We have written more than once about the difficulties of interpreting objective reasons that resulted in violation of tax laws through no fault of merchants or an accountant. The problem is that the list of mitigating circumstances given in Article 112 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation is open, while the norm itself contains a number of reasons that led to a violation of the law through no fault of the business. In particular, these include:
- committing an offense due to a combination of difficult personal or family circumstances;
- committing an offense under the influence of threat or coercion or due to financial, official or other dependence;
- difficult financial situation of an individual held accountable for committing a tax offense;
- other circumstances that may be recognized by the court or tax authority considering the case as mitigating liability.
It is the open list that often does not allow either the taxpayer or auditors to accurately determine which other circumstances can be taken into account and which cannot.
As always, law enforcement helps. However, judges have different opinions on this issue as well. The arbitrators make a decision based on their inner conviction, in accordance with Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Therefore, no one can guarantee that this or that circumstance will certainly be interpreted in the same way as in other similar disputes.
However, it is possible and necessary to file a petition for mitigation of liability, since the price of the issue - a reduction in sanctions for companies, a reduction in the amounts of sanctions imposed by auditors - can be very noticeable, especially now. By virtue of paragraph 3 of Article 114 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, in the presence of at least one mitigating circumstance, the amount of the fine is subject to reduction by at least two times compared to the amount established by the corresponding article of the Tax Code.
If there are court decisions on similar circumstances, then the chances of a positive decision increase significantly. In the article we provided an overview of court cases on the topic of which arguments are really effective. However, it must be borne in mind that judicial decisions in each case are taken taking into account the specific arguments and evidence presented by the parties.
Charity
Analyzing practice, we can say that there are universal mitigating circumstances. They can be applied to all tax offences. It is precisely such violations that are mentioned in the letter from the Federal Tax Service, which was mentioned at the very beginning of the article.
In particular, such circumstances include the difficult financial situation of the organization and its active role in public and charitable activities in the region. This will allow the company to take advantage of the reduction in penalties, despite the established intentional form of guilt. This is precisely the conclusion that the arbitrators came to in the Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the West Siberian District dated November 13, 2022 No. F04-4877/2019 in case No. A27-23267/2018. In addition, in the same Resolution, the court took into account as a mitigating circumstance the taxpayer’s recognition of the illegal nature of his actions.
The company can prove its difficult situation with bank statements of its personal account and financial statements as of the latest date. If there is a court decision on the recovery of funds that has entered into force, then it also needs to be shown to the arbitrators. Claims from creditors will also be evidence of the difficult financial situation of the organization.
Evidence of an active role in the social and charitable life of the region can be, for example, the employment of graduates of orphanages and disabled people in the company. This will be confirmed by orders, employment contracts, relevant certificates, and certificates.
Other possible evidence of the social role of business is the creation of sports grounds for children, landscaping of areas, assistance in eliminating accidents and disasters. In this case, you need to prepare documents confirming costs, letters of gratitude from local authorities, orders for the enterprise, mentions in the media.
Judges are also favorable to public sector employees and city-forming enterprises. In this case, the organization must present its constituent documents. Conducting socially significant activities also often helps a company reduce the size of the penalty; such areas include housing and communal services, scientific activities, construction of social facilities, etc. In court, you need to present licenses and extracts from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities to confirm OKVED.
How to find court errors in the amount of the imposed punishment?
The law provides the court with a kind of “calculator” for sentencing - a legal mechanism in which, taking into account decreasing and increasing coefficients, the upper and lower limits change and the final punishment is determined. It happens that the court does not always carefully apply this “calculator”. Detailed knowledge of the mechanism for determining the amount of punishment makes it possible to find an error in the sentence.
Although there is no table for calculating the impact of specific mitigating factors on the amount of punishment, the Criminal Code nevertheless provides for a special mechanism for taking them into account. In particular, circumstances that limit the upper limit of punishment. This group can be called particularly strong mitigating circumstances, since they are significantly significant for the amount of punishment. In addition, the defense lawyer can check how the court took them into account: after all, only for these circumstances the law has an arithmetic accounting mechanism - restrictions of ¾, 2/3 or ½ of the maximum term.
