Evasion of mandatory delivery for refining or mandatory sale to the state of precious metals or precious stones extracted from the subsoil, obtained from secondary raw materials, as well as recovered and found, if this act is committed on a large scale -
shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of up to two hundred thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to eighteen months, or by forced labor for a term of up to five years, or by arrest for a term of up to six months, or by imprisonment for a term of up to five years.
The note is no longer valid. — Federal Law of December 8, 2003 N 162-FZ.
- Article 191.1. Acquisition, storage, transportation, processing for marketing purposes or sale of knowingly illegally harvested wood
- Article 193. Evasion of obligations to repatriate funds in foreign currency or the currency of the Russian Federation
Commentary to Art. 192 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
The object of the crime is the established procedure for the delivery of precious metals or precious stones.
According to Art. 20 of the Federal Law of March 26, 1998 N 41-FZ “On Precious Metals and Precious Stones”, mined and produced precious metals, with the exception of their nuggets, after the necessary processing must be sent for refining to special organizations. The list of such enterprises, as well as the procedure for their operation, is approved by the Government of the Russian Federation. The owners of precious metals after refining are the organizations engaged in their extraction, unless otherwise provided by regulatory legal acts.
———————————
RG. 1998. 27 Aug.
Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of August 17, 1998 N 972 “On approval of the operating procedure of organizations engaged in refining of precious metals, and the list of organizations that have the right to carry out refining of precious metals” // RG. 1998. 27 Aug.
Refining of precious metals is the process of purifying extracted precious metals from impurities and related components, bringing precious metals to a quality that meets state standards and technical specifications in force in the Russian Federation, or international standards (Article 1 of the said Law).
In accordance with Part 5 of Art. 2 and Art. 20 of the Federal Law of March 26, 1998 N 41-FZ “On Precious Metals and Precious Stones” the following mined and produced values are offered by the owners to a special federal government body and a government body of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation for acquisition on a priority basis: 1) refined precious metals in standard form; 2) nuggets of precious metals not subject to refining; 3) unique nuggets of precious metals; 4) sorted precious stones; 5) unique gems.
———————————
Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of September 22, 1999 N 1068 “On the procedure and criteria for classifying nuggets of precious metals and precious stones as unique” // RG. 1999. 22 Oct.
Such a preemptive right is necessary for the state in order to replenish the State Fund of Precious Metals and Precious Stones of the Russian Federation, the gold reserves of the Russian Federation, and state funds of precious metals and precious stones of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. When it is sold by the state, organizations engaged in the extraction and production of these valuables are obliged to sell them.
———————————
Some experts believe that violation of the priority order for the sale of valuables constitutes a crime under Art. 191 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. See: Lopashenko P.A. Crimes in the economic sphere: author's commentary on the criminal law (Section VIII of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). M., 2006. P. 563.
The subject of the crime is precious metals and precious stones (see commentary to Article 191 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
In accordance with the disposition of Art. 192 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, valuables must be extracted from the subsoil (by developing deposits), obtained from secondary raw materials (by processing scrap and waste of precious metals and precious stones), and also raised or found (by detecting nuggets of precious metals and precious stones) by organizations carrying out its activities on the basis of permits (licenses).
The objective side of the crime is expressed in inaction - evasion of mandatory delivery for refining or mandatory sale to the state of precious metals or precious stones, consequences in the form of a large amount, causation.
Evasion of the mandatory delivery of precious metals for refining means their failure to provide them to refining organizations.
Evasion of compulsory sale means failure to conclude a purchase and sale agreement for precious metals or precious stones with specially authorized executive authorities in cases established by the current legislation of the Russian Federation.
The act is completed at the moment of expiration of the period for fulfilling the corresponding obligation on a large scale. The corpus delicti is formal.
