Evasion of loan repayment: art. 177 of the Criminal Code

Today in Russia there are quite a fewbank companies that provide lending services. One of the most pressing problems for these institutions is the existence of debtors. Many of the borrowers shy away from fulfilling their obligations. To help the banking structures was introduced art. 177 of the Criminal Code. Let's consider it in more detail.

Art. 177 of the Criminal Code (new edition)

The article in question provides for punishmentfor malicious evasion of payment of accounts payable. The guilty person (the head of the organization or a citizen) who has accumulated large debts and does not repay them is charged with:

1. Penalty up to 200 thousand rubles. or in the amount of income (w / n) for a period of up to 1.5 years.
2. Mandatory work, up to 480 hours.
3. Up to 2 years in prison.
4. Forced labor, up to 2 years.
5. Arrest for a period of up to six months.

Art. 177 of the Criminal Code with comments

The article in question provides for sanctions formalicious evasion of payment of debts after the entry into force of a judicial decision. In this case, the disposition of the article establishes such a feature as "large size". According to Art. 177 of the Criminal Code is debt, more than 250 thousand rubles. The crime is considered to be formal. When determining the amount of debt, one should rely on the act of the court, which confirms the amount. Debts on various decisions can be summarized. This is allowed in the case when the victim and the guilty are the same. As an act, as a rule, a decision of arbitration or a court of general jurisdiction. Debt, however, can be confirmed by other acts. For example, it could be a court order.

The objective part

It consists in the form of evasion. A number of experts consider it to be identical with the concealment of property in respect of which the penalty may be applied. Some authors consider evasion as an inaction. That is, the perpetrator does not perform those actions that should. However, opponents of this assumption indicate that it does not take into account the possibility of coercive measures. Within the framework of such execution of court decisions, bailiffs have sufficiently wide powers, the implementation of which allows to suppress the inaction of the subject.

Evil

This feature is considered mandatory whenqualification of the crime under art. 177 of the Criminal Code. Some practitioners believe that malice, to some extent, makes it difficult to review the act on the said article. This feature can be determined in many ways. For example, we can admit an analogy with Art. 157, which regulates the punishment for evading payment of incapacitated parents or children. In the practice of applying this norm, malice is considered as a failure to fulfill the obligation, provided there is an opportunity for this after receiving two warnings from bailiffs. A slightly different situation with Art. 177 of the Criminal Code. In this case, you can speak about maliciousness even if there are no warnings. The evaluation character of this feature is indicated by its different interpretation in different normative acts.

The subjective part

Signs of this side of the crime causemuch less discussion than objective. Responsibility under art. 177 of the Criminal Code takes place if the guilty party has a direct intent. This means that the debtor intentionally hides his income, does not want to repay the debt consciously. Prove the existence of direct intent is easy in the legal concealment of their property. This is due to the fact that the conclusion of alleged treaties clearly demonstrates the awareness of the danger of behavior and the desire to commit unlawful acts. Often debtors pay small sums to hide their intentions. However, this method does not help when the bank sends the case to court.

Guilty person

In Art. 177 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the subject is a citizen or the head of an enterprise. When qualifying a crime under the article in question, there is the possibility of applying punishment to the actual, and not the nominal director. The procedure for prosecuting company executives is designed for crimes in the tax sphere. In the event that the actual director of the debtor company leaves it and opens a new one, occupying the same position, begins to make a profit, but does not pay the loan, we can talk about the qualification of such behavior for the article in question.

Complicity

It is rarely considered incomments to art. 177 of the Criminal Code. In the opinion of a number of authors, in the evasion of debt repayment, the distribution of roles is quite often. The accomplices are, in particular, persons who enter into fictitious contracts, on the basis of which they subsequently allegedly acquire property. During the investigation of a crime, therefore, it is necessary to take into account not only the behavior of the debtor himself, but also of other entities.

Attempted

It should also be considered within the framework of theproceedings of an act falling under Art. 177. For example, a debtor does not want to keep funds from paying his labor to pay off the obligation. To prevent this deduction, he agrees with the employer about the unofficial payment of his salary. Let's say that after a couple of months this fact becomes known. In this case, there is no malicious evasion in a large amount, but the actions that are aimed at this have already begun, but have not been fully implemented. 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.