Omissions, the Act Requirement, and Criminal Liability

Goals of criminal liability can be achieved without imposing a punishment or the actual execution of the punishment imposed on a person who has committed a criminal act. Therefore, modern Lithuanian Criminal Law provides for the following three forms of criminal liability realization: 1) imposition of punishment, 2) release from criminal liability, and 3) suspension of the execution of punishment or release from the execution of punishment. The traditional form of implementing criminal liability recognizes the imposition of punishment (sentencing). In this case, the court that has found a person guilty of a criminal act has the duty and the right to impose a punishment on him/her. Statistical data confirm that sentencing is essentially the main form of realization of criminal liability in Lithuania, which is applied in an average of two-thirds (or about 66 percent) of decisions in criminal cases. Meanwhile, release from criminal liability or suspension of execution of punishment and release from the execution of punishment can be considered as additional forms of realization of criminal liability. Statistical data show that the institute of release from criminal liability remained stable in the second place and consistently accounted for a fraction more than one quarter (or about 27 percent) of decisions on criminal cases each year. Meanwhile, the statistical data of the application of the institute of suspension of execution of punishment and release from the execution of punishment show that this form of realization of criminal liability solves only a relatively small (or about 7 percent) share of criminal cases.Release from criminal liability as a form of realization of criminal liability in Lithuania can be with or without the application of penal or reformative measures. Chapter VI of the General Part of the Criminal Code of Lithuania “Release from Criminal Liability” essentially provides the 8 main, general types of release from criminal liability: release from criminal liability when a person or criminal act loses its dangerousness (Article 36 of the CC), release from criminal liability due to minor relevance of a crime (Article 37 of the CC), release from criminal liability upon reconciliation between the offender and the victim (Article 38 of the CC), release from criminal liability on the basis of mitigating circumstances (Article 39 of the CC), release from criminal liability when a person actively assisted in detecting the criminal acts committed by members of an organized group or a criminal association (Article 39(1) of the CC), release of a whistleblower from criminal liability (Article 39(2) of the CC), release from criminal liability on bail (Article 40 of the CC), and Chapter X of the General Part of the Criminal Code of Lithuania “Peculiarities of Criminal Liability of Juveniles” – release of a minor from criminal liability (Article 93 of the CC). The greatest influence on the Lithuanian criminal system in the last six years (2018–2023) has been exerted by such types of release from criminal liability as release from criminal liability upon reconciliation between the offender and the victim and release from criminal liability on bail, and, to a lesser extent – release from criminal liability due to the minor relevance of a crime. Meanwhile, other types of release from criminal liability for objective reasons, consisting of the regulation of the entire application grounds and individual requirements, practically do not affect the criminal policy. On the other hand, some of these types of release from criminal liability (such as release from criminal liability due to the minor relevance of a crime, release from criminal liability upon reconciliation between the offender and the victim, release from criminal liability on the basis of mitigating circumstances and release from criminal liability on bail) have the potential to exert greater influence on the criminal policy, and therefore support the amendments and additions to the Criminal Code which aim to abandon unreasonable restrictions and expand the legal prerequisites for the application of individual types of release from criminal liability.

The Intersection Between Criminal and Administrative Liability of a Legal Entity for Environmental Violations in the Context of Sustainable Development One of the measures which is able to ensure the implementation of sustainable development aims is the institute of legal entities' environmental legal liability and its effective application. Three sorts of legal entities' legal liability can be applied in Lithuania, namely, civil, criminal and administrative liability. Evaluating from the prospect of implementation of sustainable development aims, the potentially effective sorts of legal liability in the environmental sphere are legal entities' administrative and criminal liability. Legal entities violating the norms of environmental law set economic aim above social and environmental aims, hence legal entities also encroach on sustainable development and do not allow for a striving towards the combinability of environmental, economic and social societal aims. This circumstance presupposes the demand to supplement the conception of the object of environmental law violation by both human health and life and sustainable development categories. This article tries to answer the questions as to whether administrative or criminal liability should be applied to the legal entities for offences against the environment, and to which liability - criminal or administrative - a legislator should render priority in protecting the environment from illegal actions of the legal entities.

