ST 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
1. In the presence of exceptional circumstances related to the goals and motives of the crime, the role of the perpetrator, his behavior during or after the commission of the crime, and other circumstances that significantly reduce the degree of public danger of the crime, as well as with the active assistance of a participant in a group crime in solving this crime, punishment may be assigned below the lower limit provided for by the relevant article of the Special Part of this Code, or the court may impose a more lenient type of punishment than provided for by this article, or not apply an additional type of punishment provided for as mandatory.
2. Both individual mitigating circumstances and a combination of such circumstances may be considered exceptional.
3. Guilty of committing crimes provided for in Articles 205, 205.1, 205.2, 205.3, 205.4, 205.5, parts three and four of Article 206, part four of Article 210, Article 210.1, part four of Article 211, Article 361 of this Code, or guilty of committing crimes associated with the implementation of terrorist activities, provided for in Articles 277, 278, 279 and 360 of this Code, a punishment cannot be imposed below the lower limit provided for by these articles, or a more lenient type of punishment can be assigned than that provided for in the relevant article, or an additional type of punishment cannot be applied. , provided as mandatory.
Commentary to Art. 64 Criminal Code
1. The imposition of a more lenient punishment than provided for a given crime is possible in the presence of exceptional circumstances related to the goals and motives of the crime, the role of the perpetrator, his behavior during or after the commission of the crime and other circumstances that significantly reduce the degree of public danger of the crime, as well as with the active assistance of a participant in a group crime in solving this crime.
2. The goals and motives of the perpetrator in this case must be devoid of a vile nature, and indicate that the crime was committed not out of malice, but for reasons that the criminal law associates with the possibility of mitigating the punishment.
3. A mention in the law of a person’s role in the commission of a crime and his behavior during the commission of a crime means that he must be a minor participant in the crime (most often an accomplice).
4. The behavior of the perpetrator after the commission of a crime is mainly characterized by: confession, active assistance in solving the crime and searching for property acquired as a result of the crime; providing medical and other assistance to the victim immediately after the commission of a crime, etc.
The listed circumstances relate to a type of active repentance, i.e. positive post-crime behavior, indicating a significant reduction in the danger of the person who committed the crime.
5. Both individual mitigating circumstances and a combination of such circumstances as those provided for in Art. 61 of the Criminal Code, and no.
6. The right to recognize a circumstance as exceptional and assistance as active is within the exclusive competence of the court, but if the court has recognized the circumstance as exceptional and assistance as active, it is already obliged to mitigate the punishment by applying one of three mutually exclusive mitigation options:
— impose a punishment below the lower limit provided for in the relevant article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code. In this case, the lower limit that the court can assign will be equal to the lower limit that is established for this type of punishment in the General Part of the Criminal Code. A punishment below the lowest limit can be imposed in relation to any main type of punishment enshrined in the sanctions of the Special Part of the Criminal Code (except for life imprisonment and the death penalty), regardless of the fact that the Criminal Code provides for alternative, milder types of punishment for this act;
- the court may impose a more lenient punishment than provided for by this norm;
- do not apply an additional type of punishment provided for as mandatory.
The considered rules on imposing a more lenient punishment than provided for the crime committed do not apply if the convicted person committed the crimes listed in Part 3 of Art. 64 of the Criminal Code.
7. It is necessary to take into account that when convicting a guilty person for a set of crimes, depending on the circumstances of the case, Art. 64 of the Criminal Code can be applied either to each of the crimes included in the totality, or to several, or to one.
Kings can do anything. The practice of applying Article 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for two completed offenses of Part 5 of Article 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Does the presence of a pre-trial agreement always guarantee a lenient punishment relative to other accomplices in the crime? Is it necessary for the court to satisfy all the defense arguments if it can do otherwise? Read about how the court acted so that the prosecutor's office and the defendant were satisfied with the verdict.
Three citizens were detained, transporting narcotic drugs around Russian cities in the car of one of the accomplices. During the inspection of the car, 37 kg were seized from under the trim. As it turned out, the car was rented with subsequent purchase and had a GPS tracker.
The operatives have never been so lucky before! The entire route and stops with the coordinates of the area were in the hands of the police.
