Results found: 1

Search results

Sort By:

Limit search:

Rozstrzygnięcia sądowe w przedmiocie wniosku oskarżyciela publicznego o zobowiązanie podmiotu z art. 52 k.k. i art. 24 § 5 k.k.s. do zwrotu korzyści majątkowej uzyskanej z przestępstwa (przestępstwa skarbowego) innej osoby.

100%

Siewierska D.

Studia Prawno-Ekonomiczne

2009

vol. LXXIX (79)

139-161

To begin with, I raise the question, that on the sixth of June 1997, the legislator firstly in article 52 introduced to the Polish Penal Code the institution of obligation to repay the property advantage by a physical person, a juristic one or an organizational unit without a legal status, for the benefit of the State Treasury. The aforementioned advantage was achieved by the person in the crime, committed by the delinquent, who acted in behalf of this person name or interest. The similar regulation is contained in the Polish Treasury Penal Code from 1999, where article 24, paragraph 5 provides that independently from putting on auxiliary responsibility, the court will oblige the subject, which achieved property advantage, to return it in the full or in part for the benefit of the State Treasury or the territorial self-government unit; it does not relate to the property advantage subjected to return in full or in part for the benefit of the different subject. In order to usage of the aforementioned jurisprudential constructions from article 52 of the Polish Penal Code and article 24, paragraph 4 of the Polish Treasury Penal Code in action penal proceeding (penal treasury proceeding), the public prosecutor should attach an application in accordance with article 333, paragraph 4 of the Penal Proceeding Code (article 155 paragraph 5 of the Treasury Penal Code) to indictment. In object of this application the court gives decision of the defined content, conditioned by the proceeding’s situation. The article under the title “The judicial decisions in the object of the public prosecutor’s conclusion about obligation of the subject from article 52 of the Polish Penal Code and article 24, paragraph 4 of the Polish Treasury Penal Code to return of the property advantage achieved with crime (the treasury crime) of different person” presents the matter in detail. This article describes in the first order possible judgments of the court of first instance in the matter. Next, this article refers to the decision of the court of second instance in this range. It is unquestionable, that the judgments of first instance court in the matter of the public prosecutor’s conclusion from article 333, paragraph 4 of the Penal Proceeding Code (article 155 paragraph 5 of the Treasury Penal Code) can be subjected to the review by means of appeal and in this case it is liable (amenable) to be inspected by the higher instance in the court of the second instance. The results of this inspection can be different with regard to that who takes revocation centre (lodges an appeal) and what pleadings and appellate conclusions he notified. Their discussion occurred in this article from here. In judicial practice we cannot exclude that, despite validation, the judgment of court including decision about obligation of the subject from article 52 of the Polish Penal Code and the article 24 paragraph 4 of the Polish Treasury Penal Code to return of the property advantage in full or in part for the benefit of the State Treasury (or territorial self-government in Polish Penal Code), will be inconsistent with law. This inconsistency will be detected in legal proceeding initiated as the result of extraordinary remedies at law. Therefore this article discusses also the kinds of judicial judgments which were given just as the result of extraordinary remedies of law. In the article it is necessary to be related to the results on the basis of the decisions referring to the subject who is obliged to return of the property advantage achieved in the crime (the treasury crime) by the delinquent.

Refine search results

1 Studia Prawno-Ekonomiczne

1 Siewierska D.

1 2009

Search results

Rozstrzygnięcia sądowe w przedmiocie wniosku oskarżyciela publicznego o zobowiązanie podmiotu z art. 52 k.k. i art. 24 § 5 k.k.s. do zwrotu korzyści majątkowej uzyskanej z przestępstwa (przestępstwa skarbowego) innej osoby.