Górniok, Oktawia2016-12-262016-12-261986Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 48, 1986, z. 1, s. 63-750035-9629http://hdl.handle.net/10593/16804There is an urgent need of conforming the binding regulation, by means of their interpretation, to the observed tendencies of economic crime. Particularly, the increasing threat posed to consumer by economic crime calls for rediscussing several problems of interpretation of art. 225 of Penal Code, art. 1 of The Speculation Elimination Act, and art. 226 p.c. in the light of their full use in protection of the endangered good. The article indicated the negative effects of interpretation according to which property swindled out of consumers by employees of the unit of socialized economy is considered to be the collective property, what in turn results in sentencing perpetrators for appropriation of collective property and holding them liable, in criminal proceedings for damages equal in value to the said property, payable to the unit of socialized economy. As far as art. 1.1 of The Speculation Elimination Act is concerned, the trait „goods intended for sale in the unit of socialized commerce or in the catering business" has to be interpreted in such a way as to extend protection of penal law on all stages of transfer of goods designed for the average consummer, from the production establishment to the ultimate seller. Finally, considering the role of civil servants in that sphere of activity, it is suggested to modify the second segment of the subsidiarity principle (art. 246 § 4 p.c.) in order to be able to apply the regulation of art. 246 p.c. to those civil servants of socialized economy who are transgressing their competence in managing-effecting damage incurred by individuals.polinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessArtykuł