liability of a Legal Person in Lithuanian National Law” published by the Law Institute of Lithuania (hereinafter – LIL) researcher Rasa Tirylytė-Zelenina. The article analyses the changes to the criteria for the application of criminal liability of a legal person after the amendments to Article 20 of the Criminal Code and Article 387 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that were made on 10 November 2016.

The author notes that the need to establish a model of the aggregation doctrine for the criminal liability of a legal person in Lithuanian law had already been ascertained by scholars in 2003, but these proposals were only implemented after the relevant changes were made in 2016. Historically, the aggregation model for the criminal liability of a legal person came into Lithuanian criminal law together with Lithuania’s aspiration to become a member of the OECD and the intention conditioned by this goal to ratify the 1997 Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.

The article concludes that these changes followed the practice of other foreign countries that recognise the depersonalised criminal liability of a legal person, but that in Lithuania, due regard was not given to the legal basis and grounds on which the aggregation doctrine is already constructed in the institution of criminal liability of a legal person today.

The author recommends eradicating this inconsistency by eliminating the mandatory imperative of criminal liability of a legal person established in Article 20(2) of the Criminal Code to only be held criminally liable in the case that the criminal act was committed by a natural person for the benefit or in the interests of the legal person.

The author’s full publication can be read here: http://teise.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Trilyte-Zelenina-2018_2-96.pdf