It turned out that before the arrest, 12 kg were scattered across different cities, some of which in Chelyabinsk and Yekaterinburg had already been picked up by other persons who were detained red-handed and subsequently convicted under similar charges. Some of the substances were seized from the organizer at his place of residence. The total weight of the items seized is about 55 kg.
Initially, the organizer took everything upon himself and testified about illegal transportation. Two of his accomplices gave similar testimony. From the day of their arrest until the final charges were filed, assigned lawyers worked with them. The defendants in the case stuck to their position for quite some time.
This situation did not suit the investigator and senior officials, since on the day of the arrest many media outlets had already announced that drug dealers had been detained for selling large wholesale quantities of drugs.
They decided to replace the stick with a carrot, a very sweet gingerbread, and suggested to the organizer, or rather imposed, to conclude a pre-trial cooperation agreement.
It’s a pity that at that moment they didn’t have a designated lawyer who could simply explain that they had to remain in their original position. Was it really difficult to give just one piece of advice and continue to receive your payment as intended?
They persuaded him for a long time and tediously, the investigator and the lawyer went to the pre-trial detention center several times and finally broke the will of the organizer by promising him mountains of gold. Well, off we go... interrogations with confessions and confrontations with accomplices, during which he pushed not only himself, but also the others, to the very ceiling.
After which my future client, with one stroke of the pen, turned from a driver into a supplier!
After these events, I entered the case, familiarized myself with the documents, and during the presentation of the final charges, we only had to give clarifying testimony in order to try to exclude the organized crime group and combine the two episodes into a single ongoing crime. At my verbal urgent request, the investigator nevertheless replaced the role of “supplier” back with the role of the driver, but with the condition that he was driving the supplier (ridiculous, but that’s how it is).
The trial (excerpts of the most interesting)
The organizer was brought to the trial as a witness, who at the time of interrogation was sentenced by pre-trial agreement to 11 years in prison.
Here the first surprise awaited us!
Judge: What can you explain about this case?
A: Tell me how it is written in the case or how it really happened?
a short pause, everyone looked at each other
A: In general, I’ll tell you how it was. I do not agree with the verdict and the pre-trial agreement. I wrote an appeal against the verdict. The investigator and lawyer tried to persuade me to sign a pre-trial agreement and came to see me several times in the pre-trial detention center. We didn’t have any group, I was involved in transportation, I asked my friends to be drivers, because... I had to travel around several cities. I talked about all this initially. I do not recognize the read-out testimony, etc.
The hope crept in to “go away” for illegal transportation, but then a second surprise awaited us!
After two court hearings, the organizer was again brought to the trial as a witness, despite the fact that none of the participants in the process filed motions and the prosecutor begins interrogation!
The organizer, with his head down, looks at the floor and answers “yes” to all the prosecutor’s questions and confirms the testimony he gave as part of the pre-trial agreement.
I think everyone understands what happened behind the scenes of the big theater.
It was reliably established in court that, before leaving, everyone knew that from point “A” and at the entrance of the entire route to point “B”, when delivering the goods to the cities, it would be necessary to lift a large treasure in Yekaterinburg, and then continue delivery along previously planned route! Thus, the intent for all actions with drugs arose before the start of the trip, which was planned for two weeks, i.e. for a single ongoing crime.
At the stage of additions, the court reads the inscriptions to the defendants and, as if by chance, asks:
What were you hoping for when you went?
What are you counting on now?
One defendant took it and answered: no more than 8-9 years.
I would prefer to remain silent about further dialogue.
In essence, these questions indicate that the court has already made its decision without retiring to the deliberation room!
Well, okay, the meeting is being recorded.
During the debate, the prosecutor asked for my client, 16 years, 6 months in prison without additional punishment.
The defense asked to exclude the qualifying feature - organized crime group, to classify the actions of the defendants as complicity in the attempted sale of narcotic drugs, committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy on an especially large scale as a single ongoing crime, i.e. according to Part 5 of Article 33, Part 3 of Article 30, Part 5 of Art. 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and apply Part 6, Art. 15, Art. 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The court understands that this is all one ongoing crime, but the indictment was approved by the regional prosecutor's office! Therefore, the change in qualifications is illusory and vague, and the only mitigating factors are active assistance with a stretch, characteristics and the presence of a debt to the organizer.
