“Put the general director in jail”: the practice of applying Art. 201 CC

What falls under the concept of “abuse” under Art. 201 CC

The use by a person holding managerial positions in a commercial or other non-governmental organization of his powers in order to obtain financial or other benefits , to the detriment of the interests of the headed organization, its structural unit or legally protected interests of citizens, is an abuse of official powers (Part 1 of Article 201 of the Criminal Code ).

The law defines the concept of abuse very broadly, allowing for free interpretation on the part of law enforcement officers. The corpus delicti under an extensive list of actions of the leader, including:

conclusion of initially unprofitable contracts;
provision of loans to counterparties on behalf of the enterprise on unsuccessful terms;
conspiracy with contractors, suppliers, performers in order to obtain a kickback;
appropriation of the organization's property;
overestimation of the amount of work performed, etc.

For example, in Nevinnomyssk, the deputy director of an enterprise was brought to justice, who, in order to receive an impressive bonus, for a long time created the appearance of successful work and falsified reports (sentence No. 1-395/2016 of November 2, 2016).

What is important: it is necessary to distinguish between crimes such as abuse of power and commercial bribery. In the second case, the manager also receives unlawful financial benefits, but for this he performs specific actions within the scope of his official powers, in the interests of a third party (Part 5 of Article 204 of the Criminal Code).

Article 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Abuse of authority (current version)

1. The objective side of the crime is characterized by:

1) the use by a person of his powers contrary to the legitimate interests of the organization (socially dangerous act);

2) consequences in the form of significant harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or legally protected interests of society and the state;

3) the causal relationship between the employee’s behavior and these consequences.

2. A socially dangerous act is realized both through action (committed within or exceeding one’s powers) and through inaction of an employee of the relevant organization, expressed in the use of managerial powers contrary to the legitimate interests of this organization.

The powers of a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization may be determined by law or other regulatory act that does not contradict them with the organization’s charter, agreement (contract), order, regulation.

3. The use by a person of his powers contrary to the legitimate interests of a commercial or other organization should be understood broadly: as the commission of an act against the objectives of the organization’s activities defined in the law and in the constituent documents.

4. The crime is considered completed from the moment significant harm occurs as a result of abuse of power, which is established by the court in each specific case based on the circumstances of the crime. Being in its content both property (material) and any other (moral, physical, organizational), it can be caused to its organization, and therefore criminal prosecution for such a fact is carried out upon application or with the consent of the organization. If significant harm is caused to the interests of other organizations, as well as citizens, society and the state, then criminal prosecution is carried out on a general basis.

5. Special subject - a person who has reached the age of 16 years:

— performing the functions of the sole executive body, member of the board of directors or other collective body;

- permanently, temporarily or by special authority, performing organizational, administrative or administrative and economic duties assigned to him in the prescribed manner, in a commercial organization, regardless of the form of ownership, or a non-profit organization that is not a state, municipal body or institution.

6. It is recommended to include the organizational and administrative functions of managing the workforce (team management, placement and selection of personnel, organizing the work or service of subordinates, maintaining discipline, etc.), and the administrative and economic functions include the powers to manage and dispose of property ( making decisions on the calculation of wages, bonuses, monitoring the movement of material assets, etc.) (clauses 3 and 5 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of February 10, 2000 No. 6 “On judicial practice in cases of bribery and commercial bribery").

7. The fundamental difference between the crimes provided for in Ch. 23 of the Criminal Code, from those listed in Chapter. 30 of the Criminal Code consists of the characteristics of their object and subject.

8. The subjective side is characterized by direct intent and a special purpose - extracting benefits and advantages for oneself or other persons (relatives, loved ones, business partners, etc.) or causing harm to other persons.

9. The grave consequences (Part 2 of the article under comment) are not disclosed in the law. These include a major accident, causing material damage on a particularly large scale or a significant number of victims, loss of a significant number of jobs, etc. In accordance with Art. 27 of the Criminal Code, a crime that entails these consequences may be committed through negligence.

10. Note 2 of the article establishes a special procedure for initiating criminal prosecution.

Objective, subjective side

The objective side of the director’s abuse of power lies in actions or inactions expressed in the criminal use of managerial powers, which is due to selfish motives. The first prerequisite for qualification is the presence of selfish motives. Plus – the significance of the damage caused to the enterprise, expressed in losses, deterioration of the market situation, and non-receipt of benefits.

