http:\/\/teise.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/Trilyte-Zelenina-2018_2-96.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n[:]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
[:lt] Lietuvos teis\u0117je \u012ftvirtinus juridinio asmens baud\u017eiamosios atsakomyb\u0117s visumos doktrinos model\u012f, galima pasteb\u0117ti tam tikr\u0105 teisinio reglamentavimo nenuoseklum\u0105, kuomet kai kuriais atvejais paliekama iki Baud\u017eiamojo proceso kodekso pakeitim\u0173 galiojusi s\u0105lyga nustatyti juridinio asmens naudai nusikalstam\u0105 veik\u0105 padarius\u012f fizin\u012f asmen\u012f. Tokia i\u0161vada pateikiama Lietuvos teis\u0117s instituto (LTI) mokslinink\u0117s Rasos Tirylyt\u0117s-Zeleninos paskelbtame mokslo straipsnyje \u201eNauji juridinio asmens baud\u017eiamosios atsakomyb\u0117s kriterijai Lietuvos Respublikos teis\u0117je\u201c. Straipsnyje analizuojami juridinio asmens baud\u017eiamosios atsakomyb\u0117s taikymo kriterij\u0173 poky\u010diai 2016\u00a0m. lapkri\u010dio 10\u00a0d. atlikus Baud\u017eiamojo kodekso 20\u00a0str. ir Baud\u017eiamojo proceso kodekso 387\u00a0str. pakeitimus. Mokslinink\u0117 pa\u017eymi, kad poreikis \u012ftvirtinti juridinio asmens baud\u017eiamosios atsakomyb\u0117s visumos doktrinos model\u012f Lietuvos teis\u0117je mokslinink\u0173 buvo konstatuotas dar 2003\u00a0m., \u0161ie pasi\u016blymai buvo \u012fgyvendinti tik atlikus atitinkamus pakeitimus 2016\u00a0m. Juridinio asmens baud\u017eiamosios atsakomyb\u0117s visumos modelis \u012f Lietuvos baud\u017eiam\u0105j\u0105 teis\u0119 istori\u0161kai at\u0117jo su Lietuvos siekiu tapti EBPO nare ir \u0161io tikslo s\u0105lygota intencija ratifikuoti 1997\u00a0m. Konvencij\u0105 d\u0117l kovos su u\u017esienio \u0161ali\u0173 pareig\u016bn\u0173 papirkimu tarptautiniuose verslo sandoriuose. Straipsnio i\u0161vadose ra\u0161oma, jog \u0161ie pakeitimai \u017eeng\u0117 paskui kit\u0173 u\u017esienio valstybi\u0173, pripa\u017e\u012fstan\u010di\u0173 nuasmenint\u0105 juridinio asmens baud\u017eiam\u0105j\u0105 atsakomyb\u0119, praktik\u0105, ta\u010diau Lietuvoje nebuvo deramai atsi\u017evelgta \u012f teisin\u0119 baz\u0119 ir pagrindus, ant kuri\u0173 \u0161iandien juridinio asmens baud\u017eiamosios atsakomyb\u0117s institute jau yra sukonstruota visumos doktrina. Mokslinink\u0117 rekomenduoja \u0161\u012f nenuoseklum\u0105 panaikinti pa\u0161alinant Baud\u017eiamojo kodekso 20\u00a0str. 2\u00a0d. \u012ftvirtint\u0105 privalom\u0105 juridinio asmens baud\u017eiamosios atsakomyb\u0117s imperatyv\u0105 baud\u017eiam\u0105ja tvarka atsakyti tik tuo atveju, jei nusikalstama veika buvo padaryta juridinio asmens naudai ar interesais veikusio fizinio asmens. Vis\u0105 mokslinink\u0117s publikacij\u0105 galima skaityti \u010dia: http:\/\/teise.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/Trilyte-Zelenina-2018_2-96.pdf [:en] 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 \u201cNew Criteria of Criminal Liability of a Legal Person in Lithuanian National Law\u201d published by the Law Institute of Lithuania (hereinafter \u2013 LIL) researcher Rasa Tirylyt\u0117-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\u2019s 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\u2019s full publication can be read here: http:\/\/teise.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/Trilyte-Zelenina-2018_2-96.pdf [:]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":558,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,261],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3121","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-naujienos","category-2018-naujienu-irasu-metai"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3121","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3121"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3121\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6781,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3121\/revisions\/6781"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/558"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3121"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3121"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3121"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}