对塞尔维亚共和国资本市场的充分刑事保护

Jelena Kostić, Sanja Jelisavac Trošić
{"title":"对塞尔维亚共和国资本市场的充分刑事保护","authors":"Jelena Kostić, Sanja Jelisavac Trošić","doi":"10.25234/eclic/11918","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Regulation 596/2014/EU and Directive 2014/57/EU were adopted in order to provide adequate protection of investors and the smooth functioning of the capital market in European Union (EU). They envisage the obligations of Member States to prescribe, under national law, misdemeanor and criminal sanctions for conduct that constitutes abuses in the capital market. Their aim was to provide the same level of criminal justice protection at the level of all EU countries. As EU candidate country, the Republic of Serbia has prescribed sanctions by the Law on the Capital Market, the Law on Takeovers of Joint Stock Companies and the Law on Open-Ended Investment Funds subject to Public Offering. Although serious abuses in the capital market of the Republic of Serbia constitute criminal offenses, in practice it seems impossible for prosecutors and courts to prove their existence. Therefore, we cannot say that there is adequate protection of investors or unhindered functioning of the capital market. Given that national courts do not recognize as valid circumstantial evidence, it is impossible to prove some of these acts without the use of specific evidentiary actions such as, for example, eavesdropping on telecommunications. However, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Serbia only provides for a limited number of criminal offenses to which such evidentiary actions can be applied. This provision does not cover offenses under the sec-* This paper created two and European Law: Comparison and har-monization“, of Education and Science of Republic of Serbia, number 179031, which is Institute of Comparative Law and and challenges in international relations in 2020”, ondary criminal legislation and, therefore, offenses representing abuses in the capital market. In the previous period, the Securities Commission has filed several criminal charges against the perpetrators of such criminal offenses, however, the Public Prosecutor’s Office has not filed any lawsuit or notified the authorized applicant on the outcome of the proceedings. Such actions could further discourage institutions authorized to monitor legitimate capital market opera-tions from filing criminal charges against capital market abusers in the future, some of which may be related to corporate business corruption. This could certainly have a negative impact on the decisions of both existing and potential investors in the capital market. This paper starts with the analysis of compliance of the regulations of the Republic of Serbia with Regulation 596/2014/EU and Directive 2014/57/EU, then points to the lack of provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides for the limited application of special evidence in criminal proceedings. Based on this analysis the authors strive to make recommendations in order to improve the implementation of provisions that enable the suppression of criminal offenses which threaten the capital market integrity. In this way, we would like to point out that alignment with the acquis communautaire also implies the possibility of applying its standards in the territory of both candidate and EU Member States. Therefore, in order to achieve this goal, it is necessary not only to adopt new regulations, but also to harmonize the existing provisions of some other regulations which enable their implementation in the practice.","PeriodicalId":448091,"journal":{"name":"EU 2020 – lessons from the past and solutions for the future","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"(IN)ADEQUATE CRIMINAL PROTECTION OF THE CAPITAL MARKET IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA\",\"authors\":\"Jelena Kostić, Sanja Jelisavac Trošić\",\"doi\":\"10.25234/eclic/11918\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Regulation 596/2014/EU and Directive 2014/57/EU were adopted in order to provide adequate protection of investors and the smooth functioning of the capital market in European Union (EU). They envisage the obligations of Member States to prescribe, under national law, misdemeanor and criminal sanctions for conduct that constitutes abuses in the capital market. Their aim was to provide the same level of criminal justice protection at the level of all EU countries. As EU candidate country, the Republic of Serbia has prescribed sanctions by the Law on the Capital Market, the Law on Takeovers of Joint Stock Companies and the Law on Open-Ended Investment Funds subject to Public Offering. Although serious abuses in the capital market of the Republic of Serbia constitute criminal offenses, in practice it seems impossible for prosecutors and courts to prove their existence. Therefore, we cannot say that there is adequate protection of investors or unhindered functioning of the capital market. Given that national courts do not recognize as valid circumstantial evidence, it is impossible to prove some of these acts without the use of specific evidentiary actions such as, for example, eavesdropping on telecommunications. However, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Serbia only provides for a limited number of criminal offenses to which such evidentiary actions can be applied. This provision does not cover offenses under the sec-* This paper created two and European Law: Comparison and har-monization“, of Education and Science of Republic of Serbia, number 179031, which is Institute of Comparative Law and and challenges in international relations in 2020”, ondary criminal legislation and, therefore, offenses representing abuses in the capital market. In the previous period, the Securities Commission has filed several criminal charges against the perpetrators of such criminal offenses, however, the Public Prosecutor’s Office has not filed any lawsuit or notified the authorized applicant on the outcome of the proceedings. Such actions could further discourage institutions authorized to monitor legitimate capital market opera-tions from filing criminal charges against capital market