Liability for failure to comply with a court decision

A court decision that has entered into legal force is binding on state bodies, legal entities, public associations and, in general, on all citizens of Russia. This rule is enshrined in the codes of almost all branches of law, as well as in Article 6 of the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Judicial System of the Russian Federation,” which states strict compliance with court decisions. Ignoring this legal requirement, that is, failure to comply with a court decision, entails liability for the violator. Which one exactly – read in our article.

Failure to comply with a court decision. Basic provisions

A judgment is a form of court ruling. A court decision that has entered into legal force:

is mandatory for absolutely all government bodies, local governments, public associations, officials, legal entities and individuals;
subject to unconditional execution throughout Russia (clause 2 of article 13 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

Failure to comply with a court decision can manifest itself in the following forms:

failure to take actions aimed at executing a court decision (for example, ignoring demands to pay compensation to the victim from the violator, etc.);
taking active actions aimed at preventing the implementation of the provisions of the court decision (for example, prohibiting the employer from the HR department from reinstating an illegally dismissed employee, etc.).

The court decision must be executed (Article 210 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation):

Immediately after entry into force;
Immediately after issuance in individual cases:

payment of alimony;
payment of wages to the employee for 3 months;
reinstatement at work;
inclusion of an individual with Russian citizenship in the list of voters or referendum participants (Article 211 of this law).

Important! If there is no voluntary execution of the court decision, the system of compulsory execution is activated in accordance with the Federal Law “On Enforcement Proceedings” No. 229-FZ dated 10/02/2007.

Note! For violation of the provisions of the law on enforcement proceedings, a person may be brought to administrative or criminal liability (Article 113 of Law No. 229-FZ).

When to start

The moment of execution directly depends on the entry into force of the document.
This occurs after the expiration of the period allotted for appeal. If the organization does not agree with the decision made, the only acceptable option for defense is to go to court with a corresponding statement. Refusal to grant an appeal actually means agreement with the verdict. It is impossible to hold a legal entity accountable using legal methods for refusing to implement the provisions of an act that has not entered into legal force.

In addition, there are decisions that the organization is obliged to implement immediately after becoming familiar with their contents. In particular, this list includes acts relating to the elimination of wage arrears, reinstatement in office, and inclusion in the number of voters in elections.

There are also no negative consequences in the following cases:

if a deferment or installment plan is granted and the debt is paid in accordance with the conditions;
if the order of execution has been changed and the person performs the necessary actions.

If a legal entity does not take measures for independent execution, the only correct and effective course of action is to initiate enforcement proceedings. Only this procedure allows you to achieve forced repayment of debt or take specific actions.

The procedure for bringing to administrative responsibility for failure to comply with a court decision

There are no approved regulations for regulating the voluntary execution of orders contained in a court decision, including in the area of consequences arising in connection with the non-fulfillment or inappropriate execution by a person of a court order.

Often, legal liability for a person for failure to comply with a court decision occurs after it has been established that he has failed to comply with orders within the framework of enforcement proceedings.

The bailiff receives a writ of execution from the court or from the claimant, and on its basis enforcement proceedings are initiated (Clause 1 of Article 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation). Clause 5 of this article provides for the initiation of such proceedings without an application from the claimant.
If the debtor does not comply with the instructions of the enforcement document within the prescribed period, the bailiff sets a new deadline for this person to comply with the instructions of the court decision and forms a resolution to collect the enforcement fee (clause 1 of Article 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation). Thus, non-execution or improper execution of a court order is fraught with imposition of property liability on the violator.
If the debtor fails to comply with the instructions of the court decision during the new period without good reason, the bailiff draws up a protocol on the administrative offense (clause 2 of this article).

In addition to administrative liability for violation of enforcement proceedings, criminal liability may be provided, as well as other types of liability regulated by industry legislation (Labor Code, Arbitration Procedural Code, etc.).

For example, Art. 332 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation No. 95-FZ of July 24, 2002 provides for punishment for an unfulfilled decision of an arbitration court for citizens, officials and organizations, state authorities, local governments and other bodies in the form of a judicial fine.

Application requirements

The legislation provides for an open list of requirements that may be contained in the application, but basically these are statements:

on declaring illegal in whole or in part a decision made by a government agency, or an action (inaction) committed by it;
on the obligation of a government agency to make a decision on a specific issue or take certain actions in order to eliminate violations of the rights of a citizen;
on the obligation of a government agency to refrain from performing certain actions.

