Everything about criminal cases
The second type of fine is a fine imposed as basicpunishment and calculated in a fixed amount.
— let’s immediately distinguish this type of fine from the third type (a fine in a multiple amount). It’s very easy to check this, look at the List of Articles
providing for a fine in multiple amounts.
- if you are convicted under an article not included in the specified list, it means that your fine is assigned in a fixed amount and belongs to the second type.
What happens if you fail to pay?
?
If a fine is assigned to you as the main punishment in a fixed amount of money, then in case of non-payment:
Url Additional information:
- clause 5.2
Plenum No. 21 fine in a fixed amount - replaced by another type of punishment
a) the fine is replaced by another type of punishment ( clause 5.2
Plenum No. 21).
For example, a fine can be replaced with correctional labor
).
Url Additional information:
- Part 5 46 Criminal Code
but the fine cannot be replaced by imprisonment
b) important: replacement with imprisonment in this case is impossible ( Part 5 46 of the Criminal Code
).
In case of malicious evasion of payment, it is possible to replace the fine with another type of punishment (for example, correctional labor
).
Url Additional information:
- clause 5.9
Plenum No. 21 replacement with imprisonment for evading work
c) however, there is still a way to get imprisonment. If, after replacing the fine with compulsory/corrective labor or restriction of freedom, the convicted person no longer evades them, then the court may replace them with imprisonment ( clause 5.9
Plenum No. 21).
The type and duration of other punishment in this case are determined based on the amount of the unpaid fine.
Term of other punishment
- if the fine is replaced by another punishment
(except for imprisonment), then what will be the amount of the new punishment?
It is determined based on the amount of the unpaid fine ( clause 5.2
of the Plenum No. 21).
Formula:
But there is no exact formula for calculating the term of a new sentence. The fact is that existing formulas for calculating the term do not apply to the fine.
- Part 1 71 of the Criminal Code
the formula for calculating terms is when adding up punishments.
- part 2 72 of the Criminal Code
the formula for counting terms is when replacing a sentence.
Url Additional information:
- part 2 71 of the Criminal Code
do not stack with others - fine, deprivation of rights, titles
- but these formulas do not apply to the fine, since part 2 of 71 of the Criminal Code
it is indicated that three types of punishment (including a fine) do not stack with others. That is, for a fine there is no “table of equivalents”, something like “10,000 rubles. = 1 day of imprisonment.”
The size is determined by judicial practice
The court will determine the type and amount of the new punishment based on established judicial practice. This actually means that the punishment will be imposed taking into account:
Url Additional information:
- clause 5.2
Plenum No. 21, the term of other punishment depends on the amount of unpaid
A)
the amount of the unpaid fine (as specified in
clause 5.2
of Plenum No. 21).
Url Additional information:
All aspects of criminal punishment
Purpose
punishments - all
mitigating
,
aggravating
and
neutral
factors
b)
all factors of punishment, as in a normal sentencing (see
List of factors
taken into account for punishment).
How to cancel a fine: checking the statute of limitations
How to calculate the term?
Driver Viktor Yandikov* on June 13, 2022 overtook and entered oncoming traffic. The magistrate of judicial district No. 26 of the Leninsky judicial district of Samara, Samara region brought him to justice for this offense under Part 4 of Art. 12.15 Code of Administrative Offenses and assigned 5,000 rubles. fine The resolution came into force on February 15, 2016.
No. 46-AD 19-5
APPLICANT : Victor Yandikov*
ESSENCE OF THE DISPUTE : On the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility
DECISION : Uphold the complaint, cancel the adopted acts, terminate the proceedings
On June 13, 2022, Yandikov drove into oncoming traffic again, and the driver was already facing liability under Part 5 of Art. 12.15 Code of Administrative Offenses - for repeated offenses. The magistrate of judicial district No. 1 of the Nikolaevsky district of the Ulyanovsk region accepted the case for proceedings on August 15. Yandikov filed a petition to send the case for consideration at the place of residence, which was done by the ruling dated August 31. The magistrate of judicial district No. 26 of the Leninsky judicial district of Samara, Samara region, accepted the case on September 7, appointed it for consideration on September 20, and then postponed it until September 25. Two days later, on September 27, the magistrate found Yandikov guilty under Part 5 of Art. 12.15 of the Administrative Code and deprived him of his rights for one year. The Leninsky District Court of Samara and the Samara Regional Court agreed with the lower instance.