The qualification court leaves everything as it is and simply applies Art. 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, determining the final punishment for my principal in the form of 9 years in prison, i.e. two years less than the organizer with a pre-trial agreement!
Eventually:
The prosecutor's office is satisfied, the qualifications have been established.
The court is satisfied and a guilty verdict has been issued.
The defendants are satisfied and did not want to appeal, because Initially they wanted to get less than 10 years.
Is the defender happy? And the defender is bound by the position of the principal... but I believe that if the defense’s arguments were satisfied, the amount of punishment would be the same!
PS: motivation according to Art. 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the appendix
Second commentary to Art. 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. The article provides grounds for imposing a more lenient punishment than provided for this crime:
1) exceptional circumstances related to the goals and motives of the crime, the role of the perpetrator, his behavior during or after the commission of the crime;
2) other circumstances that significantly reduce the degree of public danger of the crime;
3) active assistance of a participant in a group crime in solving this crime.
2. The court has the right to recognize exceptional circumstances giving rise to the application of Art. 64 of the Criminal Code, both individual mitigating circumstances and their totality, indicating in the verdict the grounds for the decision. Art. 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation can also be applied in the presence of circumstances aggravating the punishment (clause 40 of the PPVS 2015).
3. The law specifies three ways to assign a more lenient punishment than provided for a given crime:
1) imposing a punishment below the lowest limit provided for in the relevant article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code;
2) imposition of a more lenient type of punishment than provided for in the article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code;
3) non-application of an additional type of punishment provided for as mandatory.
4. When appointed on the basis of Art. 64 of the Criminal Code of the main punishment is below the lower limit provided for by the sanction of the article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code, the term or amount of the punishment cannot be lower than the lower limit established for this type of punishment in the General Part of the Criminal Code (clause 40 of the PPVS 2015).
5. Within the meaning of Part 1 of Art. 64 of the Criminal Code, the imposition of a milder type of main punishment than provided for in the article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code is not prevented by the presence in the sanction of the article of alternative types of punishment (clause 40 of the PPVS 2015).
6. The provisions of the article do not apply to persons who have committed terrorist crimes listed in Part 3 of Art. 64 of the Criminal Code.
Everything about criminal cases
When assigning punishment for an unfinished crime, there are specific nuances when using the norm 64 CC.
An explanation of this is given in paragraph 34
of Plenum No. 58.
Let us explain using the example of a specific criminal case:
Situation
:
The question concerns mitigation of punishment using Article 64 of the Criminal Code
of the Russian Federation under
Part 1 30 of the Criminal Code
(preparation),
paragraph "d" Part 4 228.1 of the Criminal Code
of the Russian Federation using
paragraph "i" Part 1 61 of the Criminal Code
and Article
64 of the Criminal Code
.
On appeal in the Moscow City Court, it was determined that the punishment should be changed, taking into account the procedure for applying Article 66 of the Criminal Code
and
62 of the Criminal Code
and impose a sentence of 6 years.
However, the court considered that the application of Art. 64 of the Criminal Code
is no longer necessary since the punishment is already below the lower limit.
Question
:
Is it possible to appeal this decision due to the fact that the court of first instance considered the totality of circumstances to be exceptional? Why article 64 of the Criminal Code
RF was not applied after the application of Articles
66 of the Criminal Code
and
62 of the Criminal Code
?
ANSWER:
I). What happened at first instance
The court of first instance mixed up everything when imposing the punishment:
— did not take into account the instructions in paragraph 34
Plenum No. 58, according to which the period for preparation is first counted from
Part 2 of 66 of the Criminal Code
, and then
62 of the Criminal Code
.
- in paragraph 34
Plenum No. 58 expressly states that in such cases a reference to
Article 64 of the Criminal Code
is not required.
