Clarity of a Criminal Law Provision in the Case Law of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia

Abstract

The quality criteria for the provisions of criminal law follow from Art. 90 and the second sentence of Art. 92 of the Satversme [Constitution] of the Republic of Latvia. A person may be recognised as being guilty and punished only for such actions that have been recognised as being criminal in accordance with law. A person’s fundamental right to know his or her rights defines the framework for the legislator’s actions because only such a provision that complies with all the quality criteria of a legal provision may be recognised as being a law, i.e., as having been granted legal force. These fundamental rights require the legislator to take special care in drafting legal norms that envisage criminal liability, which is the most severe form of legal liability. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia has repeatedly engaged in assessing the quality of criminal law provisions. This study provides an insight into the Constitutional Court’s approach to reviewing the clarity of criminal law provisions and summarizes the most important findings made by the Constitutional Court regarding this issue.

Proving the involvement of legal entities – credit institutions – in ‘stand-alone’ money-laundering cases

“…Evidence is direct if its use means direct, direct proof of the circumstance to be proven in the criminal process, but indirect evidence proves the facts to be proven in the criminal process only indirectly, i.e. through related facts (Strada-Rozenberga, 2019). The question of the use of circumstantial evidence in proof has recently been frequently raised, especially in the context of the ability (skill) of responsible officials to use circumstantial evidence to prove money laundering.…”