An administrative claim can be titled accordingly.

It is important to take into account the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, according to which a citizen has the right to combine several interconnected claims in one administrative claim, but it is not allowed to consider other administrative claims in cases challenging regulatory legal acts (clause 53 of the resolution of the plenum of the RF Armed Forces dated September 27 .2016 No. 36).

The requirements for the form and content of the application are set out in detail in Article 125 of the CAS RF.

One of the main requirements is that the applicant needs to indicate which rights are violated, and what exactly the violation is expressed in, the existence of a cause-and-effect relationship between the violation of rights and the actions of the official.

It is recommended to send a copy of the application and the documents attached to it to other persons participating in the case, attaching to the application documents confirming their direction.

If this is not done, the court itself will notify of the received demands, sending to other persons copies of the statements, which in this case must be provided by the plaintiff himself along with the application (clause 1, part 1, article 126).

It is important to note that a document confirming payment of the state fee must be attached to the application, otherwise the court will leave the application without progress until the applicant provides the specified document.

It is also necessary to provide documents confirming the circumstances referred to by the citizen.

A complete list of documents that must be attached to the application is specified in Article 126 of the CAS of the Russian Federation.

Administrative responsibility

Administrative liability for violation of the requirements of the legislation on enforcement proceedings and, accordingly, for failure to comply with a court decision, established by the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, is provided for individuals, officials and organizations.

The penalty is expressed in the form of a fine:

For the debtor in the case:

ignoring the legal requirements of the bailiff;
providing false information about property rights;
failure to provide information about dismissal from employment;
failure to provide data on a change of place of work, training, receipt of pension payments or other income, or residential address (Clause 1, Article 17.14 of Law No. 195-FZ).

For a person who is not a debtor in the case:
ignoring the legal requirements of the bailiff;
refusal to receive confiscated property;
providing false information about the debtor's possession of certain property;
loss of executive documentation;
untimely sending of executive documentation;
failure to comply with the requirements of the executive documentation (clause 3 of Article 17.14 of Law No. 195-FZ).

Fines for credit institutions (clause 2 of this article) and legal entities - issuers of securities and professional participants in the securities market (clause 2.1 of this article) are considered separately.

Important! For failure to comply with the instructions of the executive documentation of non-property content, individuals, officials and legal entities are also subject to a fine in the prescribed amount (Article 17.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). The amount of such a fine is determined, inter alia, taking into account the stage of enforcement proceedings at which the collection occurred.

What is meant by non-compliance?

In Russia there is a principle of binding decisions made by judges. This rule is embodied in compliance with the requirements:

mandatory for all entities without exception: individuals and legal entities - residents and non-residents, commercial and non-profit organizations, authorities;
unconditional implementation throughout the state.

In other words, if the verdict imposes obligations on a specific corporation or organization, then the requirements of the document are subject to accurate, complete and timely implementation by the specified entity in a certain manner.

Ignoring the orders of the justice authorities can manifest itself in the following forms:

active, which includes actions the purpose of which is to prevent the occurrence of a positive result. For example, direct written or oral refusal to perform, creating obstacles, issuing unlawful official documents, concealing funds and property;
passive, which involves ignoring legal requirements and failing to take all possible measures.

Criminal liability

For failure to comply with a court decision, a criminal penalty may be imposed.

According to Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation No. 63-FZ of June 13, 1996, the following may be held accountable:

representatives of government agencies;
civil servants, employees of government institutions;
municipal employees, employees of municipal institutions;
employees of commercial or other organizations.

However, not every failure to comply with a court decision on the part of these officials can be regarded as a criminal offense. An important fact when qualifying an act as a crime under the mentioned article is the establishment of its malicious nature.

As punishment for officials under Art. 315 of Law No. 63-FZ may be applied:

fine (maximum amount - 200,000 rubles or corresponding to the amount of salary or other income of the official for a period of up to 18 months);
inability to hold a certain position or conduct a certain type of activity for a period of up to 5 years;
compulsory work for up to 480 hours;
forced labor for up to 2 years;
detention - up to 6 months;
imprisonment - up to 2 years.

