Piktnaudžiavimo kriminalizavimo, vertinimo bei normos tobulinimo problemos.
The article deals with the concept of abuse of office as defined in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. The abuse of office is the most frequent criminal deed against public service and execution of public interests. The concept of abuse of office involves numerous attributes that have to be proved during the investigation of criminal cases of abuse of office.However, some problems prevail in the practice of law enforcement agencies dealing with the investigation of abuse of office. First and foremost, the attribute of major harm to the state, international public organization, natural or legal person remains unclear, thus creating ambiguous interpretations. The attempts to clarify the attribute in question are taken by prosecution as well as the courts dealing with the abuse of office. However, this leads to superfluous attempts of stating the same attribute in different cases. The author presents theoretical arguments and examples of criminal cases which lead the suggestions on the interpretation of the attribute of major harm. In addition the author supports the opinion by which major harm as material damage should not be calculated according to the rules of the old Criminal Code. By presenting the position of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the author denies the margin of 250 Minimum Wage Unit (MWU). The more appropriate definitive margin of 150 MWU is suggested and supported by the systematic analysis of various chapters of the Criminal Code. The author discusses problematic issues of insufficient balance between the Articles 225 and 228 of the Criminal Code and presents some theoretical suggestions. Another major failing presents the structure of the Article 228 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania which does not foresee the abuse of office as a criminal offence, thus a more lenient criminal responsibility is impossible.
- Articles / Straipsniai