Author(s) Telma Sofia Martins Ribeiro
Advisor(s) Flávia Noversa Loureiro
Year 2017
Synopsis The present study concerns the susceptibility of probative use, in criminal proceedings, of information provided by the accused during the administrative procedure of tax inspection, under and in compliance with the duty of collaboration to which he is legally bound. On the scene, there is an apparent conflict between the criminal procedural guarantee of the defendant in not contributing, either to the incrimination itself (commonly referred to as the latin term nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare), and to complying with the legal obligation to cooperate in the tax procedure. The present work is divided into three parts. Part I concerns the analysis of nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare and all relevant issues associated with it, namely: its meaning and content, historical origin, substantive or substantive constitutional grounds and constitutional grounds of Determination of its scope, the susceptibility of the establishment of nemo tenetur restrictions, and, finally, the legal consequences in case of breach of the principle. Part II establishes a brief and succinct approach to the duties of collaboration in tax matters, more specifically, in the procedure of tax inspection. It examines matters such as the framework of cooperation duties as ancillary obligations of the tax legal relationship, the practical implementation of the duty of collaboration (in which acts it materializes), as well as the consequences associated with cases of illegitimate failure to fulfil this duty. Finally, in Part III we investigate and try to offer the solution to the problem initially posed of probative use. The doctrinal and jurisprudential positions and pros and cons of this evidence intercommunication, as well as the advantages and criticisms which are traditionally pointed out to these positions, are the determination of the normative scope of application of nemo tenetur (whether the principle can be invoked in the course of the And the presentation of the proposed solution which, we argue, will inevitably involve the effective separation of the proceedings (criminal and tax inspection procedure), and the absolute impossibility of using the information tax inspection, under collaborative duties.
See more here.
Author(s) Telma Sofia Martins Ribeiro
Advisor(s) Flávia Noversa Loureiro
Year 2017
Synopsis The present study concerns the susceptibility of probative use, in criminal proceedings, of information provided by the accused during the administrative procedure of tax inspection, under and in compliance with the duty of collaboration to which he is legally bound. On the scene, there is an apparent conflict between the criminal procedural guarantee of the defendant in not contributing, either to the incrimination itself (commonly referred to as the latin term nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare), and to complying with the legal obligation to cooperate in the tax procedure. The present work is divided into three parts. Part I concerns the analysis of nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare and all relevant issues associated with it, namely: its meaning and content, historical origin, substantive or substantive constitutional grounds and constitutional grounds of Determination of its scope, the susceptibility of the establishment of nemo tenetur restrictions, and, finally, the legal consequences in case of breach of the principle. Part II establishes a brief and succinct approach to the duties of collaboration in tax matters, more specifically, in the procedure of tax inspection. It examines matters such as the framework of cooperation duties as ancillary obligations of the tax legal relationship, the practical implementation of the duty of collaboration (in which acts it materializes), as well as the consequences associated with cases of illegitimate failure to fulfil this duty. Finally, in Part III we investigate and try to offer the solution to the problem initially posed of probative use. The doctrinal and jurisprudential positions and pros and cons of this evidence intercommunication, as well as the advantages and criticisms which are traditionally pointed out to these positions, are the determination of the normative scope of application of nemo tenetur (whether the principle can be invoked in the course of the And the presentation of the proposed solution which, we argue, will inevitably involve the effective separation of the proceedings (criminal and tax inspection procedure), and the absolute impossibility of using the information tax inspection, under collaborative duties.
See more here.