Another subject of criminal liability for failure to comply with a judicial act is a person who did not stop disseminating information, contrary to a court decision, or who did not comply with the requirement to give a refutation.

The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation also provides for liability for failure to comply with a relevant court decision in the form of a parent’s malicious evasion of payments for the maintenance of children under the age of majority, or evasion of payments by able-bodied children to their parents who are unable to provide for themselves due to incapacity (Art. 157).

Also, the head of an organization or an individual obliged to repay his accounts payable by a court decision may be punished with a fine, compulsory or forced labor, arrest or imprisonment in the event of malicious failure to comply with such a court decision (Article 177).

Results

Final conclusions:

a judicial penalty is a sum of money collected by the court in an amount at its own discretion in compliance with the principles provided for by civil law in favor of the creditor-collector from the debtor who has not fulfilled the court decision to fulfill the obligation in kind;
applies only to obligations arising from civil legal relations;
regulated by the Civil Code and sources of judicial practice (in particular, the resolution of the Supreme Court);
carried out on the basis of the claimant's request sent to court;
no one can be limited in the right to collect a judicial penalty except by law;
It is allowed to terminate the obligation to pay a judicial penalty by a settlement agreement at the stage of execution of the court decision.

You can find more complete information on the topic in ConsultantPlus. Free trial access to the system for 2 days.

The acquittal of the appellate court under Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation left unchanged

Magistrate of judicial district No. 6 of Magadan Fabrichny I.N.

Case No. 22-1167/10

Judge of Appeal

instance But I.I.

CASSATION DETERMINATION

Magadan December 8, 2010

Judicial panel for criminal cases of the Magadan Regional Court consisting of:

presiding officer: Beschastnoy I.E.,

judges: Zhideleva D.L., Kirienko Yu.F.,

under the secretary: Budnikova T.A.,

having considered at the court hearing the cassation presentation of the state prosecutor - assistant prosecutor of the city of Magadan Prusakov S.M. on the verdict of the Magadan City Court of October 25, 2010, which, on appeal, overturned the verdict of the magistrate judge of judicial district No. 6 of Magadan, Magadan Region, Fabrichny I.N. dated August 17, 2010 and a new sentence was passed, by which

Podolyaka Yu.A., ..., not previously convicted,

acquitted under Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the basis of clause 3, part 2, art. 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, due to the absence of this crime in his act.

The measure of procedural coercion in the form of an obligation to appear has been cancelled. For Podolyaka Yu.A. The right to rehabilitation is recognized in accordance with Chapter Art. 18 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

This verdict resolved the issues of attributing procedural costs in the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks to the federal budget, as well as material evidence.

Having heard the report of judge Zhidelev D.L., the opinion of prosecutor Khomutov A.A., who supported the arguments of the cassation submission, the explanations of the acquitted Podolyak Yu.A. and his representative Gordienko N.N. who objected to the satisfaction of the arguments of the cassation submission and asked to leave the verdict unchanged, the judicial panel,

U S T A N O V I L A:

By the verdict of the magistrate of judicial district No. 6 of Magadan dated August 17, 2010, Yu.A. Podolyak. convicted of committing a crime under Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the fact of malicious failure to comply with the decision of the Magadan City Court dated July 18, 2006, which entered into legal force, and he was sentenced to a fine in the amount of 25,000 rubles.

By the verdict of the Magadan City Court of October 25, 2010, this verdict of the magistrate was canceled, Podolyak Yu.A. acquitted of the charge of committing a crime under Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the basis of clause 3, part 2, art. 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, due to the lack of corpus delicti in his actions.

In the cassation submission, the state prosecutor is the assistant prosecutor of the city of Magadan S.M. Prusakov. raises the issue of canceling the acquittal of the Magadan City Court of October 25, 2010 and sending the materials of the criminal case for a new appeal hearing, due to the discrepancy between the court's conclusions set out in the verdict, the actual circumstances of the criminal case, and the incorrect application of the criminal law.

