Article 145. Unreasonable refusal to hire or unjustified dismissal of a pregnant woman or a woman with children under three years of age

ST 145 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Unreasonable refusal to hire or unjustified dismissal of a woman on the grounds of her pregnancy, as well as unjustified refusal to hire or unjustified dismissal from work of a woman who has children under three years of age, for these reasons - is punishable by a fine of up to two hundred thousand rubles. or in the amount of wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to eighteen months, or by compulsory work for a period of up to three hundred and sixty hours.

Commentary to Art. 145 Criminal Code

1. The victim is a pregnant woman or a woman who has at least one child under the age of three.

2. The objective side is characterized by an unjustified refusal to conclude an employment contract with the victim or an unjustified termination of the employment contract with the victim. Refusal to conclude an employment contract and termination of an employment contract with the victim become unjustified when they are caused by reasons related to pregnancy or the presence of a child under three years of age, and not other considerations of the employer.

Criminal liability under Art. 145 of the Criminal Code is not excluded in the case where the dismissal of a woman (termination of an employment contract) occurs not on the initiative of the employer, but by agreement of the parties, the initiative of the employee or other circumstances known to labor law, however, all these circumstances are artificially created by a person who does not want to have employee a pregnant woman or a woman with a child under three years of age.

3. Special subject: an individual who is an employer, or an individual authorized on behalf of a legal entity to enter into and terminate an employment contract.

How investigators report

The amounts owed to employees by the managers of Vostochny's contracting organizations are not record-breaking. According to the Investigative Committee, the Novosibirsk Design Institute did not pay its employees 15.7 million rubles for the year, the management of Dormash CJSC in the Oryol region owed employees 34 million rubles for ten months of 2015, the debt of JSC Service-VS (engaged in ground handling of aircraft in Vnukovo) for three months of 2015 - 77 million rubles. And this data is only for December 2015.

In general, in December, employees of the Investigative Committee reported on criminal cases under Article 145.1 almost every day. Only according to the press service of the Investigative Committee, which reports not on all, but only on the most high-profile cases, in the last month of 2015, 14 criminal cases were opened for non-payment of wages, the investigation of three criminal cases was completed and sentences were passed in three more criminal cases. Two entrepreneurs, from Murmansk and from Chuvashia (they owed employees 2 million and 1 million rubles, respectively), were sentenced to fines of 100 thousand rubles. The managers of the Golubino tourist complex in the Arkhangelsk region, who failed to pay 20 subordinates 1 million rubles, were found guilty by the court, but were given an amnesty.

In just 12 months of 2015, the press service of the Investigative Committee reported on 87 criminal cases under Article 145.1, initiated in different regions of Russia.

Second commentary to Art. 145 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

1. The object of the crime is the constitutional right to the protection of motherhood and childhood, which, in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, must be ensured by the state (Article 38 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).

2. The objective side is the unjustified refusal to hire or unjustified dismissal from work of a pregnant woman or a woman with children under three years of age.

The crime is completed from the moment of refusal to hire or dismissal from work.

3. The subject of the crime is an official, as well as a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization, enjoying the right to hire and dismiss from work.

4. Subjective side - guilt in the form of direct intent. The motive for the crime was reluctance to employ a pregnant woman or a woman with children under three years of age.

How defaulters are judged

The judicial department at the Supreme Court has not yet published summary statistics for 2015, but judging by the data from the first half of the year and previous years, investigators report in detail on literally every second case of non-payment of wages.

In the first six months of 2015 in Russia, only 59 people were brought to trial under Article 145.1. Six were tried for actions provided for in Part 1 (partial non-payment, punishment - a fine or imprisonment for up to a year), 53 people were accused under Part 2 (complete non-payment of wages, punishment - up to three years in prison). No one was convicted under Part 3—non-payment of wages or benefits resulting in grave consequences.

The most common punishment is a fine. Of the six people convicted under Part 1 of Article 145.1, two people were fined up to 100 thousand rubles; one person received a suspended sentence; the court found two guilty but granted amnesty; no punishment was given to one. Of the 53 sentences under Part 2 of Article 145.1, 35 dealt with fines (two were ordered to pay up to 25 thousand rubles to the state, 16 people - up to 100 thousand rubles, 17 convicted - up to 300 thousand rubles, one - up to a million rubles). One of those convicted under Part 2 received a suspended sentence, 15 people were amnestied, and two more were not sentenced. There have been no acquittals under Article 145.1 in Russian courts.

