Lawyers defended the acquittal of the plant director, who could not pay his employees

Lawyers defended the acquittal of the plant director, who could not pay his employees

On June 1, the Belgorod Regional Court published an appeal ruling dated May 13, 2021, which confirmed the legality, validity and fairness of the acquittal issued against the General Director of the Belgorod Oil Refinery Oleg Mayorov, who was accused of non-payment of wages to employees of the enterprise out of personal interest (Part. 3 Article 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

Oleg Mayorov, as in the first instance, was defended by lawyers of the Belgorod Regional Bar Association Boris Zolotukhin and Alexey Nekhaenko.

The district court acquitted the plant manager

We would like to remind you that Alexey Nekhaenko previously told AG that the investigation was prompted to promptly bring charges by a video message from employees to Vladimir Putin. However, having learned about the detention of the general director, the team came to his defense and recorded a second video message to the head of state. “Citizens said that they asked for assistance in receiving the wages due to them, and not to detain the general director. They argued that Oleg Mayorov, like the entire workforce, is the injured party, and responsibility for non-payment of wages lies with the owners of the enterprise,” the lawyer noted.

In court, the state prosecutor insisted that Oleg Mayorov had a real opportunity to repay the arrears of wages to employees, but did not do so.

Article 145.1. Non-payment of wages, pensions, scholarships, benefits and other payments

Article 145.1. Non-payment of wages, pensions, scholarships, benefits and other payments

[Criminal Code] [Special Part] [Section VII] [Chapter 19]
. Partial non-payment of wages, pensions, scholarships, allowances and other payments established by law for more than three months, committed out of selfish or other personal interest by the head of an organization, an employer - an individual, the head of a branch, representative office or other separate structural unit of an organization -

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

. Complete non-payment of wages, pensions, scholarships, allowances and other payments established by law for more than two months, or 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 by the head of an organization, an employer - an individual , head of a branch, representative office or other separate structural unit of the organization, -

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

. Acts provided for in parts one or two of this article, if they entailed grave consequences -

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

Notes. 1. In this article, partial non-payment of wages, pensions, scholarships, benefits and other payments established by law means payment in the amount of less than half of the amount payable.

. A person who has committed a crime for the first time, provided for in parts one or two of this article, is released from criminal liability if, within two months from the date of initiation of the criminal case, he has fully repaid the debt in payment of wages, pensions, scholarships, allowances and other payments established by law, and also paid interest (paid monetary compensation) in the manner determined by the legislation of the Russian Federation, and if his actions do not contain another crime.

Another comment on Art. 145 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

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 of the Russian Federation is not excluded in the case when the dismissal of a woman (termination of an employment contract) occurs not at 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 as an 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.

Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated December 25, 2018 No. 46

Protection of everyone's rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation to privacy, personal and family secrets (Part 1 of Article 23), to the privacy of correspondence, telephone conversations, postal, telegraph and other messages (Part 2 of Article 23), inviolability of home (Article 25), as well as the right to remuneration for work without any discrimination and not lower than the minimum wage established by federal law (Part 3 of Article 37), to state support for family, motherhood, paternity and childhood, disabled people and elderly citizens (Part 2 of Article 7, part 1 of Article 38) is ensured, inter alia, by establishing criminal liability for violation of these rights in the norms of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

In order to ensure uniform application by courts of legislation on liability for crimes provided for in Articles 137, 138, 138.1, 139, 144.1, 145, 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, guided by Article 126 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Articles 2 and 5 of the Federal Constitutional Law of February 5, 2014 No. 3-FKZ “On the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation”, decides to provide the following clarifications:

1. Draw the attention of the courts to the fact that in accordance with parts and Article 137 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), criminal liability arises for the collection or dissemination of information about the private life of a person, constituting his personal or family secret, without his consent with the absence of those provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and other federal laws (in particular, dated August 12, 1995 No. 144-FZ “On operational investigative activities”, dated February 7, 2011 No. 3-FZ “On Police”, dated November 21 2011 No. 323-FZ “On the fundamentals of protecting the health of citizens in the Russian Federation”) grounds for obtaining, using, and providing information about the private life of citizens without their consent.

2. When deciding whether a person’s actions contain the elements of a crime provided for by part or article 137 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court must establish whether it was his intention that information about the private life of a citizen should be kept secret.

