Repository of colleges and higher education institutions

Show document
A+ | A- | Help | SLO | ENG

Title:ZOPNI kot pravna podlaga za začasno zavarovanje ali odvzem premoženja nezakonitega izvora : diplomsko delo
Authors:ID Wagner, Klemen (Author)
ID Dežman, Aljoša (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf RAZ_Wagner_Klemen_i2019.pdf (378,93 KB)
MD5: 7015728FF10463991EE743F1B17204A9
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Final reflection paper
Typology:2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization:EVRO-PF - Nova Univerza - European Faculty of Law
Abstract:Zakon o odvzemu premoženja nezakonitega izvora je bil sprejet z namenom onemogočanja materialnega okoriščanja posameznikov s protipravno dejavnostjo in preprečevanja investiranja premoženja nezakonitega izvora v nadaljnjo dejavnost. Premoženje je nezakonitega izvora, če je podano očitno nesorazmerje med njegovim obsegom in dohodki, zmanjšanimi za davke in prispevke, ki jih je oseba, zoper katero teče postopek po ZOPNI, plačala v obdobju, v katerem je bilo premoženje pridobljeno. To je povsem nov pravni termin, ki se je pojavil šele s sprejetjem ZOPNI leta 2011. Z njim je zakonodajalec pravzaprav na novo opredelil kršitev in nanjo navezal novi pravni posledici - omejitev razpolaganja s premoženjem in odvzem premoženja. V okvir nezakonito pridobljenega premoženja, ki se ugotavlja v fazi finančne preiskave, spadajo stvari in pravice, ki so lahko predmet izvršbe (omejevalna funkcija) kot tudi premoženje, ki neposredno ali posredno izhaja iz takega premoženja, v katero je spremenjeno ali s katerim je pomešano (razširitvena funkcija). Sodišče s sodbo odvzame premoženje, ki ga je pridobitelj nezakonito pridobil v obdobju petih let pred storitvijo kataloškega kaznivega dejanja do vključno enega leta in pol po storitvi le-tega, kolikor lahko najdlje traja finančna preiskava. Premoženje je lahko odvzeto tako primarnim kot tudi sekundarnim subjektom. S pomočjo opisne oziroma deskriptivne metode sem želel skozi raziskovanje ugotoviti, ali je ZOPNI v skladu z ustavnimi procesnimi jamstvi. Moja ugotovitev je, da je ZOPNI v neskladju z 22, 23, 25, 27 in 28 členom Ustave. V zvezi z 31. členom Ustave pa, da iz ZOPNI izhaja protipravna ustavna praznina.
Place of publishing:Ljubljana
Place of performance:Ljubljana
Publisher:[K. Wagner]
Year of publishing:2019
Year of performance:2019
Number of pages:[VII], 33 str.
PID:20.500.12556/ReVIS-5914 New window
COBISS.SI-ID:2053333174 New window
UDC:347.234(043.2)
Note:Dipl. delo 1. stopnje bolonjskega študija; Nasl. z nasl. zaslona; Opis vira z dne 28. 06. 2019;
Publication date in ReVIS:01.07.2019
Views:2747
Downloads:190
Metadata:XML DC-XML DC-RDF
:
Copy citation
  
Share:Bookmark and Share


Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Secondary language

Language:English
Abstract:The Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act (CPCA) was passed to prevent the material capitalization of individuals by means of illegal activity or to prevent the investment of proceeds of crime into subsequent activities. Assets are considered proceeds of crime if there is a significant disproportion between their scope and the income reduced by taxes and contributions paid by the acquirer whom the CPCA proceedings are conducted against during the acquisition of such assets. It is a novel legal term which was coined as late as the passing of the CPCA in 2011. It has allowed the legislator to redefine such violations and design new legal consequences - the restriction on the distribution of such assets and the confiscation of assets. Proceeds of crime, which are determined during financial investigation, include such property and rights that can be subject to enforcement (i.e. restrictive function) as well as assets directly or indirectly derived from assets that have been changed or intermixed (i.e. enlargement function). The court delivers a judgement to confiscate the assets which the acquirer has obtained illegally in a period of five years prior to and one and a half year after the commission of a catalogue offence, as a financial investigation can last no more than one and a half years. Assets can be confiscated from both primary and secondary subjects alike. Using the descriptive research method, I wanted to determine whether the CPCA is in accordance with the constitutional procedural guarantees. I have concluded that the CPCA is in discordance with Articles 22, 23, 25, 27 and 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia. Additionally, I found an unlawful constitutional gap stemming from the CPCA in relation to Article 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia.
Keywords:Premoženje


Back