| Popis: |
Odvzem premoženja nezakonitega izvora je eden izmed ključnih elementov v boju zoper organiziran kriminal in druga huda kazniva dejanja z motivom koristoljubja, saj udari tovrstno kriminaliteto tja kjer to najbolj boli - v zaslužek. Ker tradicionalni ukrepi kazenskega prava niso bili več kos vse večji ekonomski in družbeni moči organizirane kriminalitete, ki je izvirala iz ogromnih kriminalnih dobičkov, so države tako začele iskati nove ukrepe, s katerimi bi zagotovile učinkovit odvzem takšnega protipravno pridobljenega premoženja. Rezultat takšnih prizadevanj je bil institut odvzema premoženja nezakonitega izvora z obrnjenim dokaznim bremenom, ki je z namenom večje učinkovitosti pri odvzemu kriminalnih zaslužkov močno presegal okvirje in možnosti tradicionalnih ukrepov ter s tem posegal v sama načela pravnih sistemov. Ta institut je uvedla v svoj pravni red tudi Slovenija, ko je jeseni 2011 sprejela Zakon o odvzemu premoženja nezakonitega izvora (ZOPNI). Zakon je tako na področje odvzema protipravno pridobljenega premoženja prinesel vrsto pomembnih novosti, ki so v strokovni javnosti sprožile določene dileme glede ustavnosti in primernosti tega pravnega instituta. Razvidno je torej, da institut odpira vrsto vprašanj, na del katerih skušamo odgovoriti tudi v diplomskem delu. V diplomskem delu institut tako na splošno predstavimo in z namenom primerjave na pregleden ter sistematičen način pokažemo, kako je urejen v slovenskem, nacionalnem, evropskem in mednarodnem pravu, prav tako pa predstavimo tudi dejansko učinkovitost, prednosti in slabosti samega instituta, kot tudi ureditve odvzema premoženja nezakonitega izvora po ZOPNI. V diplomskem delu smo tako ugotovili, da institut odvzema premoženja nezakonitega izvora z obrnjenim dokaznim bremenom predstavlja učinkovit način povračila kriminalno pridobljenih sredstev in s tem preprečevanja težjih oblik kriminala, predvsem v primerih, ko so tradicionalnimi ukrepi nemočni. Enako velja tudi za slovensko ureditev tega instituta po ZOPNI, za katero smo še ugotovili, da je v skladu z obvezujočimi mednarodnimi in nadnacionalnimi pravnimi akti, kot tudi primerljiva z ureditvami drugih visoko razvitih demokratičnih držav. Prav tako smo kot neutemeljene zavrnili določene pomisleke glede ustavnosti in primernosti tega instituta in posledično njegove ureditve po ZOPNI, saj po našem mnenju omogoča večjo učinkovitost odvzema brez kršenja temeljnih pravic posameznika. Withdrawal of property of illicit origin is one of the key elements in the fight against organized crime and other serious crimes with the motive of self-interest, mainly because it strikes this kind of criminality where it hurts the most - in its earnings. Since traditional criminal law measures were no longer equal to the task of containing the increasing economic and social power of organized crime, which originated from the enormous criminal profits, countries began seeking new measures to ensure an effective seizure of such illegally obtained assets. The result of those endeavours was the institute of confiscation of assets of illicit origin by a reverse burden of proof that, with the purpose of greater efficiency in the withdrawal of illicit earnings, significantly excessed possibilities of traditional frameworks and measures, and thus interfered with the very principles of the legal systems. This institute was introduced into Slovenia’s legal order with the introduction of the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act (Zakon o odvzemu premoženja nezakonitega izvora – ZOPNI) in the autumn of 2011. With its introduction, the Act brought a range of essential innovations within the scope of confiscation of illegally obtained assets, which raised certain concerns regarding the constitutionality and appropriateness of this legal institution in expert public. Therefore it is evident, that the institute raises a number of questions, a part of which we will try to respond to in the following thesis. For that purpose, we will present a general review of the institute and, with the purpose of comparison, in a transparent and systematic manner overview it’s regularisation in the legal order of Slovenia, other national legal orders and the European and international legal order. We will also present the actual effectiveness of the institute with its strengths and weaknesses, as well as the organisation of the forfeiture of assets of illicit origin as regulated by ZOPNI. In this thesis we thus found that the institute of confiscation of assets of illicit origin by a reverse burden of proof is an effective way of reimbursement for acquired criminal assets and thus successful in preventing serious crime, primarily in cases where traditional measures are usually powerless. The same applies to the Slovenian regulation of this institute by ZOPNI, for which we also found, that it is in accordance with the binding international and supranational legal acts, as well as comparable to regimes of other highly developed democratic countries. We also rejected as certain concerns about the constitutionality and appropriateness of this institute and consequently its regulation by ZOPNI as being unfounded, because in our opinion it provides a greater efficiency in forfeiture, without breaching the fundamental rights of the individual. |