Taking into account the provisions of these norms of criminal law in their interrelation with the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 152.2 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the collection or dissemination of such information in state, public or other public interests, as well as in cases where information about the private life of a citizen previously became publicly available or were made public by the citizen himself or at his will.

3. The collection of information about the private life of a person is understood as deliberate actions consisting of obtaining this information in any way, for example, through personal observation, listening, interviewing other persons, including recording information by audio, video, photographic means, copying documented information, as well as by stealing or otherwise acquiring them.

Dissemination of information about a person’s private life consists of communicating (disclosing) it to one or more persons orally, in writing or in any other form and in any way (in particular, by transmitting materials or posting information using information and telecommunication networks, including the Internet ").

4. When considering criminal cases of a crime under Article 138 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, courts should keep in mind that the secrecy of correspondence, telephone conversations, postal, telegraph or other messages is considered violated when access to correspondence, negotiations, messages is made without the consent of the person whose secret they constitute, in the absence of legal grounds for limiting the constitutional right of citizens to the privacy of correspondence, telephone conversations, postal, telegraph and other messages.

A violation of the secrecy of telephone conversations is, in particular, illegal access to information about incoming and outgoing connection signals between subscribers or subscriber devices of communication users (date, time, duration of connections, subscriber numbers, other data that allows identifying subscribers).

Illegal access to the content of correspondence, negotiations, messages may consist of familiarization with the text and (or) materials of correspondence, messages, listening to telephone conversations, audio messages, copying them, recording them using various technical devices, etc.

5. In Article 138 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, other messages should be understood as messages from citizens transmitted over electrical communication networks, for example, CMC and MMS messages, fax messages transmitted via the Internet, instant messages, emails, video calls, as well as messages sent by other means.

6. According to Article 138 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, illegal actions that violate the secrecy of correspondence, telephone conversations, postal, telegraph or other messages of specific persons or an indefinite number of persons are subject to qualification if they are committed with direct intent. In this case, liability under this article occurs regardless of whether the information transmitted in correspondence, negotiations, messages constitutes a personal or family secret of the citizen or not.

7. Criminal liability under Article 138.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the illegal production, acquisition and (or) sale of special technical means intended for secretly obtaining information occurs in cases where these actions are committed in violation of the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation (for example, Federal laws from August 12, 1995 No. 144-FZ “On operational investigative activities”, dated May 4, 2011 No. 99-FZ “On licensing of certain types of activities”, Resolutions of the Government of the Russian Federation dated July 1, 1996 No. 770, dated March 10, 2000 No. 214, dated April 12, 2012 No. 287) without an appropriate license and not for the purposes of the activities of bodies authorized to carry out operational investigative activities.

8. Within the meaning of the law, technical devices (smartphones, voice recorders, video recorders, etc.) can be recognized as special technical means only if they are deliberately given new qualities and properties through technical modification, programming or other means, allowing them to be used secretly receive information.

In cases where special knowledge is required to establish that a technical device is one of the means intended (developed, adapted, programmed) for secretly obtaining information, the court must have the appropriate conclusions of a specialist or expert.

9. Explain to the courts that participation in itself in the illegal trafficking of special technical means cannot indicate a person’s guilt in committing a crime under Article 138.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, if his intent was not aimed at the acquisition and (or) sale of precisely such means (for example , a person, through a publicly available Internet resource, acquired a special technical device advertised as a device for household use, being conscientiously misled about its actual purpose).

The actions of a person who purchased a device intended for secretly obtaining information with the intention of using, for example, for the purpose of ensuring personal safety, the safety of family members, including children, the safety of property or for the purpose of tracking animals cannot be qualified under Article 138.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. and did not intend to use it as a means of encroaching on the constitutional rights of citizens.

10. Draw the attention of the courts to the fact that Article 139 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for criminal liability for entry into a home committed against the will of the person living in it, in the absence of those provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and other federal laws (in particular, Article 15 of the Federal Law dated February 7, 2011 No. 3-FZ “On the Police”, part of Article 3 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, paragraphs 5, 6 of part 1 of Article 64 of the Federal Law of October 2, 2007 No. 229-FZ “On Enforcement Proceedings”) grounds for limiting constitutional right to inviolability of home.