Disagreeing with the conclusion of the court of appeal that Podolyaka Yu.A. is not the subject of a crime under Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, indicates that by the decision of the Magadan City Court dated July 18, 2006, Yu.A. Podolyak is obliged, within 1 month from the date the decision entered into legal force, to conclude a constituent agreement with T.V. .G. As established in court hearings, Podolyaka Yu.A. at the time of the decision of the Magadan City Court dated July 18, 2006, he was both the founder and director of LLC “...”, while the above decision did not determine who exactly was entrusted with the responsibility for concluding the agreement: Yu.A. Podolyak. -founder of LLC "...", or Podolyak Yu.A. - Director of LLC "...". Referring to the provisions of Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for liability, including for an employee, of a commercial or other organization, indicates that employees of a commercial organization are understood to be persons performing administrative, economic and managerial functions. A person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization, as well as in a non-profit organization, is recognized as a person performing the functions of a sole executive body, a member of the board of directors or other collegial executive body, as well as a person who permanently, temporarily or by special authority performs organizational and administrative functions. or administrative and economic functions in these organizations.

According to the provisions of the Charter of LLC "...", the executive body of the company is the director (Yu.A. Podolyaka), who exercises general management of the current activities of the company; acts on behalf of the company without a power of attorney, including representing its interests and making transactions; manages the property of the company; concludes contracts; exercises other powers assigned to him by the general meeting or legislation, in connection with which Podolyaka Yu.A., as director of LLC “...” is an employee of a commercial organization and, by virtue of the powers granted to him, could conclude a constituent agreement with T.V.G. and accordingly execute the decision of the Magadan City Court.

I also do not agree with the court’s conclusion that the founder is not an employee of a commercial organization, since in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Law “On Limited Liability Companies”, the founders have the right from among themselves to elect a general director or appoint a person who does not have a share in the company as a director ; the decisions of the founders are aimed at solving important problems that arise for the limited liability company in the course of its statutory activities; the decision of the founders helps the company fulfill its tasks and exercise the rights that are established in the constituent documents of the company upon registration; decisions made by the general meeting of founders are binding on the director of the company. Thus, the decision of the founders of the company may concern the creation of audit bodies of the company, approval of periodic reports of the limited liability company on its activities, changes in the authorized capital of the company, and the admission of new members to the founders of the company. The decision of the founders of the company can be made on a variety of issues, including issues of transfer of powers by the company, reorganization of the company, its liquidation, that is, based on the functions actually performed, the founder of the company is an employee of a commercial organization, since he performs administrative, economic, managerial functions in this organizations.

In his objections to the cassation submission, the acquitted Yu.A. Podolyaka, considers his arguments unfounded and contrary to current legislation, asks that the verdict of the Magadan City Court of October 25, 2010 be left unchanged. Referring to the writ of execution, in which the founder of LLC "..." Yu.A. Podolyaka, that is, an individual, is indicated as the debtor, as well as to the Federal Law "On Limited Liability Companies" from which it follows that the founder takes part in the activities of the company as an individual, and not as an employee of a commercial organization, indicates that, by a court decision, he was obliged to conclude a constituent agreement with T.V.G. precisely as an individual and therefore is not the subject of a crime under Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The appellate court, having comprehensively examined the case materials, came to the correct conclusion that the magistrate’s conviction against him was overturned.

Having checked the case materials and discussed the arguments of the cassation submission, the judicial panel does not find any grounds to satisfy it.

In accordance with the requirements of Article 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, if, after examining the totality of evidence presented by the prosecution, the court comes to the conclusion that it does not confirm the presence of the crime charged in the defendant’s act, the court is obliged to pronounce an acquittal.

Considering that, in accordance with Article 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court is not a criminal prosecution body, does not act on the side of the prosecution or the defense and, when considering criminal cases, performs exclusively the function of administering justice, then all irremovable doubts about the guilt of the accused, all evidence of the prosecution or circumstances, the reliability of which is doubtful, by virtue of Article 49 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and Article 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court is obliged to interpret in favor of the accused. Based on this provision, the burden of proving the accusation and refuting the arguments put forward in defense of the accused lies with the prosecution. Consequently, if the criminal prosecution authorities were unable to prove the guilt of the accused of committing a crime and the presence of elements of a crime in the act charged to him, then this should lead to an acquittal and recognition of the defendant as innocent.