This paper deals with the types of legal liability for campus sexual assault of teachers and their relationship. First, we look at how the rules on campus sexual assault define sexual violence. The majority of the rules on campus sexual assault define the types of sexual assault divided into sexual violence crimes and sexual harassment. This is a reflection of the legislative attitude of the current law.<BR> The types of legal liabilities of teachers who commit sexual assault will then be largely divided into disciplinary, criminal and civil liabilities to examine each of the main contents. Among these legal liabilities, the relationship between disciplinary liabilities and criminal liabilities, which has been subject to much controversy, is reviewed, especially from the perspective of double jeopardy. The principle of double jeopardy means that the same crime cannot be criminally punished the same crime. Even if both criminal punishment and discipline are imposed on a same act, it does not constitute double punishment. This is because discipline and criminal punishment are each recognized as different in terms of purpose and content.<BR> However, the confusion of procedural and substantive perceptions about the relationship between discipline and criminal punishment remains in reality. In other words, there is still a gap between legal principles and legal perceptions of the public. The situation should be resolved little by little through mutual coordination while maintaining the independence of disciplinary and criminal liability. It is inappropriate to approach disciplinary action based on criminal liability even though criminal liability is not an issue regarding sexual assault of teachers. However, if criminal liability is a problem, it would be desirable to proceed with disciplinary action after the investigation or the first trial. At the same time, it is necessary to place a regulation on suspending disciplinary proceedings in the rules on campus sexual assault. However, it should be remembered that the denial of criminal liability does not mean that it is impossible to impose disciplinary action against sexual assault.

The conversion between criminal liability and civil liability means, when the actor is required to bear both criminal liability and civil liability, the two kinds of responsibilities can substitute each other in quality and quantity under certain conditions and in accordance with certain procedures. In essence, it is the impact of civil liability fulfillment on the basis of criminal liability, which further affects the undertaking of criminal liability. The conversion between criminal liability and civil liability includes two levels: the conversion of criminal liability to civil liability and the conversion of civil liability to criminal liability. It is usually applicable to minor offences that infringe on individual legal interests. The conversion should follow specific procedures. In order to realize the conversion between criminal and civil liability, our concepts should be further updated; relevant provisions should be improved in the level of substantive law.

PurposeIt is recognised that the mere proscription of corporate offences is not adequate to deter misconduct or engender compliance. There is a need for the enforcement of the rules through robust culture-changing sanctions. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the inadequacies of criminal law liability in ensuring compliance with ethical corporate conduct in South Africa.Design/methodology/approachThis paper is purely qualitative. For expository purposes, it draws from the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977 as well the corporate criminality enforcement trends and data from the National Prosecutions Agency’s annual reports to demonstrate that much as criminal liability is enshrined in a statute it has, however, not yielded the expected results. It situates the debate within the broader economic criminological scholarship.FindingsThis paper argues that even though the option of prosecuting corporations and directors is part of South African law, many corporate offences are not brought into the criminal justice system. Judging by its erratic imposition, criminal liability has failed to express the indignation and condemnation that are normally attached to criminal sanctions. Several reasons account for this. These include evidentiary, legal, technical and definitional complexities of some corporate offences, which lead to them being regarded as “unprosecutable crimes”. This has a negative impact on enforcement.Originality/valueThis paper is novel because it approaches the debate from a fresh perspective, economics and criminology. Not much scholarly attention has been devoted to analysing the efficacy of criminal sanctions in the South African context. This paper attempts to fill that gap.

This article analyzes the main arguments of the opponents of introducing criminal liability for legal entities. The paper discusses its social causation and international obligations of Russia in this area. The author dwells on historical reasons of introducing criminal liability for legal entities in our country. The paper examines conceptual possibilities for establishing criminal liability of legal entities, its conformity with the principles of criminal law of Russia, the balance between criminal and administrative liability. The paper analyzes the possibility for a legal entity to commit a crime, the balance between criminal liability of a legal entity and a person, problems associated with the system of penalties for legal persons, a possibility of using foreign experience in this area. Also, it examines the possibility of integrating legal entities criminal liability rules into the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The author draws a conclusion concerning essential refutability of arguments of opponents of criminal liability of legal entities. The author argues for its introduction and justifies the objective necessity of its implementation into Russian criminal law for a variety of factors. The author specifies what should be borne in mind to implement it. It is noted that positive effects of its implementation can overcome all potential problems.