According to the texts of court decisions for 2015, contained in the Rospravosudie database, trials under this article often take place in a special order, and the defendants admit guilt. The motive for committing a crime sounds like “selfish or personal interest.” The general director of the Kirov enterprise “Vyatka-Mebel” did not pay salaries to employees, but regularly paid himself, and also “raised his personal authority in front of his friends, creating the appearance of successful activity of the enterprise.” The founder of VolTech LLC owed money to the workers, preferring to pay his business partners on time: “in order to establish and maintain personal connections and friendly relations with contractors, wanting to maintain his high social status as the head of the enterprise.” The head of a construction company from the Volgograd region paid off his loan debts instead of paying employees. The director of a construction company from Tyumen did not pay the chief accountant, but he paid off contractors and gave himself interest-free loans.

Compared to the first half of 2014, the number of people convicted of non-payment of wages has hardly increased: in the first six months of 2014, 51 people were sentenced under this article. In total, 126 people were sentenced under Parts 1 and 2 of Article 145.1 of the Criminal Code in 2014. Two more were acquitted.

No one was convicted for part 3. The use of such qualifications is hampered by legislative uncertainty: there is no list of grave consequences arising from non-payment of wages either in the Criminal Code or in other legal acts. “In this case, the court will determine the severity of the consequences in each specific case. In our opinion, such consequences may include, in particular, death, harm to health, suicide (attempted suicide) of the victim and his dependents,” writes lawyer A.V. in the journal “Accountant’s Time”. Kononenko.

“Serious consequences can be interpreted as either significant damage caused to each individual employee, if we are talking about a particularly large amount, or some irreparable consequences, such as death, health problems, suicide. But such consequences still occur extremely rarely,” says lawyer Vladimir Zherebenkov.

In 2013, one sentence was passed under Part 3 of Article 145.1 of the Criminal Code—non-payment of wages with grave consequences—and the defaulter was given a suspended sentence. In total, 164 people were sentenced under Article 145.1 in 2013. In not a single case in all these years has a conviction been associated with actual imprisonment.

Third commentary to Article 145 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

1. The direct object of the crime in question is social relations that ensure the right to work of a pregnant woman and a woman with children under three years of age.

2. The objective side of the crime is characterized by an act (action or inaction) in the following forms: a) unjustified refusal to hire or unjustified dismissal of a pregnant woman; b) unjustified refusal to hire or unjustified dismissal from work of a woman who has children under three years of age. Illegal actions that contradict labor laws and that actually violate the equality of citizens based on gender should be considered unreasonable. The corpus delicti of this crime is formal, i.e. the act is considered criminal regardless of the occurrence of any harmful consequences and is considered completed at the time of the commission of illegal actions.

3. This is a special composition in relation to the corpus delicti provided for in Art. 136 of the Criminal Code. The crime is considered completed at the moment of refusal or when a dismissal order is issued. The duration of pregnancy does not matter, but the perpetrator must know for sure that the woman is pregnant.

4. A crime can only be committed with direct intent. The subject is aware that he is unreasonably (illegally) refusing to hire or dismissing a woman who he knows is pregnant or has children under the age of three, and wishes to act in this way. A mandatory feature is the motive specified in the law - reluctance to employ a pregnant woman or a mother with children under three years of age.

5. The subject of the crime is only special - either an official who exercises the right to hire or fire, or a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization.
If selfish motives or other personal interest are established in the actions of these persons, then an ideal set of crimes is evident (Articles 145 and 201 or 285 of the Criminal Code). ‹Article 144.1. Unreasonable refusal to hire or unjustified dismissal of a person who has reached pre-retirement ageUp Article 145.1. Non-payment of wages, pensions, scholarships, benefits and other payments ›

Bringing employers to criminal liability for non-payment of wages: analysis of legal disputes

As everyone knows, today’s money is much more expensive than tomorrow’s, and even more so the money that will be in a week, two months, and, of course, money that in the end will never be.

In accordance with the definition given in Art. 129 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, wages are remuneration for work. The right of every employee to timely receipt of wages is enshrined in Art. 2 Labor Code of the Russian Federation. One of the basic principles of regulating labor relations is to ensure the right of every employee to timely and full payment of wages that ensure a decent human existence for himself and his family, and not lower than the minimum wage established by federal law.

