Abstract
The commentary concerns two major threads leading to a critical assessment of the commented judgement of the Supreme Court - the role of subsidiarity principal in criminal law interpretation and the insignificance of "economic justification" of manager's actions to determine if those actions breached Article 296 of the Penal Code. Author shows considerations regarding the importance of subsidiarity of criminal law, both in the aspect of lawmaking and interpretation of law for the correct legal interpretation of Article 296 of Penal Code. Author criticises the level of importance of the "economic justification" of manager's actions which was given by the Supreme Court in the commented judgement. As a rule, the so called "economic justification" of manager's action is inappropriate to the assessment of the substantive components of crime. It is especially irrelevant to the assessment of the results of manager's action - potential infliction of substantial damage or large-scale damage.
References
Gałęski M., Grupa G., Karnoprawna ocena decyzji menedżerskich, "Monitor Prawa Handlowego" 2014, nr 1.
Królikowski M., Zawłocki R. (red.), Kodeks karny. Część szczególna, t. 2, Komentarz, Art. 222-316, Warszawa 2017.
Lizęga-Turlakiewicz, G. Turlakiewicz, Granice kreatywnego zachowania menadżerów w kontekście art. 296 par. 1a kodeksu karnego, "Prokuratura i Prawo" 2016, nr 5, s. 51-75.
Pestasz P., Subsydiarność prawa karnego, "Gdańskie Studia Prawnicze. Przegląd Orzecznictwa" 2005, nr 1-2.
Zawłocki R. (red.), Prawo karne gospodarcze. System Prawa Handlowego, t. 10, Warszawa 2018.
Zawłocki R., Nowe przestępstwo niegospodarności bezszkodowej z art. 296 par. 1a Kodeksu karnego, "Monitor Prawniczy" 2011, nr 18.
Żółtek S., Prawo karne gospodarcze w aspekcie zasady subsydiarności, Warszawa 2009.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2022 Forum Prawnicze