The article presents an issue related to the criminal legal evaluation of the behavior of a perpetrator who evades taxation of goods of which he has become the disposer in connection with a fiscal offense or crime. Attention was paid to the differences in positions on the issue of incurring criminal liability by a fence under the Fiscal Penal Code (Article 65 of the Fiscal Penal Code), who fails to disclose the object of taxation exposing himself additionally to liability for the second act - under Article 54 of the Fiscal Penal Code. Guided by pragmatic considerations, but based on systemic assumptions, including the right to defense and the absence of an obligation to provide evidence to one’s detriment, it was considered counterproductive to hold a perpetrator of excise fencing additionally liable for failure to disclose the object of taxation in the absence of realization of the elements of the subjective side, and often also the elements of the object side of the criminal act under Article 54 of the Fiscal Penal Code.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Michał Błoński (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: