Suchergebnisse

The development of electronic payment instruments and their online availability constitute important parts of the development of the EU payments market. Individual states adopt different approaches towards interpretation (legal aspects) and types of electronic payment instruments. To encourage sustainable payment services, minimize possible threats, and create favourable conditions for the development of new payment instruments, legislators adopt general legal acts stipulating the legal status of electronic payment instruments. However, the actual interpretation of payment instruments is often narrowed in legal practice, and does not cover payment instruments newly introduced to the market. A new insight into electronic payment instruments corresponding to the latest trends in the market is important in criminal law as well, because crimes related to the use of a payment instrument are common and difficult to investigate. In view of recent changes in payment services (the new Payment Services Directive in 2019), the norms of criminal law stipulating liability for the illegal disposal of electronic payment instruments must reflect circumstances predetermined by today's technological developments. In terms of criminal law, a technologically neutral conception of the payment instrument is necessary, to include a wider range of payment instruments that differ considerably from conventional personalized payment cards. The aim of this article is, therefore, to demonstrate that the current regulation of the Criminal Code of Lithuania lags behind the development of payment instruments, and in order to avoid excessive criminalization it is proposed to narrow the application of Article 214 of the Lithuanian Criminal Code.

The development of electronic payment instruments and their online availability constitute important parts of the development of the EU payments market. Individual states adopt different approaches towards interpretation (legal aspects) and types of electronic payment instruments. To encourage sustainable payment services, minimize possible threats, and create favourable conditions for the development of new payment instruments, legislators adopt general legal acts stipulating the legal status of electronic payment instruments. However, the actual interpretation of payment instruments is often narrowed in legal practice, and does not cover payment instruments newly introduced to the market. A new insight into electronic payment instruments corresponding to the latest trends in the market is important in criminal law as well, because crimes related to the use of a payment instrument are common and difficult to investigate. In view of recent changes in payment services (the new Payment Services Directive in 2019), the norms of criminal law stipulating liability for the illegal disposal of electronic payment instruments must reflect circumstances predetermined by today's technological developments. In terms of criminal law, a technologically neutral conception of the payment instrument is necessary, to include a wider range of payment instruments that differ considerably from conventional personalized payment cards. The aim of this article is, therefore, to demonstrate that the current regulation of the Criminal Code of Lithuania lags behind the development of payment instruments, and in order to avoid excessive criminalization it is proposed to narrow the application of Article 214 of the Lithuanian Criminal Code.

The development of electronic payment instruments and their online availability constitute important parts of the development of the EU payments market. Individual states adopt different approaches towards interpretation (legal aspects) and types of electronic payment instruments. To encourage sustainable payment services, minimize possible threats, and create favourable conditions for the development of new payment instruments, legislators adopt general legal acts stipulating the legal status of electronic payment instruments. However, the actual interpretation of payment instruments is often narrowed in legal practice, and does not cover payment instruments newly introduced to the market. A new insight into electronic payment instruments corresponding to the latest trends in the market is important in criminal law as well, because crimes related to the use of a payment instrument are common and difficult to investigate. In view of recent changes in payment services (the new Payment Services Directive in 2019), the norms of criminal law stipulating liability for the illegal disposal of electronic payment instruments must reflect circumstances predetermined by today's technological developments. In terms of criminal law, a technologically neutral conception of the payment instrument is necessary, to include a wider range of payment instruments that differ considerably from conventional personalized payment cards. The aim of this article is, therefore, to demonstrate that the current regulation of the Criminal Code of Lithuania lags behind the development of payment instruments, and in order to avoid excessive criminalization it is proposed to narrow the application of Article 214 of the Lithuanian Criminal Code.

The research paper discusses different issues of interpretation and qualification of illegal access to an information system (IS), taking into account international instruments and European Union legislation as well as the relevant case law of Lithuania. Analysis of criminal cases and legal regulation shows that such cases require an appropriate combination of the technical and legal sides of such criminal offences. In this context, it is also important that criminal liability for illegal access to an IS must be underpinned not only by the principles of technological neutrality and equivalent assessment but also must ensure respect for the ultima ratio (last resort) principle. It is this principle which in particular is the subject of considerable attention in the research paper in terms of over-criminalisation of illegal access to an IS. While solving the puzzle of technology and terminology alignment, the paper also explores the elements of illegal access to an IS. In the light of developments in Lithuanian case law, more emphasis is placed on the debatable infringement of security measures, as an element, and on possible interpretation of its content.

The research paper discusses different issues of interpretation and qualification of illegal access to an information system (IS), taking into account international instruments and European Union legislation as well as the relevant case law of Lithuania. Analysis of criminal cases and legal regulation shows that such cases require an appropriate combination of the technical and legal sides of such criminal offences. In this context, it is also important that criminal liability for illegal access to an IS must be underpinned not only by the principles of technological neutrality and equivalent assessment but also must ensure respect for the ultima ratio (last resort) principle. It is this principle which in particular is the subject of considerable attention in the research paper in terms of over-criminalisation of illegal access to an IS. While solving the puzzle of technology and terminology alignment, the paper also explores the elements of illegal access to an IS. In the light of developments in Lithuanian case law, more emphasis is placed on the debatable infringement of security measures, as an element, and on possible interpretation of its content.

The research paper discusses different issues of interpretation and qualification of illegal access to an information system (IS), taking into account international instruments and European Union legislation as well as the relevant case law of Lithuania. Analysis of criminal cases and legal regulation shows that such cases require an appropriate combination of the technical and legal sides of such criminal offences. In this context, it is also important that criminal liability for illegal access to an IS must be underpinned not only by the principles of technological neutrality and equivalent assessment but also must ensure respect for the ultima ratio (last resort) principle. It is this principle which in particular is the subject of considerable attention in the research paper in terms of over-criminalisation of illegal access to an IS. While solving the puzzle of technology and terminology alignment, the paper also explores the elements of illegal access to an IS. In the light of developments in Lithuanian case law, more emphasis is placed on the debatable infringement of security measures, as an element, and on possible interpretation of its content.

The very concepts of violence, studies of its forms from the criminal law viewpoint may be instrumental in dissociating criminalised violent actions from non-criminalised though having a legal significance or the actions falling outside the area of criminal regulation; furthermore, such studies can help identify the actions that in criminal law should be viewed as socially useful (for instance, the circumstances excluding criminal responsibility). It should be noted that the concept of violence and identification of its expression forms have not only a theoretical value, but also, as has been by this study proven, is applicable in legislation (for instance, for the purpose of criminalising different types of violence), as well as in case law (for instance, when identifying possible violence manifestation options). In the light of the above the present paper focuses on the definition of violence, the possible forms of its manifestation; the authors also looked into the specific forms the coercive criminal acts can acquire in the legislation.