TABLE. CIRCUMSTANCES THAT LOWER THE UPPER BAR OF PUNISHMENT
| Criminal Code norm | Circumstance | Coefficient to the maximum term of imprisonment of the article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code |
| Part 3 Art. 66 CC | attempted crime | no more than ¾ |
| clause “and” part 1 art. 61 CC | confession* | no more than 2/3 |
| clause “and” part 1 art. 61 CC | active contribution* | |
| clause "k" part 1 art. 61 CC | health care* | |
| clause "k" part 1 art. 61 CC | compensation for damage* | |
| clause "k" part 1 art. 61 CC | making amends* | |
| Part 1 Art. 65 CC | jury verdict of leniency | |
| Part 5 Art. 62 CC | special order (Chapter 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) | |
| Part 4 Art. 62 CC | pre-trial agreement, if the sanction provides for the death penalty or life imprisonment | |
| Part 2 Art. 66 CC | preparation for a crime | no more than ½ |
| Part 2 Art. 62 CC | pre-trial agreement (Chapter 40.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) | |
| Part 5 Art. 62 CC | inquiry in a simplified form (Chapter 32.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) | no more than ½ |
* - applicable in the absence of aggravating circumstances and provided that the sanction of the article does not provide for life imprisonment or the death penalty (Parts 1, 3 of Article 62 of the Criminal Code)
When assigning a sentence, the court takes into account the above circumstances and lowers the upper limit of punishment. Moreover, if there are several mitigating circumstances in the case, then they are added. For example, if in a case there is simultaneously a confession and the case is being considered in a “special” order, then the two norms will mutually reinforce each other. Thus, dividing the maximum sentence by 2/3 applies twice. This follows from paragraph 39 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 22, 2015 No. 58 “On the practice of imposing criminal punishment by courts.”
Let's give an example. When imposing punishment under Part 1 of Art. 228.1 of the Criminal Code (drug sales, maximum - up to eight years), in the presence of a special order (Chapter 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and surrender (clause “and” part 1 of Article 61 of the Criminal Code), the upper limit is initially reduced to four years (we apply Chapter 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), then from four to two years and eight months (we apply Part 1 of Article 62 of the Criminal Code).
The reduction factor is applied sequentially: first, a reduction for an unfinished crime, then for a special procedure and pre-trial agreement, then for a mitigating circumstance. This calculation follows from paragraph 14 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated December 5, 2006 No. 60 “On the use by courts of a special procedure for the trial of criminal cases.”
If, as a result of such an addition, the upper bar falls below the lower bar (the punishment becomes less than the minimum provided for by the sanction), then the punishment is imposed below the lower one. This follows from paragraph 34 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated December 22, 2015 No. 58.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES FOR SUMMATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES REDUCING PENALTIES
It is not always possible to sum up penalty-reducing coefficients. For example, when concluding a pre-trial cooperation agreement (Chapter 40.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), which in itself reduces the upper limit by ½ or 2/3, the coefficient provided for in Part 1 of Art. 62 of the Criminal Code, reducing the bar to 2/3. This rule follows from paragraph 24 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated June 28, 2012 No. 16 “On the practice of courts using a special procedure for the trial of criminal cases when concluding a pre-trial cooperation agreement.”
We also note that the lower level of punishment may increase. For example, for any type of relapse, the minimum term is increased by 1/3 of the maximum, unless there are mitigating circumstances (clause 2 of Article 68 of the Criminal Code). The upper bar increases when assigning punishment for a combination of crimes (Article 69 of the Criminal Code) and sentences (Article 70 of the Criminal Code).
ERROR SEARCH ALGORITHM
Arithmetic errors that the court made when assigning punishment are easy to identify. It is enough to check the calculation taking into account all the mitigating circumstances specified in the verdict.
It is also not difficult to find an obvious mistake that the court made when assigning punishment. This is a case when the court simply forgets to take into account one of the circumstances that lowers the upper limit of punishment.