In accordance with the note to Art. 169 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a large amount of evasion is understood as the cost of precious metals and precious stones exceeding two hundred and fifty thousand rubles (see commentary to Article 191 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
Evasion from the mandatory delivery for refining or sale of precious metals or precious stones, associated with their illegal trafficking, is qualified in conjunction with Art. 191 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The obligation to submit precious metals or precious stones for refining or sale to the state does not apply to persons mining or producing valuables without an appropriate license. These actions are criminally punishable under Art. 171 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for liability for illegal business. The subsequent circulation of these items forms the totality of Art. 171 from Art. 191 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Failure to deliver precious metals or precious stones for refining and their subsequent theft are additionally qualified under Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The subjective side is characterized by guilt in the form of direct intent. The person is aware that he is violating the rules for refining or selling precious metals and precious stones to the state on a large scale, and wishes to do so.
The general subject of the crime is a sane individual who has reached the age of sixteen, including the head of an organization engaged in the extraction and production of precious metals and precious stones, the head of an artel of prospectors.
Article 192. Disciplinary sanctions
Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 27, 2002 N 241pv02 Article 192 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation provides that for committing a disciplinary offense, that is, failure or improper performance by an employee through his fault of the work duties assigned to him, the employer has the right to apply the following disciplinary sanctions: reprimand; rebuke;
Explanations of the High Qualification Board of Judges of the Russian Federation dated July 15 - 18, 2002
30. In accordance with Article 192 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, disciplinary sanctions are applied by the employer to the employee for failure to perform or improper performance by the employee through his fault of the labor duties assigned to him. Disciplinary sanctions may be imposed on judges by the qualification boards of judges for committing disciplinary offenses expressed in violation of the norms of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation” (as amended on December 15, 2001), as well as the provisions of the Code of Judicial Ethics.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated June 26, 2003 N 241-O
ARTICLE 192 OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, composed of Chairman V.D. Zorkin, judges N.S. Bondar, G.A. Gadzhieva, Yu.M. Danilova, L.M. Zharkova, G.A. Zhilina, S.M. Kazantseva, M.I. Cleandrova, A.L. Kononova, L.O. Krasavchikova, V.O. Luchina, Yu.D. Rudkina, N.V. Selezneva, V.G. Strekozova, O.S. Khokhryakova, B.S. Ebzeeva, V.G. Yaroslavtseva,
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated June 24, 2008 N 335-О-О
In his complaint to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, A.I. Kulapin challenges the constitutionality of part three of Article 192 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, which defines the grounds for which dismissal is a disciplinary sanction. According to the applicant, the absence in this list of the grounds provided for in paragraph 13 of part one of Article of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not correspond to Articles 1 (part 1), 2, 15 (part 1), 17, 18, 19 (parts 1 and 2) and 55 (part 3) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
Review of judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 28, 2008
At the same time, Art. 15 of Federal Law No. 59-FZ of May 2, 2006 “On the procedure for considering appeals from citizens of the Russian Federation” (hereinafter referred to as Federal Law No. 59-FZ) provides that persons guilty of violating this Federal Law bear responsibility under the legislation of the Russian Federation . However, the current legislation of the Russian Federation does not establish administrative liability for violation of the deadline and procedure for responding to citizens’ appeals. For failure to perform or improper performance of his job duties, an employee may be subject to disciplinary liability on the basis of Art. 192 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated December 25, 2008 N 860-О-О
2.2. Part three of Article 193 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, establishing a one-month period for applying a disciplinary sanction, limits the employer’s right to bring employees to disciplinary liability to a certain period and is aimed at protecting the rights of the employee. This norm is subject to application in relation to any employee and any representative body of employees if it is necessary to take into account his opinion regarding the application of a disciplinary sanction to the employee in cases provided for by law, collective agreement, agreement (Articles 41, 46, part two of Article 82 and part three of Article 192 of the Labor Code Code of the Russian Federation). Consequently, part three of Article 193 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation cannot be considered as violating the principle of equality of human rights and freedoms.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated April 22, 2010 N 614-О-О
In his complaints to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, V.M. Rubanov asks that Articles 2, 4 (part 1), 15 (parts 1 and 4), 17, 18, 19 (parts 1 and 2), 21 (part 1), 37 (parts 2 and 3), 46 (part 1), 47, 50 (parts 1 and 2), 52, 53, 54 (part 1), 55 (parts 1 and 2), 120 and 123 (part 3) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, paragraph 1 of article 10, articles 15, 150 , 151, paragraphs 2 and 5 of Article 152, Articles 1100, 1101 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 5 of part one of Article 23, Article 24, 39, part three of Article 45, part two of Article 61, part one of Article 194, parts three and four of Article 198, paragraph five of Article 215, paragraph four of Article 217, paragraph three of Article 328, paragraphs 1 and 2 of part one of Article 362, articles 381, 393, 397 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, paragraph 4 of part one of Article 33, article 121.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, part second article, articles 192, 193, 232, 233, 238, 242, 246, 247, 373, 390, 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, parts two and five of article 20, part one of article 318 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 11, 2008 in case No. 20-B07-25
By order of the head of the Caspian Border Department of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation No. ... dated August 8, 2006, the employment contract with him was terminated, he was dismissed on the basis of Articles 192 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, as having failed to complete the probationary period. He considers this order illegal, since the offense charged against him, which became the subject of an official investigation, he could not be brought to disciplinary liability.
Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 2, 2005 N 74-G05-1
Other types of disciplinary sanctions in accordance with Art. 192 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation can only be provided for by federal laws, charters and regulations on the discipline of certain categories of workers. And according to Art. The Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the adoption of federal laws and other regulatory legal acts that are mandatory for application throughout the Russian Federation, establishing types of disciplinary sanctions and the procedure for their application, falls under the jurisdiction of federal government bodies in the field of labor relations and other relations directly related to them.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated April 23, 2013 N 675-O
ARTICLE 192 OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, composed of Chairman V.D. Zorkin, judges K.V. Aranovsky, A.I. Boytsova, N.S. Bondarya, Yu.M. Danilova, L.M. Zharkova, G.A. Zhilina, S.M. Kazantseva, M.I. Cleandrova, S.D. Knyazeva, A.N. Kokotova, L.O. Krasavchikova, S.P. Mavrina, N.V. Melnikova, Yu.D. Rudkina, N.V. Selezneva, O.S. Khokhryakova,
Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 28, 2013 N 5-КГ13-51
Novikova E.A. filed a lawsuit against individual entrepreneur Yariy A.A. about changing the date of hiring, changing the wording of the grounds for dismissal, collecting wages for the period of forced absence, restoring violated rights in wages, compensation for moral damage, citing the fact that from October 6, 2010 she worked for the defendant in the position of .... On July 30, 2011, the plaintiff was fired for absenteeism with reference to Article 192 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. With the dismissal of Novikov E.A. I do not agree, because I believed that I did not commit absenteeism. The plaintiff asked to oblige the defendant to change the date of employment to October 6, 2010, to recognize the dismissal as illegal, to change the date of dismissal from July 30, 2011 to the day of the court decision, to change the wording of the reason for dismissal to voluntary dismissal, to pay the average salary for the period of forced absence from July 30, 2011, wage arrears in the amount of ... rub., compensation for unused vacation in the amount of ... rub., interest for delayed payment of funds in the amount of ... rub., compensation for moral damage in the amount of ... rub.
Judicial practice under Article 192 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 3, 2019 N 4-APU19-30
following the verdict of the Ualikhanovsky District Court of the North Kazakhstan Region of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated October 8, 2015. Borisov was found guilty of the fact that on August 19, 2015 in the village Kishkenekol, Ualikhanovsky district, North Kazakhstan region of the Republic of Kazakhstan, acting in a preliminary conspiracy with another person, he illegally entered a residential building, where, using violence dangerous to life and health, he committed a robbery against the victims P. and B., taking possession of their money in the amount of 30,000 and 3,600 tenge. For committing these actions, Borisov was convicted under paragraphs 1, 3, part 2 of Art. 192 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 5 years of imprisonment with serving the sentence in a general regime correctional colony, with confiscation of property, but the sentence was not fully served, since on the basis of the decision of the Kokshetau City Court of the Akmola Region of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated May 22, 2021, he was on parole released for unserved term of 2 years 2 months 26 days. Subsequently, Borisov hid from the control of the specialized authorities of the Republic of Kazakhstan, in connection with which, according to the decision of the Ualikhanovsky District Court of the North Kazakhstan Region of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated September 28, 2021, his parole was canceled, based on a court decision, a preventive measure was chosen against him in the form detention and he is wanted.
