Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFedosiuk, Oleg
dc.date.accessioned2014-10-17T07:15:29Z
dc.date.available2014-10-17T07:15:29Z
dc.identifier.urihttps://www3.mruni.eu/ojs/jurisprudence/article/view/2849/2652
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.mruni.eu/handle/007/12587
dc.description.abstractThe article deals with the relevant theoretical and practical problem of delimitation between criminal and civil liability for evasion of property obligation by means of deception. Such a criminal deed has been involved into the three norms of chapter XXVIII of the new Lithuanian criminal code including norm of fraud. Such a regulation overcomes the limits of traditional apprehension of criminal deed, therefore requires developing a clear concept of the evasion of property obligation, as well as to find the criteria of its delimitation from a civil delict. The author overviews the traditional concept of delimitation between criminal and civil liability in general, then analyses examples of decisions of Supreme Court of Lithuania in this category of cases and its motives of confirming or denying the criminal liability for evasion of property obligation. The author concluded that the evasion of property obligation is to be considered as a criminal act only if a perpetrator, by means of deception, deprived a victim of real possibilities to protect his property right in civil court. As the examples of such deprivation might serve the false insolvency of the debtor, concealment of identity of the debtor, forged evidence of fulfilment of the obligation and so on. Moreover, the article examines the applicability of the traditional conception of deception to the cases of evasion of property of obligation.en
dc.language.isolten
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.titleBaudžiamosios ir civilinės atsakomybės takoskyra turtinių prievolių išvengimo bylose.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.description.abstract-ltStraipsnyje nagrinėjamos civilinės ir baudžiamosios atsakomybės už prievolių išvengimą apgaule atribojimo problemos. Minėta veika numatyta net trijose Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamojo kodekso (toliau – BK) XXVIII skyriaus normose, įskaitant sukčiavimą. Tokia padėtis reikalauja aiškios koncepcijos, ką reiškia išvengti turtinės prievolės ir kokie yra baudžiamosios atsakomybės taikymo kriterijai. Autorius, pabrėždamas tradicinio požiūrio į minėtos problemos sprendimą nepakankamumą ir analizuodamas Lietuvos Aukščiausiojo Teismo, kaip kasacinės institucijos, nutartis, atrenka tuos argumentus, kurie leidžia efektyviai spręsti minėtą problemą.en
dc.identifier.aleph000002243en
dc.publication.sourceJurisprudencija, 2006, Nr. 7(85)en
dc.subject.facultyTeisės fakultetasen
dc.subject.keywordBaudžiamoji atsakomybėen
dc.subject.keywordSukčiavimasen
dc.subject.keywordCriminal liabilityen
dc.subject.keywordFrauden
dc.subject.publicationtypeS5
dc.subject.sciencedirection01S - Teisėen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record