Information in the judgment. To find this error, you need to check the narrative part of the sentence and look for any mention of mitigating circumstances in it. Next, you need to look at the reasoning part, where the court indicates what standards it was guided by when determining the amount of punishment. The right place in the sentence begins with the phrase “When assigning punishment, the court takes into account...”. Here you need to check what the court writes about taking into account mitigating circumstances. If in the descriptive part the court describes active cooperation with the investigation, then in the reasoning part it must be directly stated that the court takes into account clause “i” of Part 1 of Art. 61 of the Criminal Code (confession, active assistance...). If the court did not indicate this rule, then this will be the error being sought.
After the defense lawyer has found a mistake, you can indicate in the appeal that the court violated the requirements of Part 4 of Art. 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which obliges the court to give in the verdict the reasons for deciding the issues of sentencing. Further indicate that the court imposed the punishment based on the maximum, without taking into account the “bar” limitation of 2/3. Thus, in a resolution dated October 2, 2017 in case No. 44u-153/2017, the Presidium of the Orenburg Regional Court changed the sentence of the person convicted of murder. The Presidium indicated that in the reasoning part of the verdict, the court did not indicate the application of Part 1 of Art. 62 of the Criminal Code and reduced the punishment.
Information in the indictment. Information about unaccounted for mitigating circumstances can be found not only in the text of the sentence. It happens that in the indictment the investigator indicates some mitigating circumstance, but in the verdict the court forgets about it. This would be a mistake. Of course, the court may not recognize the circumstance as a mitigating one. For example, due to the fact that the case does not establish conditions for confession. However, he must motivate his conclusion (Part 4 of Article 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
Other mitigating circumstances. By virtue of Part 2 of Art. 61 of the Criminal Code the list of mitigating circumstances is not closed. Therefore, it is important to remember about other mitigating circumstances that do not directly lower the upper limit, but are taken into account as a certain coefficient that is not strictly established, but still reduces the punishment (Article 61 of the Criminal Code).
For example, as a result of the consistent application of all the points of the “calculator,” the court imposed a punishment that exactly corresponded to the already lowered upper limit: the same two years and eight months for Part 1 of Art. 228.1 of the Criminal Code from the above example. At the same time, the court found that the convicted person is the only able-bodied family member, and considered this a mitigating circumstance. If after this the court does not take this circumstance into account when determining the punishment, it will be a mistake. Thus, the court must take into account the mitigating circumstance, whatever it may be, and reduce the term by at least a month. In addition, if there is a mitigating circumstance, it is impossible to assign the maximum punishment, even if it is already reduced taking into account the above reduction factors (appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated January 26, 2016 in case No. 10-0230/2016).
JUSTIFICATION OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Courts rarely make “gifts” to the defense in the form of errors in sentencing. In practice, you usually have to take a more difficult path. For example, the court may not find mitigating circumstances in the case. In this case, the lawyer needs to justify that these circumstances exist, but the court did not take them into account. The most suitable for this are paragraphs “i” (actively facilitating the detection of a crime) and “k” (reparation of harm) of Part 1 of Art. 61 CC.
Actively contributing to solving a crime. To justify active assistance, you can use the provisions of paragraph 30 of Resolution of the Plenum of the RF Armed Forces No. 58 “On the practice of imposing criminal punishment by courts.” According to the position of the Plenum, active assistance in the detection and investigation of a crime should be taken into account as a mitigating circumstance if a person provided the inquiry or investigative authorities with important information about a crime committed with his participation or his role in it. For example, it indicated the persons who participated in the crime, provided their details and location, information confirming their participation in the crime, indicated persons who could give testimony.
The task of the defense attorney is to find coincidences between the wording of this paragraph of the plenum resolution and the circumstances of the case, and then refer to these coincidences.
Making amends. The Plenum indicates that reparation for the harm caused to the victim will be the actions of the accused, who provided any assistance to the victim during the proceedings. For example, I paid for treatment. Moreover, the list of ways to make amends for harm is not closed: they include all the actions that the accused took to restore the rights and legitimate interests of the victim violated as a result of the crime.
To substantiate that there are circumstances in a case related to “making amends for harm,” it is necessary, for example, to substantiate the reasons why the convicted person was unable to fully compensate the harm to the victim. To do this, you can attach documents about partial compensation, about the financial situation of the accused, documents confirming the presence of dependent persons, etc.
