The author tries to explore several new amendments to the penal code of Lithuania, made by the Law on 2 December 2010. The first amendment concerns article 72 of the Penal code of Lithuania (confiscation of property). Prior to the year 2003, confiscation of property implied the right of the court to confiscate any property in possession of the sentenced person. However the Penal code of 2003 set up a new concept of confiscation: just proceeds of the crime or objects (...) intended to be used in committing a crime should be confiscated. However practice was very poor. New law aimed at boosting practice of confiscation, particularly from third persons, to whom usually the offender transfers property. Previous wording of the law provided for that the property should be confiscated from the third person just in case the person knew or could know that the property that he possesses is from a crime. The law of 2010 added new alternative conditions. (shrink)

Recently (2010–2011) new criminal legislation to combat illegal income and corruption was passed and publicly discussed in Lithuania. Within the list of the new legal measures, special attention should be paid to criminalisation of illicit enrichment, establishment of a model of extended property confiscation, reinforcement of responsibility for corruption-related offenses, a provision that not only property but also personal benefits may constitute a bribe. It can be seen from the explanatory letters attached to the draft laws and the political debate (...) that the new regulation is expected to achieve decisive breakthrough in the fight against corruption and illegal income. However, without any doubt as to the necessity to fight against those social evils, the author presents critical evaluation of the reform by applying the test of principles of criminal law, legal language and practical effectiveness. By making critical conclusions that the new criminal legislation deliberately lightens the prosecution’s goal of incrimination and the burden of proof, the author warns about the purposive instrumental nature of the new laws, which are balancing on the threshold of legitimacy. In the article the author reveals crucial shortcomings of the new legislation: in some aspects it lacks legal certainty, in other aspects it ignores the principles of guilt, presumption of innocence and proportionality as well as the conception of criminal law as a last resort (ultima ratio). As a result, the new legal means against illegal income and corruption leave space for applying inadequate repression beyond their intended purpose, in addition, they criminalise human conduct that is insufficiently dangerous and create preconditions for senseless criminal prosecutions and violation of human rights. (shrink)

Recent developments in criminal legislation of the Republic of Lithuania among other significant novelties include the criminalization of illicit enrichment as criminal offence. Such offence presents new legal instrument for the law enforcement in dealing with individuals who acquire property in doubtful ways. The crime of illicit enrichment is rather a novelty within the context of criminal legislation. Such novelty was largely based upon the requirements of United Nations Convention against Corruption, which stipulates the implementation of such legal measure. According (...) to the article Twenty of the convention, “Subject to its constitution and the fundamental principles of its legal system, each State Party shall consider adopting such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as a criminal offence, when committed intentionally, illicit enrichment, that is, a significant increase in the assets of a public official that he or she cannot reasonably explain in relation to his or her lawful income”. While the convention was undoubtedly major factor for making grounds for said developments the need to widen the scope of confiscation of property and impound illegally acquired wealth were the driving forces behind the political will to support amendments to the Criminal Code. At same time the new offence of illicit enrichment presents significant challenges for the investigative bodies with the prosecution as well as the courts establishing such offences. First and foremost, the techniques of criminalization and legal wording of the offence are new and do not go well with the established principles of criminalization. Unnatural features of the corpus of the crime listed in the code (article No. 1891 of the Criminal Code of Lithuania) involve criminal act lacking attributes illegitimacy, complications regarding guilt of the accused. In addition, doubts and questions regarding the fundamental principles of criminal procedure, due process concerns, and problems of the balance of the rights of the accused with the right of the society to recover illicitly acquired wealth. The relationship of illicit enrichment to other criminal acts committed by the same accused is also of a great importance in establishing sources of such enrichment. As for the time of submission of present article, one hundred and seven interrogations on the illicit enrichment were on and lasting while only three simplified judgments and one proper court sentence were passed. The reasons for such slow implementation of the law are the ambiguities of the definition of law, as well as limitations of regulations, insufficiencies in asset declaration systems, lack of theoretical background and complete absence of court practice on such cases. Two of the existing convictions are analyzed from the point of view of establishment of guilt, the evidence set in the case, the grounds of adequacy of such convictions. The examples presented give basis to judge the adequacy of the new law an opportunity to predict the future rulings of the courts. Necessity of the improvements of the law becomes quite obvious on the basis of the analysis. Strong criticisms, various scientific suggestions on the improvements of the regulations, namely on the constitution of guilt, wording of the criminal act are presented by the author. (shrink)

This article addresses several aspects of interaction between procedural and conflict rule regulation in private international law both of which are subject to unification process under the European Community law. They are interdependent of each other, and use the same or similar terms on many occasions. Problems with interpretation arise in application of these legal regulations. The European Court of Justice addresses them more or less successfully. As demonstrated in this article, the interpretation of procedural rules of regulation may contribute (...) to the clarification of the conflict rules and vice versa. It can be even said that the mutual interaction of conflict rules and procedural rules through interpretation is both unavoidable and desirable. (shrink)