Preliminary investigation authorities Podolyaka Yu.A. was accused of being the director of LLC “...” maliciously failed to comply with the decision of the Magadan City Court dated July 18, 2006, which entered into legal force, to compel the conclusion of a constituent agreement with T.V.G., establishing a share in the authorized capital of the limited liability company “...”, owned by T.V.G., in the amount of 51% worth ... rubles ... kopecks, and the share of Podolyak Yu.A. in the amount of 49% costing ... rubles ... kopecks. Which was expressed in ignoring the bailiff’s repeated demands to execute the court decision, with the aim of non-executing the court decision and delaying the process of its forced execution. So exclusively after receiving demands for execution of the court decision of Podolyak Yu.A. appointed general meetings of the founders of LLC "..." at which he made decisions that contradicted the requirements of the decision of the Magadan City Court of July 18, 2006, and set a new date for holding these meetings, while at the same time avoiding making a conclusion with T.V.G. the constituent agreement in accordance with the requirements of the court decision. Thus, this decision was not executed by Yu.A. Podolyaka. until July 1, 2009, when the Federal Law “On Amendments to Part 1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation” dated December 30, 2008 No. 312-FZ came into force, which established that the constituent agreements of companies have lost the force of constituent agreements documents.

At the hearing of the court of first instance and during the investigation of Podolyak Yu.A. guilty of committing a crime under Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was not recognized. He explained that he had been the director of LLC “...” since 1996, in October 2001 he became the sole founder of the company, and also concluded a preliminary protocol, according to which from November 1, 2001 T.V.G. becomes the founder of LLC "...", provided that he pays part of the authorized capital of the company, namely 50%, that is... rubles, however T.V.G. did not deposit this amount of money into LLC “...”. He believes that he fulfilled the decision of the Magadan City Court of July 18, 2006, since after the court decision entered into legal force, within a month T.V.G. The version of the constituent agreement was sent by registered mail, under the terms of which the share of T.V.G. in the authorized capital of the company was determined at 51%, and its share at 49%. In addition, one of the conditions was the introduction by Timakov V.G. ... rubles into the property of the company, due to the fact that while litigation and correspondence with T.V.G. were going on, they and G.N.N. bear the costs associated with carrying out the activities of the company. From January 16, 2009, he no longer demanded from T.V.G. contribute to the property of the company ... rubles. However, his version of the constituent agreement of T.V.G. was not received. Subsequently, he sent T.V.G. notice nine more times about holding a meeting of the founders on the issue of execution of the decision of July 18, 2006, but neither T.V.G. himself nor his representatives attended the meetings, so all meetings were carried out in the absence of T.V.G.

The appellate court, in accordance with the requirements of the criminal procedure law, examined the testimony given during the preliminary investigation by witnesses F.V.I., B.O.M., M.A.K., S.O.S., T. V.G., A.R.N., as well as written evidence that the parties asked to examine in the court of appeal, a comparative analysis of the examined evidence was carried out. After which the appellate court came to a reasonable conclusion to overturn the guilty verdict of the trial court and acquit Yu.A. Podolyaki. on the charge brought.

According to the panel of judges, the court of appeal came to the correct conclusion that Podolyaka Yu.A. is not the subject of a crime under Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for criminal liability for non-execution of a court decision or other judicial act or obstruction of their execution. The objective side of this crime covers any actions that create conditions for non-execution of a judicial act or prevent execution, as well as the inaction itself in execution. The subject of liability under Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation can only be a representative of the government, a civil servant, an employee of a local government body, an employee of an institution, a commercial or other organization. Accordingly, the legislator has established that the persons specified in Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are subjects of a crime only if their official duties include the execution of judicial acts.

Thus, the legislator excluded citizens from subjects of liability under Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since other rules apply to this category of citizens - the rules for the forced execution of judicial acts. So, in accordance with Art. Art. 17.14, 17.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, failure by the debtor to comply with the requirements contained in the executive document within the period established by the bailiff after collection of the enforcement fee, as well as violation by the debtor of the legislation on enforcement proceedings, expressed in failure to comply with the legal requirements of the bailiff, entails the imposition of an administrative fine.

According to the decision of the Magadan City Court dated July 18, 2006, the responsibility for concluding the constituent agreement was assigned to Yu.A. Podolyaka, as the founder of LLC “...”.

In accordance with the provisions of the Charter and the founding agreement of LLC "...", the highest management body of the Company is the general meeting of founders, which consists of all participants or appointed representatives, the exclusive competence of which includes, among other things, changing the charter and authorized capital. One of the founders of the Company is Yu.A. Podolyaka. (vol. 1 pp. 119, 146-153).

