The victim of a crime and the assignment of claims resulting from its commission

Abstract

The article aims to evaluate the case-law concerning the situation of the purchaser of a debt resulting from a criminal offence in criminal proceedings and to present the author’s view on the possibility of resolving this issue. In the author's opinion, the reference of case-law theses to the content of the criminal and civil law provisions, when interpreted not only linguistically but also systemically, raises doubts as to the validity of the case-law positions. These doubts arise primarily from the juxtaposition of criminal and civil law provisions, which should also be applied when deciding on the obligation to make reparation. Meanwhile, according to civil law, the purchaser of a claim should acquire the same procedural rights as those of the seller. However, criminal courts do not apply civil law provisions in this regard, denying the acquirer not only the status of an injured party, but even the possibility to apply for an obligation to make reparation in their favour in a criminal trial. This position is the result of adopting a narrow interpretation of the definition of victim, which does not include the purchaser of a claim. The issue in question leads to real practical problems, as acceptance of the theses prevailing in the case-law may lead to harming the purchaser of the claim and unfounded, axiologically unjustified privileging of the offender. It should be noted, however, that while this problem is significant, it has not been the subject of frequent academic reflection. The case-law theses in question, despite raising substantial doubts, are often accepted in criminal law doctrine.