Search

On the grounds of the bibliographic analysis of the publications in the Polish language in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the second half of the 16th century, this article reconstructs the phenomena of anonymity, counterfeiting and piracy. In this country, the life of the printed media was fairly liberal and hardly restricted at all. In the course of political and religious struggles, authors, translators, publishers and compilers frequently preferred to conceal the data on the real authorship and typography in their publications. Political and religious factions had to consider the opinion of the ruler and their seniority; therefore, only anonymous impact on the public opinion allowed ensuring the defense of one's attitudes and the desired impact on the society. This strategy of anonymity was protecting the stakeholders from getting into trouble, while also expanding the scope of commercial activity for the typographers. The phenomenon of piracy was also being promoted by the different legal regulation of the printed media in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland, and, due to the physically vast distances, the feeling of impunity developed. The authors and typographers were acting honestly in such cases when the published literature contained no controversial materials, or when they had the solid backing of the powers, and also in the cases when legal protection of the printed media was ensured. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has long been thought that the only known 1653 copy of the first edition of the Knygos Nobažnystės is preserved in Sweden. The sammelband consists of a hymnal without a separate title page, the postil "Suma Evangelijų", and the prayer book "Maldos krikščioniškos" with the catechism Katekizmas arba trumpas pamokslas. One part (the postil "Suma Evangelijų") of the Knygos Nobažnystės is preserved in the library of the Emeryk Hutten-Czapski National Museum in Kraków. It has hitherto been classified by bibliographers as a counterfeit edition, but a comparative analysis leaves no doubt that it is the second known copy of the first edition of the Knygos Nobažnystės postil "Suma Evangelijų". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author analyses the most significant problems in applying Article 300 Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, which concerns the field of Lithuanian criminal doctrine and current court practice. First, some doubts are highlighted about the regulation of this article in criminal law. In the author's opinion, a shortcoming occurs in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania when there is no criminal liability for obtaining a forgery. The features of the document are then briefly analysed and given finding that the electronic document, as well as simple document, could be the object of such crime - the main attention must be pointed to the legal significance of the document. The largest part of the article concerns the specifics of applying Article 300 Part 1 in court practice, noting not formal criminal liability but making the legal significance of the document to legal relationships. In generalising the criminal law of different foreign countries and the practice of Lithuanian courts, it is concluded that a change to the criminal code is needed. Because of that, the author suggests including some additional features in Article 300 Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There was no responsibility provided in the old Criminal Code (1961 year) for the crimes of illegal disposal of an electronic non-cash payment instrument. The responsibility for such acts has been set since 2003. This new law has caused many problems concerning the practical proceedings of law enforcement agencies. The author have collected some urgent problems and tried to solve them out. Some crime features are described as alternative by the law. In such a law an act could be described presenting several features. Such crimes could be committed either by one or several of the acts. If a crime has been committed by one act or several acts, such an act is considered to be one crime according to the Criminal Code. The act features of the crimes provided in the Criminal Code (Article 214 -- illegal acquisition, possession, transfer or realization and Article 215 -- illegal initiation or transaction of financial operation) are set out as alternative, therefore the following acts must be qualified as one crime. When a criminal, paying with an electronic non-cash payment instrument, signs a check, such an act is not separately qualified as forgery. Courts' practice says that signing a check is a part of a crime described in the Criminal Code (Article 215) and is a part of illegal initiation or transaction of financial operation. Author argues that such signing is a part of fraud, but not a part of illegal initiation or transaction of financial operation. Responsibility for the fraud has been set out, if the value of illegally acquired property is more than 130 Litas (1 Minimum Living Standard). When criminal used electronic non-cash payment instrument and his obtained property value is more than 130 Litas, his act must be qualified according to the Articles 182 and 215 as fraud and illegal initiation of financial operation, and Article 300 as forgery. However, if the value of illegally acquired property is less than 130 Litas, the signing of the check can not be qualified as fraud according to the Article 182 but must be qualified according to the Article 300 as a forgery and Article 215 as illegal initiation of financial operation. When a criminal using the same payment instrument performs several financial operations, it is necessary to decide whether there is one continuous crime in his/her actions or several separate crimes. If several crimes, pursuant to the Criminal Code (Articles 215 and 182), are committed and they have the features of continuous acts, such actions are qualified as one crime. It is problematic when a criminal pays with an electronic payment instrument belonging to another person several times thus acquiring other person's property and is detained having used this payment instrument for several times. In such situations the actions of a criminal that were stopped at the attempt phase are not qualified separately as an attempt to commit a crime but are deemed to be a part of a continuous crime. A crime is qualified considering the fact whether malice prepense is defined or not. When a criminal commits a crime with defined malice prepense, his/her criminal act is qualified according to the consequences that he/she tried to attain, whereas when there is no defined malice prepense, criminal acts are qualified according to the consequences that occured. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]