BIEL Law Firm’s Partner Commented on the Legislative Initiative on Arrest of Property of Legal Entities
The Russian President submitted draft law ¹ 430595-7 to the State Duma envisaging to modify Article 19.28 “Illegal Fee on Behalf of a Legal Entity” of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
The amendments envisage changes that establish the terms and conditions for relieving a legal entity of any liability for committing an administrative offense if such an entity has assisted in detecting the offense, in conducing the administrative investigation and (or) in detecting, solving and investigating into a crime relating to that offense. The liability can also be avoided if there has been an extortion in respect of the legal entity. If the document is approved, the rule will not apply to the legal entity which committed an administrative offense relating to a bribery of a foreign official or an official of a public international organization in making an international commercial deal.
Nikolay Sapozhnikov, a Partner of BIEL Law Firm, explained that the draft changes included two components: supplements relating to relieving a legal entity of the administrative liability in connection with active repentance or in connection with an extortion which took place in respect of it, and supplements relating to introduction into the Code of the institution of arrest of the property of a legal entity for the purpose of securing the execution of an order imposing an administrative punishment under that Article.
“I believe that that the supplements of the first category can only be welcomed because they bridge a certain legal gap relating to the fact that the legislation on administrative offenses considered a legal entity as an independent subject of administrative liability. It is however obvious that actions or omissions of a legal entity are objectively always mediated through actions or omissions of specific individuals”, the expert said.
Nikolay Sapozhnikov noted that the second part of the supplements proposed by the draft law causes a certain suspicion because it allows courts to arrest meaningful assets of enterprises already at the stage of administrative proceedings. “In its Ruling No. 2514-O dated November 9, 2017, the Constitutional Court earlier effectively supported the position of general jurisdiction courts that the incompleteness of a respective criminal case did not prevent the court considering an administrative offense case from holding the legal entity liable under Article 19.28 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation even in the absence of a sentence in respect of a specific bribe-giver”, the expert gave an example.
In conclusion, Nikolay Sapozhnikov noted that because the standards of proof and proceedings in considering cases on administrative offenses are somewhat lower than those in criminal cases, it becomes extremely important how strict the public prosecutor’s supervision and judicial practices will be in elaborating the criteria for application of the new Article 27.20 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
Source: advgazeta.ru