Legal definition of benefits and personal property for the purposes of criminal law contained in Article. 115 § 4 of the CC, which is part of the so-called. glossary general part. Although it does not contain a logically correct definition of the word benefit, but states that the advantage for the purposes of criminal law is both a benefit for themselves, and so the perpetrator of an offense, and the person who is not the perpetrator of the deed. However, in contrast to the offender, the criminal law can only be a natural person – a person other than the perpetrator of an entity capable of obtaining the benefits may also be a legal person or organizational unit without legal personality.Therefore correct, logically correct definition of benefits was developed by the doctrine and jurisprudence. In it it indicates that the basic feature benefits both property and personal, is the ability to meet human needs. The benefit can be anything, what has this ability, and so any good in the broadest sense of the word.
Financial advantage and personal
Whether we are dealing with a benefit or personal property, it determines whether a benefit has an economic value, manifested among others in that it is countable money, and therefore its size can be expressed as the sum of cash. It should be assumed that the division of the total benefits and personal property on the basis of provisions of the code division releasable so if the benefits can not be converted to cash, it is a personal benefit.
It is clear therefore that the importance of the concept of financial benefit and personal is the language of law (laws) and legal other than on the basis of general language (general), because in terms of the law it is not at all a question of the type of needs to be met the particular good, because the meaning of a universal benefit may be doubly qualified, eg. the money received as a bribe offender will spend to buy a car and purchase a ticket to the philharmonic.
When we are dealing with financial benefits?
With the resolution of the full composition of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of 30 January 1980. On signature files VII KZP 41/78, OSNKW 1980, no. 3, pos. 2, clearly shows that for a person to obtain a financial advantage manifests enlargement of its assets, ie. The so-called enlargement. property assets or the so-called deduction. liability of property, or in preventing reduction of its assets (not necessarily reduce property in general, also to reduce to a higher degree). Financial advantage may take in a particular case, all sorts of character, eg. Money, object, services, property rights, debt waiver, waiver of claims, interest-free or low-interest loans or other favorable agreement, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in its judgment of 24 April 1975 ., on the signature of act II KR 364/74, OSNKW 1975 with. 8, item. 111.
At the same time it is a benefit unlawful, obtained by the perpetrator or another person without a valid and existing on the basis of legal standards or individual legal relationship legal basis at the time of obtaining it – an advantage for example. Applicable to the individual circumstances of rule of law conferring a public official specified benefit from the Treasury or the employment relationship or a civil law relationship between the parties.
Moreover, the doctrine also requires that the material benefit was wicked, unfair and misplaced in a situation where there are no legal standards prohibiting the adoption of a defined benefit or not at all governing rules for receiving those benefits, or gratitude. To evaluate these circumstances, it is necessary to deontological rules, the rules governing the exercise of a profession or function, outside the system of universally binding law and the principles of social coexistence. On their basis, so you can assess whether the benefits of moderate value, which giving the other person is customary in strictly defined circumstances, they are not just present material benefits, and are only words of gratitude (ie. Flowers, small gifts) and hospitality.