Search

Search Results

• About the necessity of a new criminal act: or notes on the criminal offense of agreement in restraint of competition in public procurement and concession procedures

  99-121

  Zsolt Tibor Szabó

  Views:

  455

  The criminal act included in Subsection 1 Section 420 of Act C of 2012 on the Criminal Code (hereinafter referred to as Criminal Code) is the only one in the entire Criminal Code where the disposition includes the public procurement procedure as an element of the criminal act. In spite of this, further punishable criminal acts may be associated with the public procurement procedure which are inevitably committed or  completed in terms of the legal stadia of the crime, provided that any criminal relationship is established between the parties when public funds are allocated during the course of a tendering procedure.

  The non-exhaustive examples of the – examined – conduct subject to proceedings show that the basis of an unfair public procurement procedure is the committing of any of the corruption criminal offenses, and then, after the public procurement procedure had been concluded, the felony of agreement in restraint of competition will constitute the criminal act without prejudice to the ne bis in idem principle, i.e. the criminal act specified in Subsection (1) Section 420 of the Criminal Code is not the definition of public procurement corruption. In order to verify this, I will outline what I personally understand as public procurement corruption.

  The primary aim of the study is to support the argument that the delict referred to above is unable to fulfil the intention of the legislator, namely decreasing public procurement corruption. As a secondary focus,  the reasons behind the necessity of a new criminal act are referred to.

• The Challenges of Cryptocurrencies in Substantive Criminal Law and Procedure

  79-98

  Kitti Mezei

  Views:

  966

  The legal status of cryptocurrencies is a gray area in most legal systems, although criminals increasingly abuse cryptocurrencies to fund criminal activities. The study analyses solely the criminal use of cryptocurrencies. For example money launderers have evolved to use cryptocurrencies in their operations, therefore legislative changes at EU level, or the uniform application of existing anti-money laundering regulations have been required. In a trend mirroring attacks on banks and their customers, cryptocurrency users and exchangers have become victims of cybercrimes themselves. Conventional crimes may be committed via cryptocurrencies such as fraud and extortion. Darknet criminal markets use cryptocurrencies as payment instruments since they offer better anonimity and some of them greater privacy. They are less traceable and their decentralised system challenges law enforcement.