For example, in the Tver region, the chairman of a cooperative was held accountable for appropriating the cooperative’s production base, which caused significant damage to the organization (sentence No. 1-26/2015 of November 12, 2015).

The subjective side is expressed by intent. The director understands the criminal nature of his actions and the possibility of being held accountable, but selfish motives force him to commit a crime.

Subject – special

The crime has a special subject; only a person who is authorized to perform the functions of a collegial executive body of the enterprise or performing managerial functions can be held accountable. This could be, for example, (paragraph 3, clause 11 of the resolution of the Plenum of the RF Armed Forces No. 19 of November 16, 2009):

director, general director;
JSC board member;
chairman of the cooperative;
head of PA, RO;
heads of workshops, departments, other divisions, middle managers with managerial functions.

The subject is a key difference from the offense described in Art. 285 of the Criminal Code “Abuse of Official Powers”, the composition of which recognizes only government representatives as subjects: federal, state, municipal officials, officials of state-owned enterprises, organizations and institutions.

Responsibility for the director

The article provides for various forms of liability for abuse of power and contains general and qualifying provisions. So, if the director is attracted under Part 1 of Art. 201 of the Criminal Code , he faces liability from a fine of 200 thousand rubles and up to 4 years in prison. The application of a specific sanction is determined by the situation and the position of the court.

For example, in Novokuznetsk, the general director, who underestimated the value of the enterprise’s property during the sale, was given 1 year in prison (sentence No. 1-17/2015 of 04/27/2015). And in the Rostov region, a manager who overestimated the amount of work performed was given only a fine of 170 thousand rubles. (sentence No. 1-130/2016 dated May 29, 2016).

The abuse led to grave consequences - the director will be prosecuted under Part 2 of Art. 201 CC. In this case, abuse of official powers will entail punishment ranging from a fine of up to 1 million rubles, and up to 10 years in prison. As a rule, even in the case of significant damage amounting to millions of rubles, managers receive only a few years in prison.

For example, in the Moscow Region, the head of a utility company received only 4 years in prison, although the damage he caused was estimated at 172 million rubles (sentence No. 1-106/2017 of February 15, 2017). And in the Rostov region, the director received 3 years in prison for making fictitious transactions worth 15 million rubles (sentence No. 1-29/2017 of April 27, 2017).

Key feature : if harm is caused only to an enterprise, a criminal case can be initiated only upon the application of its head (Article 23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). If the subject of the crime is the manager himself, the application is submitted with the consent of the governing body that appointed the manager or has the right to make decisions on the activities of the legal entity. persons (paragraph 2, paragraph 12 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation No. 19)..

Conviction under Part 1 of Art. 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Case No. 1 - 170/2012

PRI G O V O R

I M E N E M R O S S I C F E D E R A T I O N

Poronaysk September 11, 2012

Judge of the Poronaisky City Court of the Sakhalin Region Chepkaya S.A., with the participation of the state prosecutor represented by Deputy Poronaisky City Prosecutor A.Yu. Seleduev, defendant Alexey Vladimirovich Piskun, defense attorney represented by the lawyer of the Sakhalin Chamber of Lawyers Yatsukhno N.M., who presented the certificate * and warrant *, representative of the victim O.V. Gracheva, with secretary V.E. Ganina, having examined in open court, in the courtroom, in a special proceeding, the materials of the criminal case against

ALEXEY VLADIMIROVICH PISCUN, date of birth, native *, * by nationality, citizen *, with * education, * in a marriage relationship, dependent children and minors *, *, * *, registered and actually residing in *, *, * with no previous convictions,

accused of committing a crime under Part 1 of Article 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,

U S T A N O V I L :

Piskun A.V. committed by a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization his powers contrary to the legitimate interests of this organization and in order to obtain benefits and advantages for himself and other persons, if this act entailed causing significant harm to the rights and legitimate interests of organizations, and interests protected by law society and state.

The crime was committed by him in * under the following circumstances.