Every person needs wages for existence. The social danger of such a crime as non-payment of wages lies in the violation of the constitutional right to remuneration for work. Failure to pay wages on time is a crime against the interests of workers.

The head of an organization, leaving a person without a livelihood through non-payment of wages, commits a crime against the person as an individual and against the legislation established in the Russian Federation. We would like to note that especially frequent cases of non-payment of wages are observed in commercial organizations. This circumstance is mainly due to the following reasons: solving current financial problems at the expense of employee salaries, making a profit from temporary investment of funds, etc.

By non-payment we understand both a delay in the payment of wages for reasons that do not depend on the employer, and the direct intention of the employer to leave the employee without wages under various pretexts. For heads of organizations that violate labor legislation regarding non-payment of wages to employees, administrative, criminal and financial liability is provided. In our opinion, the topic of criminal liability for non-payment of wages is relevant, since the failure of an employee to receive money that he honestly earned is a flagrant violation of the labor rights of workers.

The regulation of criminal liability for non-payment of wages is entrusted to Art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Since January 7, 2011, a new version of Art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation:

1. Responsibility for partial non-payment of wages (clause 1 of Article 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

In case of partial non-payment (less than half of the amount) of wages for more than three months, committed out of selfish or personal interest. The subject of the crime is the head of the organization, the employer - an individual, the head of a branch, representative office or other separate structural unit of the organization.

Punishment: - a fine in the amount of up to one hundred twenty thousand rubles, or in the amount of wages, or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to one year, - or deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of up to one year, - or forced labor for for a term of up to two years, or imprisonment for a term of up to one year.

Innovation in the new edition:

In the previous version of Art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation did not provide for liability for partial non-payment of wages.

2. Responsibility for complete non-payment of wages (clause 2 of Article 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

In case of complete non-payment of wages for more than two months, as well as payment of wages for more than two months in an amount below the minimum wage established by federal law, committed out of selfish or other personal interest.

The subject of the crime is the head of the organization, the employer - an individual, the head of a branch, representative office or other separate structural unit of the organization.

Punishment:

• a fine in the amount of one hundred thousand to five hundred thousand rubles, or in the amount of wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to three years,
• or forced labor for a period of up to three years with or without deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of up to three years,
• or imprisonment for a term of up to three years with or without deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years.

Innovation in the new edition:

• The culprit can now be the head of a branch, representative office or other structural unit;
• The legislator has toughened the punishment under this part of the article;
• The legislator also provided for liability for payment of wages below the minimum wage.

Clause 2 of Art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation now also establishes criminal liability for the payment of wages in an amount below the established minimum wage for more than two months. From January 1, 2013, the minimum wage is 5,205 rubles per month (Federal Law of June 19, 2000 No. 82-FZ “On the minimum wage”).

3. The acts listed above that resulted in grave consequences (clause 3 of Article 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

Punishment:

• a fine in the amount of two hundred thousand to five hundred thousand rubles or in the amount of wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of one to three years,
• or imprisonment for a term of two to five years with or without deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to five years.

Innovations in the new edition:

The legislator has tightened the punishment under this part of the article.

The subject of a crime under Art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, there can only be a strictly defined person - the head of an organization, branch, representative office, other separate structural unit of the organization or an employer - an individual.

The following criminal case is indicative of this legal position. Thus, K. M. Presnov, by the verdict of the magistrate of court district No. 123 of the Ryazansky district, which was subsequently left unchanged by the decision of the judge of the Kuzminsky District Court of Moscow, was convicted under Part 1 of Art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to a fine of 80,000 rubles to the state.

The essence of the criminal case: K. M. Presnov, working on the basis of an employment contract as Deputy General Director of LLC <...>, exercised management of the LLC <...> on the basis of power of attorney 99 IP 7036016 and did not pay wages to the company's employees.

