Kaznivo dejanje poslovne goljufije v teoriji in praksi

Lipnik, Špela (author), Jakulin, Vid (mentor)

Kaznivo dejanje poslovne goljufije je bilo uvedeno leta 1999 kot odziv na zadevo Grubelič. Z novelo iz leta 2004 je bila v dikciji navedenega kaznivega dejanja dodana še privilegirana oblika, s sprejetjem Kazenskega zakonika leta 2008 pa je bila alternativno dodana še ena posledica, in sicer premoženjska korist storilca. Kaznivo dejanje poslovne goljufije, ki ga najdemo v 228. členu Kazenskega zakonika, spada med gospodarska kazniva dejanja, pri čemer je pravno zavarovana vrednota gospodarsko poslovanje, pravno zavarovana dobrina pa načelo zaupanja v poslovnem prometu. Kaznivo dejanje poslovne goljufije lahko nastane le pri opravljanju gospodarske dejavnosti in je glede na storilca delictum proprium. Zakon predvideva le naklepno obliko, storilčev naklep pa se zahteva pri sklenitvi ali izvajanju posla oziroma pogodbe. To je tudi najpomembnejša razlika v primerjavi s kaznivim dejanjem goljufije. Zakonsko besedilo 228. člena vsebuje dve alternativni posledici, in sicer premoženjsko škodo ter premoženjsko korist; premoženjska škoda je hkrati tudi objektivni pogoj kaznivosti, zato brez njenega nastanka ne moremo govoriti o kaznivem dejanju poslovne goljufije. Poleg zlorabe položaja ali zaupanja pri gospodarski dejavnosti je poslovna goljufija najpogostejše kaznivo dejanje iz 24. poglavja Kazenskega zakonika. Sodna praksa je pokazala, da gre v večini primerov kazenskega pregona po 228. členu za civilnopravno zadevo. Tožilci se prepogosto srečujejo s tipskimi ovadbami, ki po navadi vsebujejo zgolj navedbe opravilnih številk neplačanih računom. To po mnenju slovenskega sodstva ne zadošča, saj pavšalno navajanje, da račun ni bil plačan, in splošna navedba, da je šlo za preslepitev, nista dovolj. Iz opisa dejanja v obtožbi mora biti namreč jasno razvidno, katere okoliščine je obdolženec lažno prikazoval ali jih prikrival, s čimer je preslepil oškodovanca, ter tudi, kakšen je bil njegov namen preslepitve. Da ne bi prihajalo do tipskih ovadb, ki nepotrebno obremenjujejo kazenska sodišča, bi bilo smiselno v kaznivo dejanje poslovne goljufije uvesti nekaj sprememb. Ena izmed njih je, da premoženjska škoda in protipravno pridobljena korist lahko nastaneta šele v primeru neuspešnega izvršilnega postopka. S tem bi se izognili prehitrim kazenskim ovadbam, ki so zgolj sredstvo zastraševanja, s spremembo pa tudi kazenski postopek ne bi bil več (zlo)rabljen kot nadomestek civilnopravne izvršbe.

• Language: Slovenian
• Keywords: poslovna goljufija, gospodarsko kazensko pravo, gospodarska dejavnost, namen preslepitve, premoženjska škoda, protipravno pridobljena korist, plačilna nedisciplina.
• Work type: Master's thesis/paper
• Organization: PF - Faculty of Law
• Year: 2017
• PID: 20.500.12556/RUL-96533
• COBISS.SI-ID: 15820113
• Publication date in RUL: 05.10.2017

Secondary language

• Language: Unknown
• Title: Business fraud in theory and practice

Abstract

Business fraud as an offence has been introduced in 1999 as a response to the Grubelič case. A new privileged position has been added with the amending act of 2004 along with an alternative consequence in 2008 by the adoption of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Slovenia (hereinafter KZ-1), i.e. benefits obtained by the perpetrator. Business fraud as an offence is described in Article 228 of KZ-1 as one of corporate criminal offences where economic activity is a legally protected value and the principle of trust in business is a legally protected good. Business fraud can only occur in economic activity and is considered a delictum proprium with regard to the perpetrator. The Act only provides for an intentional form of the offence, while the intention of the perpetrator is necessary for the conclusion or implementation of a business or a contract. This is the most important difference between the intentional form and the criminal offence. Article 228 provides for two alternative consequences, i.e. loss of property or property benefit. However, loss of property also constitutes the objective condition of criminality, which means that it cannot be assumed that the offence of business fraud occurred without any loss of property. In addition, business fraud is the most common criminal offence outlined in chapter 24 of KZ-1 in addition to abuse of position or trust in economic activity. Case law showed that the majority of law enforcement cases under Article 228 of KZ-1 constitute a civil affair. Prosecutors often work on typical complaints that usually revolve around reference numbers of outstanding invoices, which the Slovenian judiciary finds insufficient because general referencing to outstanding invoices or general statements that a fraud had occurred are not enough. The description of the offence in the charge must clearly state the circumstances the perpetrator misrepresented or concealed in order to defraud the injured party, and the perpetrator's purpose of deception. To eliminate typical charges burdening the criminal courts, it would be reasonable to introduce some changes to the description of the criminal offence of business fraud. One of them would be to state that loss of property and unlawfully obtained property benefits can only occur in case of unsuccessful execution proceedings, which would prevent rushed criminal complaints that serve as mere means of deterrence. In this manner, criminal proceedings would no longer be (mis)used as a substitute for civil law enforcement.

• Keywords: business fraud, corporate criminal law, economic activity, deception, loss of property, unlawfully obtained property benefits, late-payment culture