Piskun A.V., during the period from date to date, working as the general director of the Municipal Unitary Enterprise "*", on the basis of an order from the head of the administration of the urban district "Poronaysky" * from date, an employment contract from date and the charter of the municipal unitary enterprise "*" from the date, according to which his responsibilities included: independently managing the activities of the enterprise within the limits established by the current legislation, the Charter of the municipal formation of the Poronaisky urban district, the Charter of the enterprise, including the organization of production, economic and financial activities of the enterprise, property management within the limits established current legislation, had the right, within the limits of his competence, to issue orders, instructions, give instructions, mandatory for execution by all employees of the enterprise, was obliged to ensure the stable, uninterrupted operation of the enterprise, its effective financial and economic activities, the use of the enterprise’s property for its intended purpose in accordance with the types activities of the enterprise established by the Charter of the enterprise, as well as the use of target funds allocated to the enterprise for their intended purpose, as well as in the exercise of their rights and performance of duties, they must act in the interests of the enterprise in good faith and wisely.

In violation of the specified provisions of the employment contract dated , Piskun A.V., being the general director of MUP "*", abusing his official position in order to extract benefits and advantages for himself and other persons, acting deliberately, for selfish reasons, for a period of time date caused property damage to the enterprise by using the enterprise’s funds for other purposes, but to pay administrative fines under decisions on administrative offenses against him and other officials.

Piskun A.V., on one of the days during the daytime, while at his workplace in the office of the municipal unitary enterprise "*", located in *, in order to obtain benefits and advantages for himself and other persons associated with the release of him and others officials of Municipal Unitary Enterprise "*" from incurring material costs for the payment of administrative fines in cases of administrative offenses, abusing their official position and managerial functions, acting intentionally, for selfish reasons, illegally, contrary to the legitimate interests of the enterprise, understanding the illegal nature of their criminal actions, accepted decision to pay administrative fines imposed in cases of administrative offenses at the expense of the enterprise, namely:

in the amount of 500 rubles according to resolution No. AM-02-028/2011 on the imposition of an administrative penalty from the date issued by the state inspector of the Russian Federation for the Sakhalin region for control and supervision of the use and protection of water bodies M * in relation to the official of the municipal unitary enterprise "*" engineer - ecologist *2;

in the amount of 500 rubles according to resolution No. AM-02-029/2011 on the imposition of an administrative penalty from the date issued by the state inspector of the Russian Federation for the Sakhalin region for control and supervision of the use and protection of water bodies M * in relation to the official of the municipal unitary enterprise "*" engineer - ecologist *2;

in the amount of 1000 rubles according to the resolution * on the imposition of an administrative penalty from the date issued by the Administrative Commission of the administration of the GO "Poronaisky" in relation to the official - the acting general director of the municipal unitary enterprise "*" *3;

about which he gave the corresponding illegal order.

In pursuance of the illegal order of the general director of MUP “*” Piskun A.V. by the accounting department of the enterprise, the above administrative fines in cases of administrative offenses in the total amount of 2000 rubles were paid at the expense of the enterprise MUP “*”, date.

Piskun A.V., continuing his illegal actions aimed at abusing his official position and assigned managerial functions, one day in the middle of the day during the daytime, while at his workplace in the office of the municipal unitary enterprise "*", located in *, in order to obtain benefits and advantages for himself, associated with his exemption from incurring material costs for the payment of administrative fines in cases of administrative offenses, abusing his official position and managerial functions, acting deliberately, for selfish reasons, illegally, contrary to the legitimate interests of the enterprise, understanding illegal nature of his criminal actions, decided to pay administrative fines imposed in cases of administrative offenses at the expense of the enterprise, namely:

in the amount of 1000 rubles according to the resolution * on the imposition of an administrative penalty from the date issued by the chief state inspector of the Poronaisky district for fire supervision M** in relation to the official - the general director of the municipal unitary enterprise "*" Alexey Vladimirovich Piskun;

in the amount of 500 rubles according to the resolution * on the imposition of an administrative penalty from the date issued by the Administrative Commission of the administration of the GO "Poronaisky" in relation to the official - General Director of the Municipal Unitary Enterprise "*" Alexey Vladimirovich Piskun;

about which he gave the corresponding illegal order.

In pursuance of the illegal order of the general director of MUP “*” Piskun A.V. by the accounting department of the enterprise, the above administrative fines in cases of administrative offenses in the total amount of 1,500 rubles were paid at the expense of the enterprise MUP “*”, date.

