CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF LEGAL ENTITIES IN LATVIA - GENERAL INSIGHT, PECULIARITIES AND TOPICALITIES

Authors

  • Kristīne Strada-Rozenberga, Dr. iur. Professor, Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Latvia, Latvia
  • Jānis Rozenbergs, Dr. iur. Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Latvia, Latvia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5937/spz65-34728

Keywords:

criminal law, criminal procedure, liability of legal entities

Abstract

The path that the Latvian normative regulation in criminal law and the Latvian criminal law doctrine took to arrive at the possibility of turning against legal entities by criminal law measures was neither fast nor simple. The initial position was that regulation like this would be incompatible with the basic principles of Latvian criminal law since, historically, psychological understanding of guilt has been characteristic in the Latvian criminal law, guilt is identified with a person’s mental attitude towards the criminal offence, and guilt also is one of the grounds for criminal liability. It was not clear how this understanding of guilt could be compatible with punishing such “legal fiction” as a legal person in the framework of criminal law. Ways, in which Latvia could adjust its legal regulation to various international normative documents that Latvia had acceded to, at the same time leaving the dominant basic institutions of the Latvian criminal law theory unaffected, were sought rather reluctantly. Discussions that lasted for years resulted in the inclusion into the Criminal Law coercive measures, existing outside the system of criminal penalties, applicable to legal persons, likewise, several criteria were defined as the grounds for applying these coercive measures to legal persons, the central of which was a criminal offence, committed by a natural person who was connected to the legal person, in the interests of the legal person or as the result of insufficient control by this legal person. Accordingly, criminal procedural regulation was created, which to a large extent equalled a legal person to an accused natural person in criminal proceedings. Although the criminal law and criminal law regulation, which provides for the possibility to apply criminal law coercive measures to legal persons in the framework of criminal proceedings has existed in Latvia for already 16 years, these criminal law instruments have started taking their place in the practice of applying law only in recent years, simultaneously also revealing deficiencies in the legal regulation, already now providing sufficient material for analysis to be used for improving these legal norms.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Baumanis, J. 2012. Piespiedu ietekmesanas lidzeklu piemerosanas process. Jurista vards, 42(741).

Brodowski, D. 2014. Minimum Procedural Rights for Corporations in Corporate Criminal Procedure. In: Brodowski, D., et al. Regulating Corporate Criminal Liability. Cham: Springer International Publishing Switzerland, pp. 211-226. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05993-8_17

Brodowski, D. et al. 2014. Regulating Corporate Criminal Liability. Cham: Springer International Publishing Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05993-8

Gratkovska, I. 2005. Juridisko personu kriminalatbildibas realizacijas tiesiskie aspekti. Jurista Vards, 23(378).

Krastins, U. 2004. Vai Kriminallikuma ir vajadzigas antikonstitucionalas normas. Jurista Vards, 11(316).

Neira Pena, A. M. 2014. Corporate Criminal Liability: Tool or Obstacle to Prosecution? In: Brodowski, D. et al. (eds.), Regulating Corporate Criminal Liability. Cham: Springer International Publishing Switzerland, pp. 197-210. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05993-8_16

Website References

FATF, 2012. Finansu darijumu darba grupas (FATF) rekomendacijas. Pienemtas FATF plenarsede 2012. gada februari. Avaialable at: https://www.fatf-gafi.org/publications/fatfrecommendations/documents/fatf-recommendations.html, (4. 10. 2021).

LRIMIC, 2020. Latvijas Republikas Iekslietu ministrijas Informacijas centra (LRIMIC) statistika par personam, kuram ir tiesibas uz aizstavibu un cietusajiem. Available at: https://www.ic.iem.gov.lv/lv/statistika-par-personam-kuram-ir-tiesibas-uz-aizstavibu-un-cietusajiem, (4. 10. 2021).

LRTM, 2021. Latvijas Republikas Tieslietu ministrijas (LRTM) likumprojekts VSS-814 “Grozijumi Kriminalprocesa likuma”. Available at: http://tap.mk.gov.lv/lv/mk/tap/?pid=40506859, (4. 10. 2021).

Meijers Committee, 2014. Note on the Council General Approach on the Directive on the presumption of innocence and the right to be present at trial. Available at: https://www.eerstekamer.nl/eu/documenteu/cm1416_note_on_the_council_general/f=/vjpqk1lo3uky.pdf, (4. 10. 2021).

Legal Sources

CETS, 1990. Council of Europe, Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime (CETS No. 141). Available at: https:// rm.coe.int/168007bd23, (4. 10. 2021).

CETS, 2000. Council of Europe, Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (CETS No. 173). Available at: https://rm.coe.int/168007f3f5, (4. 10. 2021).

EU Act 1995. Council Act of 26 July 1995 drawing up the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests. OJ C 316, 27.11.95, pp. 48-95.

EU Framework Decision 2000. Council Framework Decision of 29 May 2000 on increasing protection by criminal penalties and other sanctions against counterfeiting in connection with the introduction of the euro. OJ L 140, 14.06.2000, pp. 1-3.

EU Resolution 1999. Council Resolution of 28 May 1999 on increasing protection by penal sanctions against counterfeiting in connection with the introduction of the euro. OJ C 171, 18.06.1999, pp. 1-2.

UNODC, 2000. United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Adopted by General Assembly resolution 55/25. Available at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNTOC/Publications/TOC%20Convention/TOCebook-e.pdf, (4. 10. 2021).

Downloads

Published

02-03-2022