The court made three mistakes:
first mistake
: incorrect calculation of punishment for preparation (failure to take into account the specifics of punishment for an unfinished crime). The court of first instance had to impose punishment according to the following scheme:
a) take 20 years (maximum term under clause "d" part 4 228.1 of the Criminal Code
).
b) apply the rules for assigning punishment for cooking: subtract 1/2 in accordance with Part 2 of 66 of the Criminal Code
, we get 10 years (more about these rules here:
Punishment for an unfinished
crime, possible miscarriages of justice).
second mistake
: failure to take into account a mitigating circumstance.
Next, the court must take into account a mitigating circumstance ( clause “and” part 1 of 61 of the Criminal Code
):
a) take 10 years (remaining from the above calculation).
b) take 2/3 of these 10 years, that is, apply Part 1 62 of the Criminal Code
, we get 7 years.
This is precisely the mathematical calculation required by clause 34
Plenum No. 58, and based on its results, the court did not have the right to assign more than 7 years.
(Note: this calculation is given without taking into account Article 64 of the Criminal Code
, if the court had not applied it).
third mistake
: application of
64 Criminal Code
.
- in contrast to the above rules for assigning punishment for an unfinished crime (which the court was strictly obliged to apply) - here the court was no longer obliged to apply this rule.
— but the court of first instance decided to apply Article 64 of the Criminal Code
(as indicated in the verdict).
And this application is erroneous: since paragraph 34
of Plenum No. 58 directly states that in such cases there is no need to refer to this norm.
II). What happened in the appeal
first
: the appellate court noticed the errors of the first instance court when imposing punishment and applied the instructions of
paragraph 34
of Plenum No. 58, according to which the preparation period is first counted from
Part 2 of 66 of the Criminal Code
62 of the Criminal Code
is applied .
— the appeal court commuted the sentence, making the correct calculation. It should be understood that the appeal did not benefit you (that is, this is not the result of any special kindness).
- although the appeal court reduced the term, it only eliminated a mathematical error. This is not his mercy; in any case, this would have happened higher in the cassation stage. That is, it was a necessary decision; there were no options for appeal.
second
: the appellate court removed from the verdict the reference to norm
64 of the Criminal Code
.
III). Can this be used in cassation?
— Is it possible to “catch onto” something under such circumstances in a cassation appeal?
- I believe that you can try to use this: although the court of appeal seems to have done everything correctly (by shortening the term).
- but he removed from the sentence the reference to norm 64 of the Criminal Code
and thereby worsened the situation of the convicted person.
Why did he remove norm 64 of the Criminal Code?
He was guided by the same
paragraph 34
of Plenum No. 58, we read it:
«If, as a result of the application of Articles 66 and (or) 62 of the Criminal Code, the term or amount of punishment that may be assigned to the convicted person turns out to be less severe than the lower limit of the most severe type of punishment provided for by the sanction of the corresponding article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code, then the punishment is imposed below the lower limit without reference to 64 CC
«.
— does an appeal have the right to tighten the situation of the convicted person? Actually, it has, the norm of clause 2, part 1 389.26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
allows the appellate court to increase the punishment.
- but there is a nuance here that is of great importance: an appeal can change the sentence towards worsening only if the prosecutor or the victim requests it ( Part 1 389.24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
and
p.
Plenum No. 26).
- if the prosecution did not request that the reference to the application of Article 64 of the Criminal Code
, then the appellate court exceeded its powers.
— that is, a contradictory situation has arisen: the appellate court is both right and wrong at the same time:
A)
The appeal rightfully eliminated the violation by removing norm
64 of the Criminal Code
, thereby fulfilling the instructions of the Supreme Court contained in
paragraph 34
of Plenum No. 58.
b)
but on the other hand, the appeal violated
part 1 389.24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
and
paragraph
26 of the plenum.
- I believe that we can try to justify that there is a significant violation of the criminal law here, since it directly affected the amount of punishment ( paragraph 17
Plenum No. 19) and that this is the basis for changing the appeal decision (
Part 1 401.15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
).
Third commentary to Article 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. In the presence of mitigating circumstances recognized by the court as exceptional, criminal law provides for cases when a more lenient punishment may be imposed than provided for the crime committed. In this case, the court can assign a punishment to the guilty person, either below the lowest limit provided by law for a given crime, or move on to another, more lenient type of punishment. A circumstance that sharply reduces the degree of social danger of the crime committed (for example, the commission of a crime by a pregnant woman against her husband, caused by his unlawful action) can be recognized as exceptional.