Defender K. M. Presnov filed a cassation appeal. The judicial panel of the cassation instance did not agree with the guilty verdict and terminated the criminal case on the basis of paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation due to the lack of corpus delicti. According to the charter of LLC <...> (clause 7.7) as amended during the period of the acts incriminated against Presnov, the sole executive body of the company is the general director. Under such circumstances, only the person who was the general director of the LLC <...>, or the person performing his duties, could be held criminally liable for the acts specified in the plot of the charges brought against Presnov. There is no evidence that Presnov was the general director of the LLC <...> or performed his duties in the verdict of the magistrate and in the decision of the judge of the appellate court. The indication in judicial acts that Presnov “exercised management of the LLC <...> in accordance with the charter and in accordance with power of attorney 99 IP 7036016” is not only not confirmed by any of the evidence given in the verdict, but is actually refuted by the charter of the company, according to which, as noted above, the head of the company was only its general director, as well as the text of the power of attorney, which does not contain any information about the appointment of Presnov as acting general director. (Cassation ruling of the Investigative Committee on criminal cases of the Moscow City Court dated December 27, 2010 No. 22-16358)

One should completely agree with these conclusions of the cassation court, since in accordance with Art. 273 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the head of an organization is recognized as an individual who, in accordance with this Code, other federal laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, laws and other regulatory legal acts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, regulatory legal acts of local government bodies, constituent documents of a legal entity (organization) and in accordance with local regulations, manages this organization, including performing the functions of its sole executive body. Therefore, under the circumstances stated above, Presnov cannot be recognized as the subject of a crime.

If the head of an organization does not pay off wage arrears to employees using funds received by the company, but directs these funds to economic needs, then in this case the latter is the subject of a crime and is subject to criminal liability.

Thus, K.G. was found guilty of the fact that he, being the head of the organization, out of selfish and other personal interests, committed non-payment of more than two months of wages and was convicted under Part 1 of Art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to a fine of 120,000 rubles

The essence of the criminal case: K.G., being the head of the organization and knowing about the existence of arrears to employees for the payment of wages for more than two months, deliberately did not pay them wages, although he had a real opportunity to do so, these circumstances of the criminal case are not denied by the convicted person, who claims that he was forced not to pay wages to the company's employees, but to direct money to economic needs so that the enterprise could continue economic activities with the aim of making a profit in the future.

K.G. does not agree with the verdict, since he believes that his act lacks the obligatory element of a crime - mercenary or other personal interest, believes that the court unreasonably did not take into account his testimony that the non-payment of wages to employees was a temporary phenomenon, caused by the economic crisis, as well as the fact that he acted in the interests of the enterprise and did not take advantage of the additional benefits entitled to him under the employment contract; he himself received wages with delays and not in full.

The court, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal, was guided by the following: K.G., in violation of the order established by Part 2 of Art. 855 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, bypassing the current accounts of his organization, directed funds from accounts receivable to settle accounts with creditors, and also initiated bill settlements between debtors and the company. K.G. himself does not deny that, despite non-payment of wages to employees, he himself continued to receive wages and income from participation in the OJSC <...>, which is confirmed by statements of cash flows on his personal accounts. (Murmansk Regional Court cassation ruling dated May 15, 2012 No. 22-1178)

If the relationship was not labor, but other civil law, the head of the organization is not subject to criminal liability under Art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Regarding this legal position, we would like to note the following criminal case. Thus, A. A. Boltansky and R. I. Legostaev appealed to the Izmailovsky District Court of Moscow with a complaint, in which they asked to recognize as illegal and unfounded the investigator’s decision, in which the applicants were refused to initiate a criminal case against O. for Art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. By the decision of the judge of the Izmailovsky District Court of Moscow, the complaint of A. A. Boltansky and R. I. Legostaev was left unsatisfied. The latter filed a cassation appeal. The cassation court, refusing to satisfy the complaint, noted the following: the investigator, as a result of the inspection, established that A. A. Boltansky and R. I. Legostaev were not on the staff of the organization headed by O. Therefore, questions about the collection of remuneration for work or services , performed by them in accordance with the terms of the relevant civil law relations, are subject to resolution in civil proceedings. (Cassation ruling of the Investigative Committee on criminal cases of the Moscow City Court dated April 2, 2012 No. 22-4335/12)

Bringing the head of an organization to administrative liability for non-payment of wages is not an obstacle to bringing the latter to criminal liability under Art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Thus, after an inspection, the investigator issued a decision to initiate a criminal case against S.A.I. on the grounds of a crime under Part 1 of Art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The reason and basis for initiating a criminal case was the information obtained during the documentary check, which was recognized by the investigator as sufficient to initiate a criminal case.