11. In accordance with the provisions of Article 139 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, criminal liability under this article entails illegal entry into an individual residential building with its residential and non-residential premises (for example, a veranda, attic, built-in garage); to residential premises, regardless of the form of ownership, included in the housing stock and suitable for permanent or temporary residence (apartment, room, office premises, residential premises in a dormitory, etc.); to another premises or building that is not part of the housing stock, but intended for temporary residence (apartments, garden house, etc.).

At the same time, illegal entry cannot be qualified under this article, in particular, into premises, buildings, structurally separate from an individual residential building (barn, bathhouse, garage, etc.), if they were not specially adapted and equipped for living ; to premises intended only for temporary stay, and not for living in them (train compartment, ship cabin, etc.).

12. Within the meaning of Article 139 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, illegal entry into a home can take place without entering it, but with the use of technical or other means, when such means are used to violate the inviolability of the home (for example, to illegally install a listening device or video surveillance device) .

13. Taking into account the fact that criminal liability for violation of the inviolability of the home occurs in the case when the perpetrator illegally enters the home, realizing that he is acting against the will of the person living in it, entry into the home committed by deception or abuse of trust is qualified under article 139 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The actions of a person who is in a dwelling with the consent of the person living in it, but who refuses to comply with the requirement to leave it, do not constitute this crime.

14. Courts must keep in mind that when illegally entering a home, the intent of the perpetrator must be aimed at violating the right of citizens living in it to their inviolability. When deciding whether a person has such intent, one should proceed from the totality of all the circumstances of the case, including the presence and nature of his relationship with the citizens living in the premises or building, the method of entry, and others.

15. The actions of the perpetrator can be qualified under Part 2 of Article 139 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation if violence or the threat of its use was committed at the time of the invasion of the premises or immediately after it in order to implement the intent to illegally enter the home.

16. Draw the attention of the courts to the fact that criminal liability under Articles 144.1, 145 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for an unreasonable refusal to hire or unjustified dismissal of a person who has reached the pre-retirement age specified in the note to Article 144.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as a woman who is known to be pregnant or having children under the age of 3 years (mother, female adoptive parent, female guardian or foster mother raising one or more children under the age of 3 years), occurs only in cases where the employer was guided by a discriminatory motive related, respectively, to the person’s achievement pre-retirement age, pregnancy of the woman or the presence of children under the age of 3 years.

If the employment contract with the employee was terminated on his initiative, but there is evidence in the case that the employer forced the employee to submit a resignation letter of his own free will precisely in connection with his pre-retirement age, the woman’s pregnancy or the woman’s presence of children under the age of 3 years, such actions also form a crime under Article 144.1 or 145 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, respectively.

17. Non-payment of wages, pensions, scholarships, allowances and other payments established by law partially (in the case when for more than three months in a row payments were made in the amount of less than half of the amount payable) or their non-payment in full (when for more than two months in a row payments were not made or the amount payment of wages was lower than the minimum wage established simultaneously throughout the entire territory of the Russian Federation by federal law) is qualified accordingly under Part 1 or Part 2 of Article 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation only when the specified acts are committed intentionally, out of selfish or other personal interest.

In this regard, the circumstances to be proven and giving grounds for criminal liability under Article 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of the head of an organization or another person specified in this article should include whether he has a real financial ability to pay wages, other payments or the absence of such an opportunity due to his illegal actions.

18. Courts should keep in mind that criminal liability in accordance with Article 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation arises, among other things, in cases of non-payment of wages and other payments to employees with whom an employment contract was not concluded or was not properly executed, but they started work with the knowledge or on behalf of the employer or his authorized representative (Article 16 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

19. For the purposes of Article 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the period of formation of arrears in payments to an employee must be calculated based on the terms of payment of wages established by the internal labor regulations of the organization, a collective agreement, an employment contract, as well as from the time during which wages were not actually paid in full or partially. In this case, the two-month or three-month period for delayed payments is calculated from the day following the established payment date. Periods of non-payment for individual months of the year cannot be summed up to exceed two or three months if they were interrupted by periods for which payments were made.

20. The statute of limitations for criminal prosecution for committing a crime under Article 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is calculated from the moment of its actual completion, in particular from the date of repayment of the debt, dismissal of the guilty person or his temporary removal from office. The dismissal of an employee who has not been paid wages does not affect the calculation of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution of the employer.