2. The correct basis for imposing such a punishment are exceptional circumstances related to: a) the goals and motives of the crime; b) with the role of the perpetrator, his behavior during or after the commission of the crime; c) taking into account circumstances that significantly reduce the degree of public danger of the crime; d) with the active assistance of a participant in a group crime in solving this crime. When studying exceptional circumstances, serious attention should be paid to other circumstances that significantly reduce the degree of public danger of the crime. Judicial practice rightly recognizes as exceptional a set of mitigating circumstances in the absence of aggravating ones, and both mitigating circumstances provided for by law (see commentary to Article 61 of the Criminal Code) and those not provided for, for example, the accidental commission of a crime, impeccable past behavior at work and at home, can be considered exceptional. , being dependent on elderly parents, etc. As the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation explained in Resolution No. 16 of June 28, 2012 “On the practice of courts using a special procedure for trial of criminal cases when concluding a pre-trial agreement on cooperation”, if exceptional circumstances are established, as well as if the defendant actively assists in solving a group crime, the court has the right apply the provisions of Article 64 of the Criminal Code, including in the presence of aggravating circumstances.
3. Both individual mitigating circumstances and a combination of such circumstances can be recognized as exceptional (Part 2 of Article 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). When assigning a more lenient punishment in accordance with the commented article, the court, justifying its decision in the descriptive and motivational part of the sentence, must indicate which mitigating circumstances or their combination are recognized as exceptional and significantly reducing the degree of public danger of the crime.
4. When imposing a sentence on a specific person, taking into account exceptional circumstances, the court has three options, of which the court must choose only one.
Firstly, the punishment may be imposed below the lower limit provided for by the relevant article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code. The law does not indicate restrictions in its application, therefore a punishment more lenient than provided by law can be assigned to a person who has committed any crime. However, the imposed punishment cannot be less than the lower limit defined for the corresponding types of punishment in the articles of the General Part of the Criminal Code (for example, the term of imprisonment determined for the convicted person in accordance with Article 56 of the Criminal Code should not be less than two months). Secondly, the court can impose a more lenient type of punishment compared to those provided for by the sanction, in other words, impose a punishment not provided for by the sanction. And thirdly, the court may not apply the additional type of punishment provided for in the sanction of the article. It should be noted that the commented article does not provide for the possibility of determining a more lenient type of regime in a correctional institution than that established by Article 58 of the Criminal Code for serving a sentence of imprisonment. ‹ Article 63.1. Assignment of punishment in case of violation of a pre-trial agreement on cooperationTop Article 65. Assignment of punishment in the event of a jury verdict of leniency ›
News
The Supreme Court (SC) clarified in which cases the accused should be given a more lenient punishment than provided for by the sanction of the article of the Criminal Code (CC) of the Russian Federation.
The highest court examined the case of a doctor sentenced to 8.5 years in prison for several counts of fraud and acquitted of several counts of embezzlement. Despite the presence of mitigating and absence of aggravating circumstances, the court of first instance considered it impossible to apply Article 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, but the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation did not agree with this position.
The crux of the matter
The court found that the accused, being the chief physician of the hospital, received bribes from an entrepreneur for deciding to enter into contracts for the supply of medical products from his company. These actions of the defendant were qualified by the court under paragraph “c” of Part 5 of Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 324-FZ of July 3, 2016), clause “c”, part 5 of Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Part 3 of Art. 290 UKRF.
As follows from the verdict, when sentencing the doctor, the court took into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crimes committed, the age of the accused and her state of health, as well as the impact of the punishment on her correction and on the living conditions of her family.
The court recognized the circumstances mitigating the punishment as having a young child, confessing, actively contributing to the detection and investigation of crimes, remorse for what she had done, admitting her guilt, and having illnesses.
The court did not establish any aggravating circumstances.
