Today in Russia there are quite a lot of banking companies providing lending services. One of the most pressing problems for these institutions is the presence of debtors. Many of the borrowers shy away from fulfilling their obligations. In order to help banking institutions, Art. 177 of the Criminal Code. Let's consider it in more detail.
Art. 177 of the Criminal Code (new edition)
This article provides for punishment for malicious evasion of payables. The guilty person (the head of the organization or the citizen) who has accumulated large debts and does not pay them off is charged with:
- Fine up to 200 thousand rubles. or in the amount of income (salary) for a period of up to 1.5 years.
- Mandatory work, up to 480 hours
- Up to 2 years in prison.
- Forced work, lasting up to 2 years.
- Arrest for up to six months.
Art. 177 of the Criminal Code with comments
This article provides for sanctions for malicious evasion of debt payments after the entry into force of a court decision. At the same time, the disposition of the article establishes such a feature as "large size". According to Art. 177 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, debt is considered such, more than 250 thousand rubles. The corpus delicti is considered formal. When determining the amount of debt should be guided by the act of the court, which confirms the amount. Debts for different decisions can be added up. This is allowed in the case when the victim and the guilty are the same. As an act, as a rule, a decision of the arbitration tribunal or the court of general jurisdiction acts. Debt, however, may be confirmed by other acts. For example, it could be a court order.
Objective part
It consists of evasion. A number of experts consider it to be identical to concealing property in respect of which a foreclosure may be applied. Some authors view evasion as inaction. That is, the perpetrator does not perform the actions that he should. However, opponents of this assumption point out that it does not take into account the possibility of applying coercive measures. In the framework of such enforcement of court decisions, bailiffs have fairly broad powers, the implementation of which allows to suppress the inaction of the subject.
Malice
This feature is considered mandatory when qualifying a crime under Art. 177 of the Criminal Code. Some practitioners believe that malignancy to some extent makes it difficult to consider the act under this article. This symptom can be determined in various ways. For example, an analogy with Art. 157, which regulates the punishment for evading payment of the maintenance of disabled parents or children. In the practice of applying this norm, malice is considered as a failure to fulfill the obligation if there is a possibility for this after receiving two warnings from the bailiffs. A somewhat different situation with Art. 177 of the Criminal Code. In this case, one can talk about maliciousness even in the absence of warnings. The evaluative nature of this feature is indicated by its different interpretation in different regulatory acts.
Subjective part
The signs of this side of the crime cause much less discussion than objective ones. Responsibility under Art. 177 of the Criminal Code takes place if the guilty person has direct intent. This means that the debtor intentionally hides his income, does not want to repay the debt consciously. To prove the presence of direct intent is easy with the legal concealment of their own property. This is due to the fact that the conclusion of imaginary contracts clearly indicates awareness of the dangers of behavior and the desire to commit illegal actions. Often, debtors pay small amounts to hide their intent. However, this technique does not help when the bank takes the case to court.
Guilty face
In Art. 177 of the Criminal Code, the subject is a citizen or the head of the enterprise. When qualifying a crime under this article, it is possible to apply punishment to the actual, and not the nominal director. The procedure for holding executives accountable is designed for tax crimes. In the case when the actual director of the debtor enterprise leaves him and opens a new one, holding the same position, begins to make a profit, but does not pay the loan, we can talk about the qualification of such behavior under this article.
Complicity
It is rarely considered in the comments to Art. 177 of the Criminal Code. According to some authors, when evading the payment of a debt, a distribution of roles often occurs. The accomplices are, in particular, those who conclude fictitious agreements, on the basis of which they later allegedly acquire property. In the course of the investigation of the crime, therefore, it is necessary to take into account not only the behavior of the debtor himself, but also of other entities.
Attempt
It should also be considered as part of the proceedings of an act falling under Art. 177. For example, the debtor does not want to be deducted from the payment of his labor to repay the obligation. To prevent this deduction, he agrees with the employer on the informal payment of his salary. Suppose that after a couple of months this fact becomes known. In this case, there is no malicious evasion on a large scale, however, the actions that are aimed at this have already begun, but have not been fully completed. A number of authors believe that in such situations, the behavior of the perpetrator can be qualified according to Art. 177 as an attempt on a crime.