Atsiskaitymų negrynaisiais pinigais samprata.
The whole of the Lithuanian legislation regulating non-cash payment is not united and one of the reasons is the fact that in the process of making and passing laws there is no clear interpretation of non-cash payment. The article aims at specifying the concepts of non-cash payment and payment by letters of credit, taking into account the system of legal acts formed by the European Union as well as to the specifics of the new laws regulating the economic activities and financial relations. After analysing the views of foreign experts of law, economics, finance and other sciences, related to non-cash payment, the article presents the definition of non-cash payment. At the same time, the author of the article suggests criteria, which are very useful when distinguishing one means of non–cash payment from another, and define the classification grounds for other kinds of payment. After the analysis of the aforementioned questions, the author of the article comes to the following conclusions: It has been determined that non-cash payment is characterised by three elements: the document of payment (the reference of payment), the circulation of the documents and the means of payment. The following is the proposed definition of non-cash payment: „Non-cash payment is financial obligation fulfilment, regulated by law and international traditions of bank activities, through a bank where certain payment document(s), circulation of document(s), and means of payment are used“. It is suggested to consider the type of payment document as a distinctive element of non-cash payment. It has been indicated that inclusion or planned payment cannot be considered as a means of non-cash payment, on the grounds that they do not have individual, characteristic document(s). It has been established that these forms of non-cash payment are currently used in the Republic of Lithuania: order of payment, cheque, bill and credit. The research drove to the conclusion that it is impossible to define the document of payment that is characteristic to the bill for collection, and this circumstance does not allow to consider the bill for collection as one of the means of non-cash payment, if to take into account the abovementioned non-cash payment definition. The author suggests reckoning the bill for collection as an operation, carried out in different means of non-cash payment, or as a unilateral financial bank transaction.
- Straipsniai / Articles