The principle of nullum crimen sine culpa in Polish criminal law from a constitutional perspective

This article is researching an institution of exemption from criminal liability as an alternative to criminal prosecution on the basis of current criminal procedure legislation, scientific researches and judicial practice. It was found that some researchers of exemption from criminal liability refer it to the forms of criminal liability, consider exemption from criminal liability as an institution of criminal law that differentiates liability; a radical means of differentiating a criminal liability; a legal fact that terminates a criminal legal relationship, which exempts a person from adverse legal consequences, etc. Having analysed the positions of foreign and domestic scholars, it can be concluded that the norms which provide for exemption from criminal liability should be considered as «an alternative to criminal prosecution». Exemption from criminal liability is provided for in the criminal law due to the fact that in some cases there is no point in subjecting a particular person to criminal liability, as criminal liability, being lawful, is considered as an inexpedient one. The state responds to a criminal act not leaving it without consequences, but reacts in another, «alternative» form, reaching a justified legal compromise in such cases. It is proved that the institution of exemption from criminal liability is implementing a desire of the state to effectively and rationally fight against crime without punishment and in general without a guilty verdict (conviction). This institution is simultaneously implementing the principles of economy of criminal repression, humanism and individualization of liability. Thus, the legislator has provided an alternative to criminal prosecution in the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Code. This alternative in certain cases includes a compromise – a person who first time committed a criminal offense or negligent minor offence, except for corruption offenses, is being exempted from criminal liability if this person: has sincerely repented after commitment of offence, has actively contributed to the disclosure of the criminal offense and has fully reimbursed the damage caused by it or has eliminated the damage (Article 45 of the Criminal Code); has reconciled with the victim and has reimbursed the damage caused by such a person or has eliminated the damage (Article 46 of the Criminal Code); when transferring on parole to the staff of the enterprise, institution or organization within a year from the date of parole such person will justify the trust of the staff, will not evade educational measures and will not violate a public order (Article 47 of the Criminal Code). Key words: alternative, liability, exemption, compromise, punishment.

The article is devoted to the study of the application of certain provisions in cases of exemption from criminal liability. It is stated that the issue of law enforcement of the investigated provisions in cases of exemption from criminal liability is relevant, not only from the standpoint of implementing the basic principles of criminal punishment, but also from a praxeological standpoint of application of relevant relevant provisions of criminal law. It is established that the provisions on the release of a person from criminal liability are determined by Articles 44 – 49 of Section IX of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. It is proved that exemption from criminal liability is a refusal of the state to apply to a person who has committed a crime, statutory restrictions on certain rights and freedoms by closing a criminal case carried out by a court in cases under the Criminal Code of Ukraine in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code Of Ukraine (Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine of December 23, 2005 № 1 "On the practice of application by the courts of Ukraine of the legislation on release of a person from criminal liability"). It is also established that a person who has committed a criminal offense is released from criminal liability: a) only in cases provided by the Criminal Code of Ukraine; b) such exemption from criminal liability occurs only in cases provided by this Code; c) such dismissal is carried out exclusively by a court (Article 44 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). Exemption from criminal liability is characterized by the following features: a) it does not involve state conviction of the person who committed the crime (conviction is not passed); b) no punishment is applied to the perpetrator; c) due to the absence of a conviction, a person released from criminal liability is considered to have no criminal record. It is proved that the general part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine provides, in particular, for the following cases of release of a person from criminal liability: in connection with effective repentance (Article 45); in connection with the reconciliation of the perpetrator with the victim (Article 46); in connection with the transfer of a person on bail (Article 47); in connection with a change of circumstances (Article 48); in connection with the expiration of the statute of limitations (Article 49). At the same time, a detailed consideration of the above cases allowed us to explore important aspects and features of their implementation.

The article is devoted to the study of the application of certain provisions in cases of exemption from criminal liability. It is stated that the issue of law enforcement of the investigated provisions in cases of exemption from criminal liability is relevant, not only from the standpoint of implementing the basic principles of criminal punishment, but also from a praxeological standpoint of application of relevant relevant provisions of criminal law. It is established that the provisions on the release of a person from criminal liability are determined by Articles 44 – 49 of Section IX of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. It is proved that exemption from criminal liability is a refusal of the state to apply to a person who has committed a crime, statutory restrictions on certain rights and freedoms by closing a criminal case carried out by a court in cases under the Criminal Code of Ukraine in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code Of Ukraine (Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine of December 23, 2005 № 1 "On the practice of application by the courts of Ukraine of the legislation on release of a person from criminal liability"). It is also established that a person who has committed a criminal offense is released from criminal liability: a) only in cases provided by the Criminal Code of Ukraine; b) such exemption from criminal liability occurs only in cases provided by this Code; c) such dismissal is carried out exclusively by a court (Article 44 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). Exemption from criminal liability is characterized by the following features: a) it does not involve state conviction of the person who committed the crime (conviction is not passed); b) no punishment is applied to the perpetrator; c) due to the absence of a conviction, a person released from criminal liability is considered to have no criminal record. It is proved that the general part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine provides, in particular, for the following cases of release of a person from criminal liability: in connection with effective repentance (Article 45); in connection with the reconciliation of the perpetrator with the victim (Article 46); in connection with the transfer of a person on bail (Article 47); in connection with a change of circumstances (Article 48); in connection with the expiration of the statute of limitations (Article 49). At the same time, a detailed consideration of the above cases allowed us to explore important aspects and features of their implementation.