21. Non-payment of wages to the same employees or to different employees, partially for more than three months and in full for more than two months, if the act was covered by the single intent of the perpetrator, is qualified only under Part 2 of Article 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and all signs of the act must be given in a descriptive parts of the conviction.

In other cases, non-payment of wages partially and completely forms a set of crimes provided for in parts 1 and 2 of Article 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

22. In each criminal case of crimes against the constitutional rights and freedoms of man and citizen, the court must check whether there are grounds for releasing the perpetrators from criminal liability.

Criminal cases of crimes provided for in part of Article 137, part of Article 138, part of Article 139, Article 145 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation belong to the category of cases of private-public prosecution and, in accordance with part of Article 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, are not subject to mandatory termination due to with reconciliation between the victim and the accused. At the same time, in the cases provided for in Article 76 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, if a person for the first time committed such a crime, which is a crime of minor gravity, reconciled with the victim and made amends for the harm caused to him, then the court has the right, based on the statement of the victim, to terminate the criminal case against this person.

23. Courts, when considering criminal cases for crimes provided for in Chapter 19 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, should respond to violations of the rights and freedoms of citizens guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, as well as other violations of the law by issuing private rulings or resolutions to relevant organizations and officials for them to take the necessary measures (Part 4 of Article 29 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation V. Lebedev

Secretary of the Plenum, Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation V. Momotov

Commentary on Article 145 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

1. The social danger of a crime lies in the violation of the right to freely dispose of one’s ability to work (Article 37 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation), equality of citizens before the law and the court (Article 19 of the Constitution), guarantees of protection of motherhood and childhood (Article 38 of the Constitution). Unreasonable refusal to conclude an employment contract is prohibited. Any direct or indirect restriction of rights or the establishment of direct or indirect advantages when concluding an employment contract depending on gender, race, skin color, nationality, language, origin, property, social and official status, place of residence (including the presence or lack of registration at the place of residence or stay), as well as other circumstances not related to the business qualities of employees, are not allowed, except in cases provided for by federal law. It is prohibited to refuse to conclude an employment contract to women for reasons related to pregnancy or the presence of children (see Article 64 of the Labor Code).

The article under comment consists of one part, which provides for socially dangerous acts that fall into the category of crimes of minor gravity.

1.1. The main object of the criminal attack is social relations arising regarding the exercise by pregnant women and women with children under three years of age of the constitutional right to work. An optional object may be the honor and dignity of a woman.

2. The objective side of the crime is expressed in the unjustified refusal to hire or unjustified dismissal from work of a pregnant woman or a woman with children under the age of three <1>. ——————————— <1> It is enough for a woman to have at least one child under three years of age. Note scientific ed.

2.1. A refusal to hire a pregnant woman or a woman with children under three years of age is unjustified if the employer announced the hiring of workers and at the same time refused to conclude an employment contract for a pregnant woman or a woman with children under three years of age, which, in terms of its business qualities, legally established requirements and criteria, corresponds to the proposed work.

2.2. The dismissal of a pregnant woman at the initiative of the employer is unjustified in all cases, with the exception of the liquidation of the organization (see Part 1 of Article 261 of the Labor Code).

If a fixed-term employment contract expires, the dismissal of a pregnant woman at the initiative of the employer is unjustified if it is carried out before the pregnant woman has the right to maternity leave (Part 2 of Article 261 of the Labor Code).

The dismissal of a woman with children under three years of age at the initiative of the employer is unjustified in cases where such dismissal was not carried out on the grounds provided for in clause 1, sub-clause. “a” clause 3, clause 5 - 8, 10 and 11 art. 81 of the Labor Code (see Part 3 of Article 261 of the Labor Code).

3. The corpus delicti is formal in design. The crime is completed (by the elements) at the moment of committing the actions specified in the disposition of the comment. articles.

4. From the subjective side, the crime is characterized by guilt in the form of direct intent. A mandatory feature of the subjective side is motive. Penalty for an unreasonable refusal to hire or unjustified dismissal from work of a pregnant woman or a woman with children under three years of age occurs only if these acts were committed due to the woman’s pregnancy or the presence of children under three years of age. .

5. A special subject of a criminal attack is the person who makes the decision to conclude an employment contract.