Self payment
Independent payment by a taxpayer to the budget of arrears, penalties and fines accrued based on the results of an audit, as well as the commission of a tax offense for the first time, can be considered by the courts in a number of cases as circumstances mitigating liability.
In confirmation of this, you can see the Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North Caucasus District dated April 22, 2022 No. F08-2349/2019 in case No. A32-55319/2017, Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Far Eastern District dated March 20, 2022 No. F03-723/2018 in case No. A73-13306/2017.
To recognize circumstances mitigating liability, you must submit to the court a document confirming the sending of updated declarations and payment orders for taxes to the inspectorate.
A complex approach
The opinions of the courts on the reasons for recognizing that an act is disproportionate to the severity of the punishment are contradictory.
This argument is best presented in conjunction with other circumstances. But in each individual case, the arbitrators will evaluate the situation in which a tax offense was committed in several categories - the amount of arrears, the period of delay, the company's subsequent actions to eliminate the violation, the presence of other mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
These are precisely the conclusions that can be drawn from the Resolution of the Volga Region Autonomous District of October 17, 2022 No. F06-38650/2018.
Technical difficulites
Another common mistake made by businessmen, for which they have to pay fines, is violation of the deadline for filing a declaration and calculating insurance premiums (clause 1 of Article 119 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). In this case, the business may justify itself by citing technical problems. These may include an emergency power outage, a computer breakdown, or a malfunction of the electronic document management operator.
Relevant evidence will be statements to service organizations, as well as responses to your requests to eliminate the problem, and certificates of work performed. These circumstances were taken into account when issuing the Resolution of the Administrative Court of the North Caucasus District dated November 14, 2022 in case No. A32-37113/2017.
As judicial practice shows, the chances in court increase if several mitigating circumstances are stated at once. As we have already written, the list is not exhaustive. As new life circumstances arise, new factors are identified. Who knows what other consequences the pandemic will bring to business, but it is already clear that certain industries are in crisis.
Therefore, when brought to justice, file a petition; the law does not limit the amount of punishment reduction. With a good preparation of the justification and evidence base, the tax authority or court can significantly reduce the amount of the fine, but not to zero, since this is considered an exemption from liability, which is not provided for by the Tax Code.
What are the rules for sentencing for re-conviction?
What is the punishment if you are convicted three times under Art. 264? The second time it was 1.5 years probation
Lawyer Antonov A.P.
Good afternoon According to Article 15 of the Criminal Code, depending on the nature and degree of public danger, the acts provided for by this Code are divided into crimes of minor gravity, crimes of medium gravity, serious crimes and especially serious crimes. Crimes of minor gravity are recognized as intentional and careless acts, for the commission of which the maximum punishment provided for by this Code does not exceed three years of imprisonment. Crimes of average gravity are recognized as intentional acts, for the commission of which the maximum penalty provided for by this Code does not exceed five years of imprisonment, and careless acts, for the commission of which the maximum penalty provided for by this Code exceeds three years of imprisonment. Serious crimes are intentional acts for which the maximum punishment provided for by this Code does not exceed ten years of imprisonment. Particularly serious crimes are intentional acts, the commission of which is punishable by this Code in the form of imprisonment for a term of over ten years or a more severe punishment. Taking into account the actual circumstances of the crime and the degree of its public danger, the court has the right, in the presence of mitigating circumstances and in the absence of aggravating circumstances, to change the category of the crime to a less serious one, but not more than one category of crime, provided that for committing the crime specified in part three of this article, the convicted person is sentenced to a sentence not exceeding three years of imprisonment, or another more lenient punishment; for committing a crime specified in part four of this article, the convicted person is sentenced to a punishment not exceeding five years of imprisonment, or another more lenient punishment; for committing a crime specified in part five of this article, the convicted person is sentenced to a punishment not exceeding seven years of imprisonment. According to Article 86 of the Criminal Code, a person convicted of committing a crime is considered to have a criminal record from the day the court’s conviction enters into legal force until the criminal record is expunged or removed. A criminal record in accordance with this Code is taken into account in case of recidivism of crimes, imposition of punishment and entails other legal consequences in cases and in the manner established by federal laws. A person released from punishment is considered to have no criminal record.