abusers in the future, some of which may be related to corporate business corruption. This could certainly have a negative impact on the decisions of both existing and potential investors in the capital market. This paper starts with the analysis of compliance of the regulations of the Republic of Serbia with Regulation 596/2014/EU and Directive 2014/57/EU, then points to the lack of provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides for the limited application of special evidence in criminal proceedings. Based on this analysis the authors strive to make recommendations in order to improve the implementation of provisions that enable the suppression of criminal offenses which threaten the capital market integrity. In this way, we would like to point out that alignment with the acquis communautaire also implies the possibility of applying its standards in the territory of both candidate and EU Member States. Therefore, in order to achieve this goal, it is necessary not only to adopt new regulations, but also to harmonize the existing provisions of some other regulations which enable their implementation in the practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":448091,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EU 2020 – lessons from the past and solutions for the future\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EU 2020 – lessons from the past and solutions for the future\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25234/eclic/11918\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EU 2020 – lessons from the past and solutions for the future","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25234/eclic/11918","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

通过了第596/2014/EU号法规和第2014/57/EU号指令,以便为欧盟(EU)的投资者提供充分的保护和资本市场的顺利运作。它们设想会员国有义务根据国家法律规定对构成资本市场滥用行为的轻罪和刑事制裁。其目的是在所有欧盟国家一级提供同样水平的刑事司法保护。作为欧盟候选国,塞尔维亚共和国通过《资本市场法》、《股份公司收购法》和《公开发行的开放式投资基金法》规定了制裁措施。虽然塞尔维亚共和国资本市场的严重滥用行为构成刑事犯罪,但实际上检察官和法院似乎无法证明其存在。因此,我们不能说对投资者有充分的保护,也不能说资本市场的运作不受阻碍。鉴于国家法院不承认间接证据为有效证据,如果不使用具体的证据行动,例如窃听电信,就不可能证明其中一些行为。但是,塞尔维亚共和国的《刑事诉讼法》只规定了可以适用这种证据诉讼的有限数量的刑事罪行。这一规定不包括第2条和欧洲法:比较和协调”,本文创建了塞尔维亚共和国教育和科学,第179031号,这是比较法研究所和2020年国际关系中的挑战,以及刑事立法,因此,代表资本市场滥用的罪行。在过去的一段时间里,证券委员会已经对这些刑事犯罪的肇事者提起了几项刑事指控,但是,检察官办公室没有提起任何诉讼,也没有将诉讼结果通知授权申请人。此类行动可能进一步阻碍被授权监督合法资本市场运作的机构今后对资本市场滥用者提起刑事指控,其中一些指控可能与公司业务腐败有关。这肯定会对资本市场上现有和潜在投资者的决策产生负面影响。本文首先分析了塞尔维亚共和国法规与第596/2014/EU号法规和第2014/57/EU号指令的合规性,然后指出《刑事诉讼法》缺乏规定在刑事诉讼中有限适用特殊证据的规定。在此分析的基础上,笔者努力提出建议,以改进对威胁资本市场完整性的刑事犯罪的执行规定。通过这种方式,我们要指出,与共同性保持一致也意味着有可能在候选国和欧盟成员国的领土上适用其标准。因此,为了实现这一目标,不仅需要采用新的条例,而且需要协调一些其他条例的现有规定,使其能够在实践中实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
(IN)ADEQUATE CRIMINAL PROTECTION OF THE CAPITAL MARKET IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
Regulation 596/2014/EU and Directive 2014/57/EU were adopted in order to provide adequate protection of investors and the smooth functioning of the capital market in European Union (EU). They envisage the obligations of Member States to prescribe, under national law, misdemeanor and criminal sanctions for conduct that constitutes abuses in the capital market. Their aim was to provide the same level of criminal justice protection at the level of all EU countries. As EU candidate country, the Republic of Serbia has prescribed sanctions by the Law on the Capital Market, the Law on Takeovers of Joint Stock Companies and the Law on Open-Ended Investment Funds subject to Public Offering. Although serious abuses in the capital market of the Republic of Serbia constitute criminal offenses, in practice it seems impossible for prosecutors and courts to prove their existence. Therefore, we cannot say that there is adequate protection of investors or unhindered functioning of the capital market. Given that national courts do not recognize as valid circumstantial evidence, it is impossible to prove some of these acts without the use of specific evidentiary actions such as, for example, eavesdropping on telecommunications. However, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Serbia only provides for a limited number of criminal offenses to which such evidentiary actions can be applied. This provision does not cover offenses under the sec-* This paper created two and European Law: Comparison and har-monization“, of Education and Science of Republic of Serbia, number 179031, which is Institute of Comparative Law and and challenges in international relations in 2020”, ondary criminal legislation and, therefore, offenses representing abuses in the capital market. In the previous period, the Securities Commission has filed several criminal charges against the perpetrators of such criminal offenses, however, the Public Prosecutor’s Office has not filed any lawsuit or notified the authorized applicant on the outcome of the proceedings. Such actions could further discourage institutions authorized to monitor legitimate capital market opera-tions from filing criminal charges against capital market abusers in the future, some of which may be related to corporate business corruption. This could certainly have a negative impact on the decisions of both existing and potential investors in the capital market. This paper starts with the analysis of compliance of the regulations of the Republic of Serbia with Regulation 596/2014/EU and Directive 2014/57/EU, then points to the lack of provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides for the limited application of special evidence in criminal proceedings. Based on this analysis the authors strive to make recommendations in order to improve the implementation of provisions that enable the suppression of criminal offenses which threaten the capital market integrity. In this way, we would like to point out that alignment with the acquis communautaire also implies the possibility of applying its standards in the territory of both candidate and EU Member States. Therefore, in order to achieve this goal, it is necessary not only to adopt new regulations, but also to harmonize the existing provisions of some other regulations which enable their implementation in the practice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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