Dezincriminarea îmbogățirii ilicite de către Curtea Constituțională a Ucrainei : lecție pentru Republica Moldova? (Decriminalization of Illegal Enrichment by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine: A Lesson for the Republic of Moldova?)

In the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova a project is examined, in which it is proposed that, in case of illicit enrichment, the burden of proof falls not on the state (as it is now), but on the perpetrator. If this project is adopted, there is a probability that in the Republic of Moldova the situation that was attested in 2019 in Ukraine will be repeated. So, on February 26, 2019, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine declared art. 368/2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which provided for liability for illegal enrichment. An analysis of the respective decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine shows that the expression “it was found, based on the evidence, that they could not be obtained legally”, used in art. 330/2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova, as well as the expression “the legitimacy of the grounds for the acquisition of which is not supported by evidence” used in art. 368/2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, are procedural prescriptions. It is argued that the expression “it was found, based on the evidence, that they could not be obtained legally” is a “foreign body” in art. 330/2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova. The guilt of the perpetrator cannot include the condition regarding the material or immaterial object of the illicit enrichment, described in art. 330/2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova by this expression. The guilt of the subject of illicit enrichment may not include the procedural activity of a representative of the state. Such activity cannot form either a subjective causal relationship, or an objective causal relationship with the act of the subject of illicit enrichment