Piskun A.V., continuing his illegal actions aimed at abusing his official position and assigned managerial functions, on one day during the daytime, while at his workplace in the office of the municipal unitary enterprise "*", located in *, with the aim of extracting benefits and advantages for oneself associated with exempting one from incurring material costs in paying administrative fines in cases of administrative offenses, abusing one’s official position and managerial functions, acting intentionally, for selfish reasons, illegally, contrary to the legitimate interests of the enterprise, understanding the illegal nature of his criminal actions, decided to pay administrative fines imposed in cases of administrative offenses at the expense of the enterprise, namely:

in the amount of 2000 rubles according to the resolution * on the imposition of an administrative penalty dated by the senior state inspector of the Sakhalin region for environmental protection D * in relation to the official - General Director of MUP "*" Alexey Vladimirovich Piskun;

in the amount of 1000 rubles according to the resolution * on the imposition of an administrative penalty from the date issued by the senior state inspector of the Sakhalin region for environmental protection D * in relation to the official - General Director of MUP "*" Alexey Vladimirovich Piskun;

in the amount of 10,000 rubles according to the resolution * on the imposition of an administrative penalty dated by the senior state inspector of the Sakhalin region for environmental protection D * in relation to the official - General Director of MUP "*" Alexey Vladimirovich Piskun;

about which he gave the corresponding illegal order.

In pursuance of the illegal order of the general director of MUP “*” Piskun A.V. by the accounting department of the enterprise, the above administrative fines in cases of administrative offenses in the total amount of 13,000 rubles were paid at the expense of the enterprise MUP "*", date and date.

Piskun A.V., continuing his illegal actions aimed at abusing his official position and assigned managerial functions, on one day during the daytime, while at his workplace in the office of the municipal unitary enterprise "*", located in *, with the aim of extracting benefits and advantages for himself and other persons associated with his exemption from incurring material costs for the payment of administrative fines in cases of administrative offenses, abusing his official position and managerial functions, acting deliberately, for selfish reasons, illegally, contrary to the legitimate interests of the enterprise, Understanding the illegal nature of his criminal actions, he decided to pay administrative fines imposed in cases of administrative offenses at the expense of the enterprise, namely,

in the amount of 500 rubles according to the resolution * on the imposition of an administrative penalty from the date issued by the acting head of the territorial department of Rospotrebnadzor for the Sakhalin region in the Poronaisky, Smirnykhovsky and Makarovsky districts * in relation to the official - the head of the housing department of the municipal unitary enterprise "*" *4;

in the amount of 2000 rubles according to the resolution * on the imposition of an administrative penalty from the date issued by the acting head of the territorial department of Rospotrebnadzor for the Sakhalin region in the Poronaisky, Smirnykhovsky and Makarovsky districts * in relation to the official - General Director of MUP "*" Alexey Vladimirovich Piskun;

about which he gave the corresponding illegal order.

In pursuance of the illegal order of the general director of MUP “*” Piskun A.V. by the accounting department of the enterprise, the above administrative fines in cases of administrative offenses in the total amount of 2,500 rubles were paid at the expense of the enterprise MUP “*”, date.

Piskun A.V., continuing his illegal actions aimed at abusing his official position and assigned managerial functions, on one of the days from date to date during the daytime, while at his workplace in the office of the municipal unitary enterprise "*", located in * , in order to obtain benefits and advantages for himself associated with his exemption from incurring material costs for the payment of administrative fines in cases of administrative offenses, abusing his official position and managerial functions, acting deliberately, for selfish reasons, illegally, contrary to the legitimate interests of the enterprise, Understanding the illegal nature of his criminal actions, he decided to pay administrative fines imposed in cases of administrative offenses at the expense of the enterprise, namely,

in the amount of 3,000 rubles in accordance with the resolution BE - 03 - 273/2011 on the imposition of an administrative penalty from the date imposed by the senior state inspector of the Russian Federation for the Sakhalin region on environmental protection B * in relation to the official - General Director of MUP "*" Alexey Vladimirovich Piskun;

about which he gave the corresponding illegal order.