Applicant S.A.I. did not agree with this decision and is appealing this decision of the investigator in court on the grounds that the applicant had previously been brought to administrative responsibility for late payment of wages, and also considers the act committed to be insignificant. However, the arguments presented by the applicant were found unfounded by the court. (Cassation ruling of the Investigative Committee on criminal cases of the Moscow City Court dated November 10, 2010 No. 22-14454/10)

Disposition Art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for criminal liability if there is a specific deadline within which wages must be paid.

Thus, the preliminary investigation body accuses A.V. Ledovsky of not paying each of the 78 employees of the enterprise wages for more than two months, namely for September, October, November 2008, out of other personal interests.

The magistrate returned in accordance with Art. 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the prosecutor filed a criminal case against A.V. Ledovsky, since the charge does not contain indications of the specific days on which wages were to be paid.

Deputy Prosecutor of the South-Eastern Administrative District of Moscow A.E. Osipenkov filed an appeal against the magistrate’s decision. It raised the question of canceling the magistrate's decision due to the erroneousness of his conclusion that there were obstacles to the court's consideration of the criminal case.

The appellate court reviewed the submission and rejected it. The court indicated that the disposition of Art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for liability for non-payment of wages, and the crime is completed after two months from the date of non-payment of wages. The absence of a specific deadline in the charge against A. V. Ledovsky, within which he must pay wages, deprives the court of the opportunity to verify the validity of the charge and render a lawful and reasonable verdict.

The state prosecutor, in a cassation submission, requests the cancellation of the decision of the appellate court. The submission indicates that his conclusion about the existence of an obstacle to the consideration of the case by the court is erroneous, since A.V. Ledovsky is accused of committing a single ongoing crime.

However, the cassation court supported the position of the appellate court, leaving the latter's ruling unchanged. Additionally noting that the absence of a specific period within which the salary must be paid when describing the criminal act provided for in Art. 145.1 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, of which A.V. Ledovsky is accused, was reasonably regarded by the magistrate and the appellate court as an obstacle to the consideration of the criminal case due to the vagueness of the accusation. (Cassation ruling of the Investigative Committee on criminal cases of the Moscow City Court dated November 22, 2010 No. 22-14951/10)

One should agree with these conclusions of the court, since without a specific deadline for the payment of wages it is impossible to understand on what day the employer became obligated to pay wages and when the two months during which the non-payment of wages is charged expired.

Federal Law No. 382-FZ of December 23, 2010 disposition art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was supplemented with a rule providing for liability for partial non-payment of wages, however, a criminal law that worsens the position of the perpetrator does not have retroactive effect, and employers who partially did not pay wages for more than three months are not subject to criminal prosecution.

Thus, by the verdict of the Purovsky District Court dated February 7, 2011, K. was convicted under Part 1 of Art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 203-FZ of July 24, 2007) to a fine of 100,000 rubles.

However, the judicial panel came to the conclusion that it was necessary to cancel the sentence under Part 1 of Art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the following reasons. K. was found guilty and sentenced for partial nonpayment of wages, that is, for actions that were not criminal during the commission of the crime accused of K.

The above contradicts Art. Art. 9 and 10 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, therefore, by the cassation ruling dated April 28, 2011, the verdict regarding the conviction of K. under Part 1 of Art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was repealed, the criminal case on this fact was sent for a new trial. (Review of the practice of consideration by the court of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District of criminal cases in cassation and supervisory procedures for 6 months of 2011, approved by the resolution of the Presidium of the Court of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District dated July 6, 2011)

One should completely agree with these conclusions of the court, since, according to Art. Art. 9 and 10 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, crime and punishability of an act are determined by the criminal law in force at the time the act was committed, and a criminal law establishing the criminality of an act, increasing punishment or otherwise worsening the situation of a person, does not have retroactive force.

In addition, it should be noted that the criminal law does not provide for the possibility of qualifying the actions of the perpetrator according to the disposition of one version of the article of the criminal law, and assigning punishment based on the sanction of the same article of the criminal law in another version.

To summarize, we note the following

The difficulty of bringing to criminal liability an employer who does not pay wages is proving the mandatory features contained in the disposition of Art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - selfish motive or personal interest, without which the initiation of a criminal case under Art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is impossible. From the theory of criminal law, personal interest represents the desire for career growth and getting rid of unwanted employees. Selfish motive is a person’s desire for property gain, solving current financial problems at the expense of wages, obtaining profit from the temporary investment of specified funds. If the general director sends the money received by the organization to his account without paying wages, the crime is obvious.

