Намера као субјективни елемент кривичног дела пореске утаје

Abstract

Значај кривичног дела пореске утаје није потре - бно посебно образлагати, јер произлази из значаја јавних прихода за функционисање модерног друштва. Остварење овог кривичног дела условљено је постојањем одређене намере учиниоца. Реч је о субјективном обележју бића пореске утаје коме у теорији кривичног права није посвећена заслужена пажња. За намеру учиниоца се у смислу овог кривичног дела везују бројне недоумице, чијем решавању ћемо покушати да допринесемо. Спорно је како у појединим кривичним стварима утврдити постојање намере учиниоца да избегне плаћање пореза. У раду ћемо анализирати судску праксу, ставове доктрине и указати на могућа решења ових проблема.

The importance of the offense of tax evasion does not need to be elaborated on, because it arises from the importance of public revenues for the functioning of modern society. The commission of this offense is conditioned by the existence of wilfulness of the perpetrator. It is a subjective element that has not received the attention it deserves in the theory and practice of criminal law. The wilfulness of the perpetrator in terms of this offense is linked to numerous doubts, the resolution of which we have tried to contribute. The key question is: why is wilfulness a subjective element of the offense of tax evasion? The vagueness of this term, the similarity with intention and the difficulties in proving it can lead to the conclusion that the wilfulness only unnecessarily burdens the regulation on tax evasion, the courts and the theory of criminal law. Nevertheless, it is justified to prescribe the wilfulness to avoid paying taxes as a subjective element of this act, because despite the similarities with the intent, there are also certain differences, which are explained in detail in the paper. It is most important to emphasize that not every intentional act of tax evasion performed is undertaken with the wilfulness of avoiding paying taxes. Difficulties in proving it undoubtedly exist, because wilfulness is connected with the state of consciousness of the perpetrator. However, objective circumstantial evidence can prove the wilfulness of the perpetrator. As a rule, the circumstantial evidence mentioned in the paper alone is not sufficient to conclude that there is wilfulness, but in the context of other evidence, they can contribute to the courts establishing its existence. It is unclear why our courts in most judgments do not explain the existence of the wilfulness or do so in an inadequate way.