In pursuance of the illegal order of the general director of MUP “*” Piskun A.V. by the accounting department of the enterprise, the above administrative fine in the case of an administrative offense in the total amount of 3,000 rubles was paid at the expense of the enterprise MUP “*”, date.

Piskun A.V., continuing his illegal actions aimed at abusing his official position and assigned managerial functions, on one of the days from date to date during the daytime, while at his workplace in the office of the municipal unitary enterprise "*", located in * , in order to obtain benefits and advantages for other persons associated with his exemption from incurring material costs for the payment of administrative fines in cases of administrative offenses, abusing his official position and managerial functions, acting deliberately, for selfish reasons, illegally, contrary to the legitimate interests of the enterprise , understanding the illegal nature of his criminal actions, decided to pay administrative fines imposed in cases of administrative offenses at the expense of the enterprise, namely,

in the amount of 2000 rubles according to resolution No. * on the imposition of an administrative penalty dated by the head of the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia "Poronaysky" F* in relation to the official - deputy general director of the municipal unitary enterprise "*" *5;

about which he gave the corresponding illegal order.

In pursuance of the illegal order of the general director of MUP “*” Piskun A.V. by the accounting department of the enterprise, the above administrative fines in cases of administrative offenses totaling 6,000 rubles were paid at the expense of the enterprise MUP “*”, date.

in the amount of 2000 rubles according to the resolution * on the imposition of an administrative penalty dated by the state inspector for nature protection for the Far Eastern Federal District P * in relation to the official - General Director of MUP "*" Alexey Vladimirovich Piskun;

in the amount of 10,000 rubles according to the resolution * on the imposition of an administrative penalty dated by the state inspector for nature protection for the Far Eastern Federal District P * in relation to the official - General Director of MUP "*" Alexey Vladimirovich Piskun;

about which he gave the corresponding illegal order.

In pursuance of the illegal order of the general director of MUP “*” Piskun A.V. by the accounting department of the enterprise, the above administrative fines in cases of administrative offenses in the total amount of 12,000 rubles were paid at the expense of the enterprise MUP “*”, date.

As a result, Piskun A.V., by his deliberate actions, using his official position and managerial functions, knowing with certainty that the enterprise has a cash deficit and is insolvent, acting contrary to the interests of the enterprise, in order to extract benefits and advantages for himself and other persons, caused significant damage to the Municipal Unitary Enterprise “*” in the amount of 40,000 rubles. In addition, as a result of illegal actions Piskun A.V. he and the other above-mentioned persons of MUP “*” were actually exempted from administrative punishment for the administrative offenses they committed, which resulted in a significant violation of the interests of society and the state protected by law, including the constitutional principle of equality of all citizens before the law and the court, the principle of the inevitability of punishment, in including administrative ones.

Defendant Piskun A.V. in the presence of defense lawyer N.M. Yatsukhno, filed a petition for a verdict without a trial in connection with his agreement with the charges brought against him and his full admission of guilt. At the same time, he explained that this petition was submitted voluntarily, after consultation with the defense lawyer. He is aware of the consequences of passing a sentence without a trial and the penalty that the court may impose on him. Defender Yatsukhno N.M., representative of the victim G* and state prosecutor Seleduev A.Yu., do not object to the stated petition, and the case is being considered in a special proceeding. The punishment provided for the charge does not exceed 10 years of imprisonment, and therefore the court has grounds for applying a special procedure for making a judicial decision.

Having examined the materials of the criminal case, the court comes to the conclusion that the accusation, which the defendant A.V. Piskun agreed with, is justified and supported by evidence collected in the criminal case during pre-trial proceedings.

The court qualifies the actions of Aleksey Vladimirovich Piskun under Part 1 of Article 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 420 - FZ of December 7, 2011) - the use by a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization of his powers contrary to the legitimate interests of this organization and in order to obtain benefits and advantages for themselves and other persons, if this act entailed causing significant harm to the rights and legitimate interests of organizations and legally protected interests of society and the state.

When determining the type and amount of punishment for the defendant, in accordance with Articles 6.60 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court is guided by the principle of justice, takes into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime he has committed, the identity of the perpetrator, circumstances mitigating and aggravating his punishment, the impact of the imposed punishment on correction the convicted person and the living conditions of his family, as well as the opinion of the victim’s representative.

