Grounds for Involving a Legal Entity as a Civil Defendant in Criminal Cases

The current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation makes it possible to involve a legal entity as a civil defendant only if, in accordance with the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, it is liable for harm caused by a crime. This prevents the prosecution in all necessary cases, in particular for tax crimes. This is because in the criminal procedure, property damage caused by tax crimes is made up of taxes, fees, insurance premiums, which are not property damage in civil law due to various objects of legal relations. Therefore, they are not subject to compensation in accordance with the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, but are collected in accordance with the procedure RF Tax Code and RF APC. At the same time, legal entities being taxpayers who failed to pay taxes are obliged to compensate for the damage caused by a tax crime, constituting the unpaid amount of taxes, fees, insurance premiums. This is to be fulfilled not in accordance with the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, but in accordance with the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Due to the lack of legal grounds for involving a legal entity in criminal proceedings as a civil defendant, in practice, an individual is often involved in this case. It is against him criminal proceedings are being carried out, which subsequently leads to the cancellation of sentences in terms of imposing civil liability on an ineligible person instead of a taxpayer-organization. The paper substantiates the need to include in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation a new basis for involving a legal entity as a civil defendant, namely the existence of an obligation in accordance with the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation to pay taxes, fees, insurance premiums. This will make it possible to exclude the recovery of property damage for tax crimes from employees of the organization in respect of whom criminal proceedings are being carried out, in the presence of a solvent legal entity-taxpayer.

1. Azarov V. A. Problemy teorii i praktiki ohrany imushchestvennyh interesov lichnosti v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve. — Omsk, 1995. — 187 s.

2. Azarov V. A., Lukashevich S. V. Dokazyvanie po ugolovnym delam ob uklonenii ot uplaty nalogov. — Omsk, 2009. — 183 s.

3. Bondarenko I. V. Ugolovno-pravovoe ponyatie vreda, prichinennogo prestupleniem, i problemy ego vozmeshcheniya : dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk. — Ryazan’, 1995. — 158 s.

4. Velikaya V. E., Zyablina M. V. Iski prokurorov o vozmeshchenii ushcherba publichno-pravovym obrazovaniyam. Analiz praktiki // Ugolovnyj process. — 2019. — № 8. — S. 54–60.

5. Gur’ev P. P. Zashchita lichnyh i imushchestvennyh prav. — M., 1964. — 112 s.

6. Karakaj M. I. K voprosu o ponyatii i soderzhanii termina «imushchestvennyj vred» v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve // Gumanitarnye, social’no-ekonomicheskie i obshchestvennye nauki. — 2019. — № 4. — S. 122–124.

7. Malein N. S. Imushchestvennaya otvetstvennost’ v hozyajstvennyh otnosheniyah. — M., 1968. — 207 s.

8. Milicin S. E., Popkova E. V. Ugolovnoe delo i grazhdanskij isk: vmeste ili porozn’? // Rossijskaya yusticiya. — 2001. — № 7. — S. 46–48.

9. Nevzgodina E. L. Vred kak uslovie vozniknoveniya deliktnyh obyazatel’stv v grazhdanskom prave // Vestnik Omskogo universiteta. Seriya : Pravo. — 2009. — № 3. — S. 28–32.

10. Sidorenko E. L. Otricatel’noe povedenie poterpevshego i ugolovnyj zakon. — SPb., 2003. — 310 s.

11. Sotonkin A. V. Pravovye sredstva vozmeshcheniya imushchestvennogo vreda v dosudebnom proizvodstve // Probely v rossijskom zakonodatel’stve. — 2011. — № 1. — S. 189–192.

12. Shershenevich G. F. Uchebnik russkogo grazhdanskogo prava (po izdaniyu 1907 g.). — M., 1995. — 556 s.