Forfission of an enterprise and the burd of proof in criminal process

The subject of the analysis in the article is the institution of enterprise forfeiture (Article 44a of the Act of June 6, 1997, Penal Code), which is the state's criminal law response to the crime committed by the perpetrator. The normative structure of the title institution expresses the presumption that through the enterprise, the perpetrator obtained, even indirectly, a financial benefit of significant value. In turn, in the context of criminal proceedings, this institution introduces an exception in the method of proof, which is based on the rule of onus probandi (burden of proof). The legal exegesis on the forfeiture of an enterprise carried out in the study indicates that this institution is a breach in the process of proof based on the onus probandi rule in favor of the presumption that the enterprise and its components are the result of a crime and illegal benefits that the perpetrator obtained by committing a prohibited act. Therefore, the study posed a research question about the shape of the proof process based on the norm of Art. 44a of the Penal Code.