According to Article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Piskun A.V. committed a crime that belongs to the category of moderate gravity, the latter did not result from it, the material damage caused to the organization was compensated in full.

In accordance with Part 6 of Article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the actual circumstances of the crime and the degree of its public danger, the court does not find any grounds for changing the category of the crime to a less serious one.

As a person, Piskun A.V. is characterized exclusively positively, has not been previously convicted, was brought to criminal responsibility for the first time, admitted his guilt completely, repents of his deeds, gave truthful testimony during pre-trial proceedings, did not mislead the investigation and the court, which made an active facilitating the discovery of the crime, before the trial he voluntarily fully compensated for the property damage, which the court, in accordance with paragraph I of Part 1 of Article 61 and Part 2 of Article 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, recognizes as mitigating circumstances for his punishment.

At the place of residence Piskun A.V. characterized positively, does not abuse alcoholic beverages, does not violate public order, there have been no complaints from neighbors to the Poronaisky Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, calm and sociable by nature. At his former place of work, MUP “*” is characterized as a positive, correct and friendly employee who strictly adheres to the rules and norms of business ethics and decency. During his work, he established himself as a responsible, competent and disciplined leader; he is polite and tactful with his subordinates.

He is not registered with a narcologist or psychiatrist and has been brought to administrative responsibility.

The representative of the victim G* asked the court to impose the mildest type and minimum amount of punishment, and explained that the material damage to the enterprise Piskun A.V. fully, voluntarily, before the trial, the company has no claims against him.

Aggravating circumstances provided for in Article 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the actions of Piskun A.V. not established by the court.

Having assessed all the circumstances together, the court comes to the conclusion that Piskun A.V. does not pose a public danger, and its correction can be achieved by imposing a fine.

When determining the amount of punishment, the court takes into account that Piskun A.V. committed a crime that does not pose a public danger, it did not result in serious consequences, he admitted his guilt completely, repents of his crime, the representative of the victim asked for mitigation, and the court also takes into account the financial and family status of the defendant, and comes to the conclusion that a large-scale appointment can negatively affect the living conditions of him and his family.

When determining the amount of punishment for Piskun A.V., the court is guided by part 5 of Article 62 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to which the term or amount of punishment for a person in respect of whom the criminal case is considered in special proceedings cannot exceed two-thirds of the maximum term or amount of the most severe type of punishment provided for the crime committed, and is also guided by part 1 of article 62 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since in his actions the court established the presence of a mitigating circumstance provided for in paragraph I of part 1 of article 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and there are no aggravating circumstances provided for Article 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Based on the above, guided by Article 316 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the court

PRI G O V O R I L:

Find ALEXEY VLADIMIROVICH PISKUN guilty of committing a crime under Part 1 of Article 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and sentence him to a fine in the amount of 5,000 (five thousand) rubles to the state.

Preventive measure Piskun A.V. the undertaking not to leave the place and proper behavior remains the same until the court verdict enters into legal force, and then cancel it.

Material evidence upon entry into force of the court verdict: advance report * from date, advance report * from date, advance report * from date, advance report * from date, advance report * from date, advance report * from date, advance report * from date, advance report * from date, advance report * from date, with receipts for them for the payment of administrative fines under decisions on administrative offenses for the date - keep with the materials of the criminal case.

The verdict can be appealed in cassation to the Sakhalin Regional Court through the Poronaisky City Court within 10 days from the date of proclamation, in compliance with the requirements of Article 317 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. If a cassation appeal is filed, the convicted person has the right to petition for his participation in the consideration of the criminal case by the cassation court, which he must indicate in the cassation appeal, or to submit a separate written statement within the cassation deadline. In addition, the parties have the right to familiarize themselves with the minutes of the court session, for which they must submit a written request within three days after the announcement of the verdict and have the right to submit their comments on the minutes of the court session within three days after familiarization, if any, as well as the convicted person has the right to get acquainted with the materials of the criminal case. In case of missing the deadline for filing a cassation appeal, presentation, or missing the deadline for filing a petition to familiarize yourself with the minutes of the court hearing for good reasons, the parties have the right to petition for its restoration, for which they must also submit a written petition to the court.

Judge of Poronaisky City Court S.A. Chepkaya.