The seas in Indonesia are so wide and its natural wealth (fish) just can be explored and exploited by the ships which are owned by corporation. Those ships are potential to do illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing. Even though corporation might commit a crime but the corporation can not be asked yet for the criminal liability. Nevertheless, criminal liability is charged to corporation’s staff. This research is included as normative research based on the study of law material. Stipulation of Article 101 Law Number 45 year 2009 jo Law Number 31 year 2004 on fishery, state that the claim and sanction in fishery criminal case which done by corporation will be given to corporation’s staff in form of fine penalty and added third of the given penalty. This is a reverse of criminal law because the other fields make corporation as the doer and can be asked for their responsibility. The theory development on criminal corporation liability seems does not followed by law maker. Consequently, there is no deterrent effect towards the doer of fishery criminal corporation cases. It needs law amendment and insert the corporation criminal liability clause, so there is a visible deterrent effect for the doer.

The article, taking into account the results of the analysis of the current legislation of Ukraine and the provisions of the doctrine of criminal law, identifies the problems of the relationship between the institution of exemption from criminal liability and the constitutional presumption of innocence. The analysis of the problem conducted in this publication allows us to support the position that the existing in the Criminal Code of Ukraine substantive legal institution of exemption from criminal liability does not contradict the presumption of innocence. However, for this purpose, its instructions should be assessed, firstly, as not included in the mechanism of criminal liability, and secondly - as an alternative to punishment measures of criminal law. It is established that the release from criminal liability does not refute the admission of guilt of a person, if you give him the value of official confirmation (statement) of the fact that he committed a criminal offense. It is determined that the exemption from criminal liability also concerns the problems of ensuring the rule of law in the activities of public authorities, compliance of criminal law with the principles and norms of international law, systemic coherence of various branches of the national legal system. The analysis of investigative and judicial practice showed that the anti-criminogenic potential of the institution of exemption from criminal liability is only partially realized, as the legislator, constructing the analyzed rules, made a number of conceptual miscalculations and editorial errors. As a result, the institution of exemption from criminal liability has significant contradictions, and some of its provisions come into conflict not only with other articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, but also with the rules of other branches of law. The article emphasizes that in modern criminal law the system of measures of criminal law influence is not limited (does not end) only to punishment. The Law on Criminal Liability provides for the possibility of applying to a person whose act constitutes a crime, and a number of other "tools" to correct his behavior, in particular, such as the release of this person from criminal liability on legal grounds. It is determined that the presumption of innocence is recognized as one of the fundamental principles of criminal justice in a state governed by the rule of law. At the same time, it is an important element of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which is part of national law by virtue of Article 9 of the Constitution - as an international treaty. However, despite its fixation in the most important international legal acts that enshrine universal standards of fundamental human rights, and the enshrinement of the Constitution of Ukraine states that in practice the presumption of innocence is often violated, as evidenced by a number of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights concerning Ukraine.

Introduction. The relevance of the research topic chosen for the scientific article is related to the fact that the institution of administrative responsibility is currently being reformed. Meanwhile, in legal science there are a number of debatable theoretical issues related to the essence of this type of responsibility, its relationship with criminal liability. In practice, difficulties often arise in distinguishing between criminal and administrative liability both at the level of legislative activity and in the process of law enforcement. The author considers it necessary to turn to the historical aspects of the correlation of administrative and criminal liability. The purpose of this article is, on the one hand, to clarify common ground in the historical retrospective of criminal and administrative responsibility and, on the other hand, to justify the autonomy of administrative responsibility as coercion, which has independent social foundations and historical background in our state. Methods. The author uses the traditional historical and legal method of scientific research, which includes a direct analysis of the sources of Russian criminal and police law of 1835-1892. in the context of the current political and social situation. The author also optionally uses the method of comparative research, referring to the history of various legal institutions of a number of foreign states. Results. In the pre-revolutionary police law of Russia, the concept of state coercion was developed, which includes measures of prevention and suppression, as well as measures close to punishments and applied administratively. In addition, under the criminal law of the period under consideration, there has been a tendency to differentiate into crimes and unimportant misconduct. In addition, it was found that two factors influence the creation of the right of administrative offenses: 1) the increase in the punishability of undesirable behavior for the state in various spheres of public life requires differentiation of responsibility, allocation of various types of illegal behavior. 2) the permissive type of legal regulation associated with the establishment of the procedure for the implementation of personal, political, other rights contributes to the development of the theory of administrative coercion of various types, including administrative responsibility as an independent type of legal responsibility. The author suggests that his conclusions will help draw historical parallels with the present.

The article “Tax evasion as a criminal offense: systematic analysis of norms and important issues of their application” analyzes the legal concept of tax evasion and its equivalents in the system of special part of criminal legislation. The author, emphasizing subsidiarity of criminal law in relation with the tax law, assesses the quality and consistency of relevant norms of criminal code, rationality of criteria to criminalize various forms of tax evasion, discusses the ways to improve the legal regulation, draws attention to the issues of qualification of tax offenses illustrating his conclusions by reference to the relevant precedents of the Court of Cassation. The author draws attention to the lack of Criminal Code regulation, which by misunderstanding uses the notion of tax avoidance instead of tax evasion, while in the Code there is a whole chaotic set of tax evasion corresponding norms, which are scattered in different sections. This collection contains both the articles set out in the chapter of offenses against financial system (Chapter XXXII) and the articles defining offences against property, property rights and property interests (Chapter XXVIII), as well as offences against the economy and business (Chapter XXXI). The basic idea of the presented research is that the application of criminal liability for tax violations and their delimitation from non-criminal activity of tax payers must be based on classification of tax burden reduction adopted in the tax law. In other terms, the criminal justice must be able to distinguish between tax optimization, tax avoidance and tax evasion, as well as to ensure that criminal liability would be applied only for the illegal tax burden reduction which corresponds to the concept of tax evasion. Very important are also criterions of delimitation of the criminal and administrative liability for tax evasion, paying special attention to their clarity and rationality. The author is critical of the existing criminal legal regulation, according to which offences corresponding to the concept of tax evasion are scattered in different chapters of criminal legislation, are not compatible with each other and based on different legal logic. The author criticizes also the provision of article 220 of Criminal Code under which € 380 evasion is sufficient to result in criminal liability. According to the author, this size should be 25 times higher, while the existing criterion is inconsistent with the Code of Administrative Offenses. The author also criticizes part 1 of article 202 of Criminal Code, which establishes the criteria of criminal liability for illegal economic activities, one of them (entrepreneurial way) is very vague and naturally inherent in any business. This complicates the issue of criminal and administrative responsibility delimitation and creates favorable conditions to carry redundant criminal proceedings for minor violations. The article critically evaluates also the norms on deceptive and negligent accounting, in which the criteria of criminalization are extremely abstract. The author also advocates the need for a total decriminalization of negligent accounting as incompatible with the purposes of criminal legislation. The article also criticizes the definition of illicit enrichment which lacks the legal logic and rationality. According to the author, the criminality of illicit enrichment (art. 189(1) of CC) should not be associated with the value of the assets held, but to the value of concealed income from such assets are acquired. The article expresses the idea that criminal punishability of all tax evasion offenses must lead to the same criteria – the value of concealed or attempted to conceal taxes and income. All such tax evasion norms should be included into the financial crimes section of criminal legislation.

This paper seeks to analyze the form of law enforcement in Albania against environmental crimes and civil liability committed by companies. This research uses the library research method, which collects data from legal material, legislation, literature, and research papers related to this research, processing and analyzing qualitatively. The result shows that there has not been law enforcement against the companies in environmental crime. In 2019, changes were made to the criminal code, where regulations were made on criminal offenses against the environment. Even though we have committed a criminal offense or not, being injured in an environment brings civil liability. Criminal and civil liability seem very similar, but many elements differ. The Albanian legislation, as well as that of other countries, is fully aligned with the Directive "On environmental responsibility, prevention and repair of environmental damage. The environmental legal framework has been drafted as a part of a legal package that aims to enable the transposition of all directives in this domain. The focus of this paper will be directed to the environment and legal framework, which aims to protect the environment by qualifying which kinds of persons' behaviors are considered illicit, in that measure that brings them in front of civil liability or criminal liability. Criminal law enforces the protection of society from crime. Interventions in the environment are considered a crime if the actions of responsible subjects break the balance of the environment . The civil legal framework has yet to make any provisions concerning environmental protection. There exist other legal mechanisms for requiring the damage and seeking compensation. It is worth using the methodological and theoretical methods to analyze two institutes. By using the analysis and comparison method, we address the most critical issues of relevance of research. Received: 22 April 2024 / Accepted: 30 June 2024 / Published: 5 July 2024