A criminal record is expunged: a) in relation to persons on probation - upon expiration of the probationary period; b) in relation to persons sentenced to more lenient punishments than imprisonment - after one year after serving or executing the sentence; c) in relation to persons sentenced to imprisonment for crimes of minor or medium gravity - after three years after serving the sentence; d) in relation to persons sentenced to imprisonment for serious crimes - after eight years after serving the sentence; e) in relation to persons convicted of especially serious crimes - after ten years after serving the sentence. If the convicted person, in accordance with the procedure established by law, was released early from serving the sentence or the unserved part of the sentence was replaced by a more lenient punishment, then the period for expunging the criminal record is calculated based on the actually served term of the sentence from the moment of release from serving the main and additional types of punishment. If the convicted person behaved impeccably after serving his sentence and also compensated for the damage caused by the crime, then, at his request, the court may remove his criminal record before the expiration of the criminal record. Expungement or removal of a criminal record cancels all legal consequences provided for by this Code associated with a criminal record. According to Article 18 of the Criminal Code, recidivism of crimes is the commission of an intentional crime by a person who has a criminal record for a previously committed intentional crime. Recidivism of crimes is considered dangerous: a) when a person commits a serious crime for which he is sentenced to actual imprisonment, if previously this person was sentenced to imprisonment two or more times for an intentional crime of moderate gravity; b) when a person commits a serious crime, if he was previously convicted of a serious or especially serious crime. Recidivism of crimes is recognized as especially dangerous: a) when a person commits a serious crime for which he is sentenced to actual imprisonment, if this person was previously convicted twice convicted of a serious crime to actual imprisonment; b) when a person commits a particularly serious crime, if he has previously been convicted of a serious crime twice or has previously been convicted of a particularly serious crime. When recognizing a recidivism of crimes, the following are not taken into account: a) convictions for intentional crimes of minor gravity; b) convictions for crimes committed by a person under the age of eighteen; c) convictions for crimes for which the conviction was deemed suspended or for which a deferment of execution of the sentence was granted, if the conditional conviction or deferment of execution of the sentence was not canceled and the person was not sent to serve the sentence in prison, as well as convictions expunged or expunged in accordance with the procedure, established by Article 86 of this Code. Recidivism of crimes entails a more severe punishment on the basis and within the limits provided for by this Code, as well as other consequences provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation. According to Article 68 of the Criminal Code, when assigning punishment for a recidivism, dangerous recidivism or especially dangerous recidivism of crimes, the nature and degree of public danger of previously committed crimes, the circumstances due to which the corrective effect of the previous punishment turned out to be insufficient, as well as the nature and degree of public danger again crimes committed. The term of punishment for any type of recidivism of crimes cannot be less than one third of the maximum term of the most severe type of punishment provided for the crime committed, but within the sanction of the relevant article of the Special Part of this Code. In case of any type of recidivism of crimes, if the court establishes mitigating circumstances provided for in Article 61 of this Code, the term of punishment may be assigned less than one third of the maximum term of the most severe type of punishment provided for the crime committed, but within the sanction of the relevant article of the Special Part of this Code, and in the presence of exceptional circumstances provided for in Article 64 of this Code, a more lenient punishment than provided for this crime may be imposed. According to Articles 61 and 62 of the Criminal Code, the following are recognized as mitigating circumstances: a) the commission of a crime of minor or moderate gravity for the first time due to a random combination of circumstances; b) the minority of the perpetrator; c) pregnancy; d) the presence of young children with the perpetrator; e) committing a crime due to a combination of difficult life circumstances or out of compassion; f) committing a crime as a result of physical or mental coercion or due to financial, official or other dependence; g) commission of a crime in violation of the conditions of legality of necessary defense, detention of the person who committed the crime, extreme necessity, justified risk, execution of an order or instruction; h) illegality or immorality of the behavior of the victim, which was the reason for the crime; i) confession, active assistance in solving and investigating a crime, exposing and prosecuting other accomplices in a crime, searching for property obtained as a result of a crime; j) provision of medical and other assistance to the victim immediately after the commission of a crime, voluntary compensation for property damage and moral harm caused as a result of the crime, and other actions