When studying the identity of the defendant, the court indicated that she was officially employed, was characterized satisfactorily at her place of residence, positively at her previous place of work, had not been brought to administrative responsibility, had a dependent child, and had no previous convictions.
The verdict states that the court takes into account the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and degree of public danger of each of the crimes committed, the presence of mitigating circumstances and the absence of aggravating circumstances, information about the identity of the perpetrator, and comes to a conclusion on the imposition of punishment for each of the crimes committed and in their totality in the form of real deprivation of liberty, since this will restore social justice, achieve correction of the convicted person and prevent her from committing new crimes.
Rejecting the application of the provisions of Article 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the imposition of a more lenient punishment than provided for in the article, the court explained that the appointment of the main punishment for the totality of crimes in the form of 8 years 6 months of actual imprisonment would correspond to all established circumstances of the case.
Position of the Armed Forces
The Judicial Panel cannot agree with this conclusion of the court, since it is not based on factual data and on the law, the Supreme Court notes.
“The court, in violation of the requirements of the law, did not give specific reasons in the verdict on which it came to the conclusion that it was impossible to achieve the goals of punishment if a smaller sentence was imposed using Art. 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,” the highest authority points out.
The panel of judges believes that, having imposed a sentence on the doctor in the form of imprisonment for 7 years for each of the crimes provided for in paragraph “c” of Part 5 of Article 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and 3 years under Part 3 of Article 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and for the totality of crimes on the basis Part 3 of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - 8 years 6 months of imprisonment, the court actually did not take into account the mitigating circumstances established in the case and specified in the verdict - the presence of a dependent young child, confession, active contribution to the detection and investigation of crimes, admission of guilt and repentance for crime, the presence of diseases, as well as exclusively positive information about the personality of the accused and the absence of aggravating circumstances.
“Moreover, the court, pointing out in the verdict that there were no grounds for imposing punishment using the provisions of Art. 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, ignored the factual circumstances of the crime established at the court hearing, according to which, on the basis of the examined evidence, it was established that no property damage was caused when medical products were received at the hospital during the period studied.
The court did not establish that (the accused) had any intention to exceed prices when concluding contracts for the supply of medical products, and therefore, from her accusation under paragraph “c” of Part 5 of Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for two episodes of crimes and for a crime under Part 3 of Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, information was excluded that the contracts were concluded at obviously inflated prices for (the accused),” notes the Supreme Court.
However, these circumstances were also not properly assessed when assigning punishment.
At the same time, the court found that the doctor transferred more than 1 million rubles to the hospital account for damages for crimes under Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to which she was acquitted.
“Despite the fact that this fact is not directly related to the crimes for which (the accused) was convicted, it certainly indicates the presence of circumstances that significantly reduce the degree of public danger of the acts committed (the accused) in combination with positive data about her personality.” , emphasizes the Armed Forces.
Thus, the Judicial Panel finds that the non-infliction of property damage to the hospital and the lack of intent on the part of the defendant to exceed prices when concluding contracts are mitigating circumstances. And in combination with the mitigating punishments established by the court - the presence of a young child, confession, active assistance in the detection and investigation of crimes, repentance for what they have done, admission of guilt, state of health, presence of diseases - are sufficient to recognize them as exceptional for each of the crimes committed and allowing the provisions of Art. 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on assigning a more lenient punishment to the convicted person than provided for these crimes.
At the same time, the Judicial Collegium also takes into account the presence of numerous certificates of honor and letters of gratitude for her contribution to the development of the medical industry of the region and the fact that from the moment the criminal case was initiated until her conviction, while under a written undertaking not to leave the place and proper behavior, she was not noticed in anything reprehensible .
In this case, the grounds for applying the provisions of Art. 73, part b art. 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the circumstances of the crime, namely: the number of crimes committed, their category, the long period during which the acts were committed, the Judicial Board does not see.
As a result, the Judicial Collegium of the Supreme Court decided to mitigate the imposed punishment in the form of imprisonment using Art. 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and finally sentence the accused to 4.5 years in prison with a fine of 2 million rubles and deprivation of the right to engage in activities related to the exercise of organizational, administrative and economic powers in the field of procurement of goods, works, services for the provision of public and municipal needs, for a period of 5 years.