Yandikov appealed the punishment to the Supreme Court. He reminded: the statute of limitations for bringing to justice for repeated driving into oncoming traffic (Part 5 of Article 12.15 of the Code of Administrative Offences) is three months from the date of commission of the offense. The Code of Administrative Offenses provides for the only case of suspension of this period - the satisfaction of a petition for consideration of the case at the place of residence (clause 14 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court dated March 24, 2005 No. 5). In this case, the time of sending the case is not included in the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility. Thus, in the Yandikov case, the statute of limitations began to run on June 13, 2022, was suspended from August 31 to September 7, and expired on September 21. The Supreme Court recalled: the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility is a circumstance that excludes proceedings in a case of an administrative offense (clause 6, part 1, article 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses). Since the magistrate brought Yandikov to administrative responsibility beyond the statute of limitations, the Supreme Court canceled the adopted acts and terminated the proceedings in the case (No. 46-AD19-5).
Failure to meet deadlines is a serious mistake
“I completely agree with the decision of the Supreme Court. Since the decision of the magistrate was made outside the three-month period established by Part 1 of Art. 4.5 of the Administrative Code, it and subsequent acts of higher authorities are subject to cancellation, and the proceedings in the case are to be terminated,” explained senior partner of MKA Zheleznikov and partners Zheleznikov and partners Federal Rating. Group Criminal Law Roman Kobylin. “The Supreme Court resolution fully complies with the requirements of the Code of Administrative Offenses regarding the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility and the procedure for calculating it. At the same time, the Supreme Court pointed out that the courts had not fully established the circumstances relevant to the case, but did not specify them - since the expiration of the statute of limitations should be considered as an unconditional basis for terminating the case,” noted senior lawyer UB Padva and Epstein Padva and Epstein Federal Rating. group Arbitration proceedings (medium and small disputes - mid market) group Bankruptcy (including disputes) (mid market) group Land law/Commercial real estate/Construction Evgeniy Bogelius. “The statute of limitations in the law is established for a reason, and non-compliance with it is a gross error in law enforcement,” agreed the head of the GR practice of the law firm BMS Law Firm BMS Law Firm Federal Rating. Dmitry Lesnyak.
“The Supreme Court’s formal approach to deadlines will encourage relevant authorities to apply to court in advance, as well as contribute to the development of less time-consuming methods for transferring case materials and the establishment of more reasonable deadlines for legal proceedings.”
Sergey Trushchin, lawyer KA Kovalev, Tugushi and partners Kovalev, Tugushi and partners Federal rating. group Bankruptcy (including disputes) (high market) group Dispute resolution in courts of general jurisdiction group Insurance law group Arbitration proceedings (major disputes - high market) group Maritime law group Pharmaceuticals and healthcare group Private capital group Labor and migration law (including disputes) group Criminal law group Corporate law/Mergers and acquisitions (high market) 14th place by revenue per lawyer (more than 30 lawyers) 17th place by number of lawyers 24th place by revenue
Lawyer KA Kovalev, Tugushi and partners Kovalev, Tugushi and partners Federal rating. group Bankruptcy (including disputes) (high market) group Dispute resolution in courts of general jurisdiction group Insurance law group Arbitration proceedings (major disputes - high market) group Maritime law group Pharmaceuticals and healthcare group Private capital group Labor and migration law (including disputes) group Criminal law group Corporate law/Mergers and acquisitions (high market) 14th place By revenue per lawyer (more than 30 lawyers) 17th place By number of lawyers 24th place By revenue Sergei Trushchin said that the Supreme Court has already corrected similar mistakes of lower courts (N 32-AD18-15, N 24-AD18-2).
*—name and surname have been changed by the editors.
- Alina Mikhailova