However, what to do in the next case?! For example, the head of an enterprise does not pay wages, and directs the funds received by the company to fulfill agreements/government contracts, purchase goods for resale at a premium, purchase equipment for the purpose of keeping the organization afloat, avoiding the economic collapse of the organization, and then intends to be used not only to pay wages, but also to develop the enterprise.

In our opinion, these actions of the head of the organization are criminally punishable, since the manager, as noted earlier, leaves his employee without a livelihood, and the latter may have his own problems - a mortgage, a car loan, a large family and much more. In this case, in our opinion, in order to solve the problem that has arisen, the manager needs to have an emergency reserve (emergency reserve) in the form of separate funds, through which the latter can satisfy both the employee and keep the company afloat, and protect it from economic collapse. Without thereby infringing on the interests of the employee.

Further, we would like to note that this article is not “dead” - criminal cases are actively initiated under it, and in some cases the most severe punishment is applied - imprisonment. Therefore, salary payment deadlines must be taken seriously. Directive of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation dated November 14, 2008 No. 229/7r obliged lower-level prosecutors to strengthen supervision over compliance with the constitutional rights of citizens to timely and full payment of wages. Among other things, a demand was expressed to initiate the application of criminal law measures against managers and officials who do not pay remuneration for work for more than two months.

It is also necessary not to forget about complicity. Thus, the financial director or chief accountant, carrying out certain actions to withdraw funds that could have been paid to employees to other accounts, can be involved as an accomplice.

At the end of this article, we would like to note the following: according to the innovations introduced by Federal Law No. 382-FZ of December 23, 2010 in Art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation:

• the list of culprits has been expanded - now they can be recognized as the heads of a branch, representative office or other separate structural unit of the organization;
• the elements of the crime have been changed - not only complete non-payment of wages is criminal, but also partial non-payment, as well as payment in an amount below the minimum wage;
• penalties have been tightened compared to the previous version.

In our opinion, these toughenings were introduced absolutely correctly, timely and justified.

List of sources used by the author in preparing this article:

Regulations

• Labor Code of the Russian Federation of December 30, 2001 No. 197-FZ (Labor Code of the Russian Federation)//Access from information and legal support “Garant”.
• Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of June 13, 1996 No. 63-FZ//Access from information and legal support “Garant”.
• Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation of December 18, 2001 No. 174-FZ//Access from information and legal support “Garant”.
• Civil Code of the Russian Federation, part 1 of November 30, 1994 No. 51-FZ, part 2 of January 26, 1996 No. 14-FZ, part 3 of November 26, 2001 No. 146-FZ, part 4 of 18 December 2006 No. 230-FZ//Access from information and legal support “Garant”.
• Federal Law of July 24, 2007 No. 203-FZ “On Amendments to Article 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation” // Access from information and legal support “Garant”.
• Federal Law of December 23, 2010 No. 382-FZ “On Amendments to Article 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation”/Access from information and legal support “Garant”.
• Federal Law of June 19, 2000 No. 82-FZ “On the minimum wage”//Access from information and legal support “Garant”.
• Directive of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation dated November 14, 2008 No. 229/7r “On the organization of prosecutorial supervision in connection with measures taken by the Government of the Russian Federation to improve the situation in the financial and other sectors of the economy” // Access from information and legal support “Garant”.

Arbitrage practice

• Cassation ruling of the Investigative Committee on criminal cases of the Moscow City Court dated November 22, 2010 No. 22-14951/10//Access from information and legal support “Garant”.
• Review of the practice of consideration by the court of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District of criminal cases in cassation and supervisory procedures for 6 months of 2011, approved by the resolution of the presidium of the court of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District dated July 6, 2011 // Access from information and legal support "Garant".
• Cassation ruling of the Investigative Committee on criminal cases of the Moscow City Court dated December 27, 2010 No. 22-16358 // Access from information and legal support “Garant”.
• Cassation ruling of the Investigative Committee on criminal cases of the Moscow City Court dated November 10, 2010 No. 22-14454/10//Access from information and legal support “Garant”.
• Cassation ruling of the Investigative Committee on criminal cases of the Moscow City Court dated April 2, 2012 No. 22-4335/12//Access from information and legal support “Garant”.
• Murmansk Regional Court cassation ruling dated May 15, 2012 No. 22-1178 // Access from the ConsultantPlus legal reference system.