Critical approach to (un)justified overcriminalization in the economic field

Jelena Kostić
{"title":"Critical approach to (un)justified overcriminalization in the economic field","authors":"Jelena Kostić","doi":"10.5937/nabepo28-44104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent decades, the spread of incriminations in the economic field has been very present. One of the reasons for this is the harmonization of national legislation with acquis communautaire. Bearing in mind the views of other authors, in this paper we started from the assumptions that a large number of economic crimes are unnecessary, because their legal description could be subsumed under the already existing crimes, that excessive criminalization can contribute to problems in practice and that procedural legislation often does not follow the changes in substantive criminal legislation when they are carried out by non-criminal laws, as well as when changing and reforming criminal legislation, crimes prescribed by secondary criminal legislation are generally ignored. Starting from the mentioned assumptions, we try to make recommendations for the further direction of the development of substantive criminal legislation, which, in our opinion, should follow the narrowing of criminal law interventionism in the economic area. In this paper we have analyzed the provisions of secondary criminal legislation, which precisely contain the shortcomings pointed out by the authors when analyzing the need to reform substantive criminal legislation. Therefore, in this paper the dogmatic-legal method is dominant, and special attention is paid to the analysis of the provisions of the Law on Tax Procedure and Tax Administration and the Law on the Capital Market.","PeriodicalId":33498,"journal":{"name":"NBP Nauka bezbednost policija","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NBP Nauka bezbednost policija","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5937/nabepo28-44104","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In recent decades, the spread of incriminations in the economic field has been very present. One of the reasons for this is the harmonization of national legislation with acquis communautaire. Bearing in mind the views of other authors, in this paper we started from the assumptions that a large number of economic crimes are unnecessary, because their legal description could be subsumed under the already existing crimes, that excessive criminalization can contribute to problems in practice and that procedural legislation often does not follow the changes in substantive criminal legislation when they are carried out by non-criminal laws, as well as when changing and reforming criminal legislation, crimes prescribed by secondary criminal legislation are generally ignored. Starting from the mentioned assumptions, we try to make recommendations for the further direction of the development of substantive criminal legislation, which, in our opinion, should follow the narrowing of criminal law interventionism in the economic area. In this paper we have analyzed the provisions of secondary criminal legislation, which precisely contain the shortcomings pointed out by the authors when analyzing the need to reform substantive criminal legislation. Therefore, in this paper the dogmatic-legal method is dominant, and special attention is paid to the analysis of the provisions of the Law on Tax Procedure and Tax Administration and the Law on the Capital Market.
对经济领域(不)合理的过度定罪的批判方法
近几十年来,经济领域的犯罪蔓延非常明显。造成这种情况的原因之一是国家立法与共同法的协调一致。考虑到其他作者的观点,在本文中,我们从以下假设开始:大量的经济犯罪是不必要的,因为它们的法律描述可以归入已经存在的犯罪;过度的刑事化可能导致实践中的问题;程序立法在由非刑法执行时往往不遵循实体刑事立法的变化;在刑事立法的变更和改革中,二级刑事立法规定的犯罪往往被忽视。从上述假设出发,我们试图对实体刑事立法的进一步发展方向提出建议,我们认为,实体刑事立法的发展方向应遵循刑法干预主义在经济领域的缩小。本文对我国二级刑事立法的规定进行了分析,这些规定恰恰包含了笔者在分析实体刑事立法改革必要性时所指出的不足。因此,本文以教条法为主导,着重分析了《税收程序与征管法》和《资本市场法》的相关规定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
4 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信