As follows from Part 2 of Art. 33 of the Federal Law of 02/08/1998 N 14-FZ “On Limited Liability Companies” (as amended by the Federal Law of 04/29/2008 N 58-FZ) members of the company can be citizens and legal entities. The exclusive competence of the general meeting of participants of the company includes changing the charter of the company, including changing the size of the authorized capital of the company, and previously included making changes to the constituent agreement.

Thus, the arguments of the cassation submission that Podolyaka Yu.A. could have concluded a memorandum of association with T.V.G. and accordingly execute the decision of the Magadan City Court, being the director of LLC "...", are recognized as insolvent, since in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Law of 02/08/1998 N 14-FZ "On Limited Liability Companies", the Charter and the constituent agreement of LLC "... ", the director, as the executive body of the company, does not have the authority to conclude the constituent agreement.

The arguments of the cassation submission that the founder of the Limited Liability Company is an employee of a commercial organization are recognized as untenable, since he performs administrative, economic and managerial functions in this organization on the following grounds.

According to paragraph 11 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 16, 2009 No. 19 “On judicial practice in cases of abuse of power and exceeding official powers,” persons performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization include persons performing the functions sole executive body, member of the board of directors or other collegial executive body, as well as persons who permanently, temporarily or by special authority perform organizational, administrative or administrative functions in these organizations (for example, director, general director, member of the board of a joint stock company, chairman production or consumer cooperative, head of a public association, religious organization).

As a participant in a business partnership or company, an individual does not serve in this company, but exercises his right to entrepreneurial activity. The relations of such a person with the company and its other participants are purely civil and are not subject to the labor legislation of the Russian Federation. The income received by such a person is not monetary remuneration for professional activities in the interests of society, but a share of profit, the right to which is given to him by his property participation in society. Administrative and economic responsibilities involve managing the economic activities of the organization, managing its property and production process. The responsibilities are organizational and administrative, this is the management of the work collective and the activities of individual workers.

Thus, the current legislation does not provide for criminal liability in relation to citizens who do not execute court decisions arising from civil legal relations, since other rules apply to this category of citizens, namely the rules for the compulsory execution of judicial acts.

In addition, the preliminary investigation authorities Podolyak Yu.A. was accused of being the director of LLC “...” maliciously failed to comply with the decision of the Magadan City Court dated July 18, 2006, which entered into legal force, on forcing the conclusion of a constituent agreement with T.V.G., establishing a share in the authorized capital of a limited company liability "...", owned by T.V.G., in the amount of 51% worth ... rubles ... kopecks, and the share of Podolyak Yu.A. in the amount of 49% costing... rubles... kopecks.

The panel of judges believes that the preliminary investigation authorities did not assess the fact that the ruling of the Magadan City Court dated May 7, 2010 changed the method of execution of the decision of the Magadan City Court dated July 18, 2006 by assigning to the founder of the limited liability company “…” Podolyak Yu. A. obligations, within 1 month from the date of entry into force of the ruling, to make and register in the prescribed manner changes to the Charter of the limited liability company "...", establishing the share in the authorized capital of the company owned by T.V.G. in the amount of 51% worth ... rubles, and the share of Podolyaki Yu.A. in the amount of 49% worth ... rubles (vol. 5 pp. 214-217).

Thus, having checked the legality, validity and fairness of the decision regarding Podolyaki Yu.A. acquittal within the framework of the arguments of the cassation presentation, the judicial panel believes that the appellate court reasonably came to the conclusion that Podolyak Yu.A. was not involved in the act. corpus delicti under Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The case was considered by the appellate court in compliance with the requirements of the law; no violations of the criminal procedural legislation leading to the reversal or change of the sentence, including the arguments of the cassation presentation, are visible from the materials of the criminal case.

Based on the above, guided by Articles 377, 378, 388 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the judicial panel

O P R E D E L I L A:

The verdict of the court of appeal of the Magadan City Court of the Magadan Region dated October 25, 2010 in relation to Podolyak Yu.A. leave unchanged, the cassation presentation of the state prosecutor - assistant prosecutor of the city of Magadan Prusakov S.M. - without satisfaction.

Chairman:

Judges: signatures

Copy is right:

Judge of Magadan

regional court D.L. Zhidelev