aimed at making amends for the harm caused to the victim. When assigning a punishment, circumstances not provided for in the first part of this article may be taken into account as mitigating factors. If a mitigating circumstance is provided for by the relevant article of the Special Part of this Code as a sign of a crime, it in itself cannot be taken into account again when assigning punishment. In the presence of mitigating circumstances provided for in paragraphs “and” and (or) “k” of part one of Article 61 of this Code, and in the absence of aggravating circumstances, the term or amount of punishment cannot exceed two-thirds of the maximum term or amount of the most severe type of punishment provided for in the relevant article of the Special parts of this Code. In the case of concluding a pre-trial agreement on cooperation in the presence of mitigating circumstances provided for in paragraph “and” of part one of Article 61 of this Code, and in the absence of aggravating circumstances, the term or amount of punishment cannot exceed half the maximum term or amount of the most severe type of punishment provided for in the relevant article of the Special Part of this Code. The provisions of part one of this article do not apply if the corresponding article of the Special Part of this Code provides for life imprisonment or the death penalty. In this case, the punishment is imposed within the sanction of the relevant article of the Special Part of this Code. In the case of concluding a pre-trial agreement on cooperation, if the relevant article of the Special Part of this Code provides for life imprisonment or the death penalty, these types of punishment are not applied. In this case, the term or amount of punishment cannot exceed two-thirds of the maximum term or amount of the most severe type of punishment in the form of imprisonment, provided for by the relevant article of the Special Part of this Code. The term or amount of punishment imposed on a person in respect of whom a criminal case is considered in the manner prescribed by Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation cannot exceed two-thirds of the maximum term or amount of the most severe type of punishment provided for the crime committed, and in the case, specified in Article 226.9 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation - one-half of the maximum term or amount of the most severe type of punishment provided for the crime committed. According to Article 74 of the Criminal Code, if, before the expiration of the probationary period, the conditionally convicted person has proven his correction by his behavior, compensated for the damage (in whole or in part) caused by the crime, in the amount determined by the court decision, the court, on the proposal of the body monitoring the behavior of the conditionally convicted person, may decide to revoke a suspended sentence and expunge a convicted person’s criminal record. In this case, the suspended sentence may be revoked after the expiration of at least half of the established probationary period. If a conditionally convicted person has evaded the fulfillment of the duties assigned to him by the court, has evaded compensation for damage (in whole or in part) caused by the crime in the amount determined by the court decision, or has committed a violation of public order for which he was brought to administrative responsibility, the court, upon presentation the body specified in part one of this article may extend the probationary period, but not more than by one year. If a conditionally convicted person, during an extended probation period in connection with his evasion of compensation for damage caused by a crime, in the amount determined by a court decision, systematically evades compensation for said damage, the court, upon the proposal of the body specified in part one of this article, may also make a decision on the revocation of a suspended sentence and the execution of a sentence imposed by a court verdict. If a conditionally convicted person, during the probationary period, systematically violated public order, for which he was brought to administrative responsibility, systematically failed to fulfill the duties assigned to him by the court, or escaped from control, the court, upon the proposal of the body specified in part one of this article, may make a decision to revoke the conditional sentence. conviction and execution of punishment imposed by a court verdict. If a conditionally convicted person commits a crime due to negligence or an intentional crime of minor or medium gravity during the probationary period, the issue of canceling or maintaining the conditional sentence is decided by the court. If a conditionally convicted person commits an intentional grave or especially grave crime during the probationary period, the court revokes the conditional sentence and imposes a punishment on him according to the rules provided for in Article 70 of this Code. According to the same rules, punishment is imposed in cases provided for in part four of this article. The rules established by parts four and five of this article also apply if the crimes specified in these parts were committed before the sentence providing for a suspended sentence came into force. In this case, trial of a new crime can take place only after the sentence providing for a suspended sentence has entered into legal force. Thus, since the new crime was committed in a state of relapse, the imposed punishment cannot be less than 1/3 of the maximum sentence provided for this crime. The possibility of maintaining a suspended sentence depends on the category of the crime committed.
