241 KB87 KB201320252021Verdel Kokol, Vanjaletnik:47številka:5str. 701-730ISSN:0353-6521COBISSID_HOST:73984003URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-YSCMPQ1WslLexperaPodjetje in delobankruptcy of a legal personcorporate criminal liabilitycriminal confiscationcriminal sanctiondogovarjanje o krivdiforms of confiscationinterim measureskazenska odgovornost pravnih osebkazenska sankcijakazenskopravni odvzemnačini odvzema koristiplea bargainingpremoženjska koristproceeds of crimestečaj pravne osebezačasno zavarovanjeKazenskopravni odvzem premoženjske koristi pravnim osebam|The article examines with institute of confiscation of the proceeds of crime, especially in connection with the confiscation from legal persons. Given its purpose of restitution and systemic placement in criminal law, this measure does not fall under criminal sanctions, but constitutes a special criminal measure sui generis. The measure of confiscation of the proceeds of crime is in accordance with the principle of commutative justice - that someone does not profit from the commission of crimes (crime doesn't pay). The basic purpose of confiscation of illegally obtained material gain is to restore the property status as it existed before the commission of the criminal offense, and this measure is gaining more and more importance in the adoption of criminal judgment. The focus of problematic issues often shifts around issues related to the return of proceeds of crime. Simplified procedures that end on the basis of a plea agreement or a plea guilty at a pre-trial hearing are no exception, as it is not uncommon for these proceedings that the first-instance judgment is revoked or amended right in the part concerning the decision to confiscate proceeds of crime. The article analyses the forms of criminal confiscation and the significance of this distinction, including the importance of the form of confiscation in proceedings based on a plea guilty. The ways in which the proceeds of crime can be confiscated are categorized according to the subjects whose benefits are confiscated, as well as according to the property being confiscated (primary, secondary and tertiary confiscation). However, in addition to the starting points on criminal liability of legal persons, the article pays special attention to the confiscation of the proceeds of crime from legal person, and this issue may be particularly complex if the legal person finds itself in bankruptcy proceedings. Criminal case law allows the ordering of interim measure also on the property of a bankrupt legal entity on the grounds that the Criminal Code is a lex specialis according to the insolvency law, and that the bankruptcy estate can not be enriched or increased with property transferred to the company illegally; even creditors can not benefit from this part of the bankruptcy estate. The issue of enforcement of the decision on confiscation against a bankrupt legal person is also raised as a topical issue. The possibilities of defining the state's claim for confiscation of property when it is confiscated from a legal entity in bankruptcy have been examined. Is it the cost of bankruptcy proceedings, an ordinary claim, a right to separate satisfaction, or is this claim similar to a tax claim? According to current case law, the state can notify as a creditor with a right to separate satisfaction only in the case of primary confiscation, while the courts assess the recognition of the right to separate satisfaction on money as problematic, but exceptionally still permissible with appropriate individualisation. The approach that ensures the exclusion of assets that constitute illegally obtained material gain, even in the case of the bankruptcy of a legal person, seems correct due to its compliance with the principle that prohibits anyone from benefiting from a criminal (unlawful) actPrispevek obravnava institut odvzema premoženjske koristi, zlasti v povezavi z odvzemom premoženjske koristi, pridobljene s kaznivim dejanjem, pravnim osebam. Ta ukrep se glede na svoj restitucijski namen in sistemsko umeščenost v kazensko zakonodajo ne uvršča med kazenske sankcije, temveč pomeni poseben kazenskopravni ukrep sui generis. Ukrep odvzema premoženjske koristi je v skladu z načelom izravnalne pravičnosti, da nekdo nima koristi od izvrševanja kaznivih dejanj. Osnovni namen odvzema protipravno pridobljene premoženjske koristi je v vzpostavitvi premoženjskega stanja, kakršno je obstajalo pred izvršitvijo kaznivega dejanja, pri čemer dobiva ta ukrep vse pomembnejše mesto pri sprejemanju kazenske sodbe. Med problematičnimi vprašanji so pogosto najpomembnejša prav tista, ki se nanašajo na vrnitev premoženjske koristi, pridobljene s kaznivim dejanjem. Izjema niso niti poenostavljeni postopki, ki se končajo na podlagi sporazuma o priznanju krivde oziroma priznanja krivde na predobravnavnem naroku, saj niso prav redki primeri, ko tudi v teh postopkih pride do razveljavitve ali spremembe prvostopenjske sodbe prav v delu glede odločitve o odvzemu premoženjske koristi. V prispevku so analizirani načini kazenskopravnega odvzema premoženjske koristi in pomen tega razlikovanja, vključno s pomenom načina odvzema premoženjske koristi pri sporazumevanju o krivdi. Načine, na katere je mogoče odvzeti premoženjsko korist, pridobljeno s kaznivim dejanjem, je mogoče razvrstiti glede na subjekte, ki se jim korist odvzema, in tudi glede na premoženje, ki je predmet odvzema (primarni, sekundarni in terciarni odvzem). Posebna pozornost je v prispevku poleg izhodišč o kazenski odgovornosti pravnih oseb namenjena odvzemu premoženjske koristi pravni osebi, pri čemer je lahko še posebej zapleteno vprašanje, če se ta znajde v stečajnem postopku. Kazenskopravna sodna praksa dopušča odreditev začasnega zavarovanja tudi na premoženju pravne osebe v stečaju z utemeljitvijo, da je KZ-1 glede na ZFPPIPP lex specialis in da stečajna masa ne more biti obogatena ali povečana s premoženjem, ki je na družbo prešlo protipravno; s tem delom stečajne mase se ne morejo okoristiti niti upniki. Kot pereče se zastavlja tudi vprašanje izvršitve odločbe o odvzemu premoženjske koristi zoper pravno osebo v stečaju. Preučene so možnosti opredelitve zahtevka države za odvzem premoženjske koristi, ko se ta odvzema pravni osebi v stečaju. Ali gre za strošek stečajnega postopka, za navadno terjatev, za izločitveno pravico ali je nemara terjatev podobna davčni terjatvi? Država se glede na aktualno sodno prakso lahko priglasi kot izločitvena upnica nedvomno le v primeru primarnega odvzema, to je odvzema v naravi, medtem ko sodišča priznavanje izločitvene pravice na denarju ocenjujejo kot problematično, vendar izjemoma vseeno dopustno ob ustrezni individualizaciji. Pristop, po katerem se tudi v primeru stečaja pravne osebe zagotovi izločitev sredstev, ki pomenijo protipravno pridobljeno premoženjsko korist, se zdi pravilen zaradi skladnosti z načelom, ki prepoveduje, da bi kdo imel koristi iz kaznivega (protipravnega) dejanjaTEXTznanstveno časopisjejournalsSlovenian National E-content AggregatorNational and University Library of Slovenia