Illegal and inappropriate use of budget funds. Review of arbitration practice

03.04.2019

By virtue of Art. 306.4 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, misuse of budget funds is recognized as the direction of budget funds of the budget system of the Russian Federation and the payment of monetary obligations for purposes that do not fully or partially correspond to the goals determined by the law (decision) on the budget, the consolidated budget list, the budget list, the budget estimate, the contract (agreement) or another document that is the legal basis for the provision of these funds. According to the Ministry of Finance, expressed in Letter No. 02-09-08/24851 dated April 25, 2017, unlawful expenditure of budget funds should include actions (inactions) that contradict the requirements of generally binding state regulations of a permanent or temporary nature, designed for repeated use, regulating budgetary legal relations . In this publication, we will consider several court decisions related to disputes regarding the classification of identified violations as misuse and misuse of funds.

Misuse of budget funds when organizing events

Subject of dispute. The Resolution of the AS VSO dated January 23, 2019 No. A74-2693/2018 considered the dispute between the Khakass Customs (hereinafter referred to as the institution) and the Federal Treasury Department for the Republic of Khakassia (hereinafter referred to as the control body). During the inspection, the control body found that the institution violated Art. 70 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, expressed in the unlawful expenditure of federal budget funds to pay for services for organizing and holding ceremonial events (celebration of Customs Officer’s Day) in the amount of 35,000 rubles. Disagreeing with the conclusions of the control body, the institution went to court.

The court's position. Considering the controversial situation, the court proceeded from the following.

In accordance with Art. 70 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, ensuring the fulfillment of the functions of government institutions includes remuneration of employees of government institutions, monetary support (monetary remuneration, monetary allowance, wages) of employees of government bodies (state bodies), local governments, persons holding government positions in the Russian Federation, government positions of constituent entities Russian Federation and municipal positions, state and municipal employees, other categories of employees, travel and other payments in accordance with employment contracts (service contracts, contracts) and the legislation of the Russian Federation, the legislation of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipal legal acts; procurement of goods, works, services to meet state (municipal) needs; payment of taxes, fees and other obligatory payments to the budget system of the Russian Federation; compensation for damage caused by a government institution in the course of its activities.

The concept of “illegal expenditure of budget funds” is not defined by the Budget Code. Consequently, when classifying actions (inaction) of participants in the budget process as unlawful expenditure of budget funds, one should proceed from the generally accepted practice in legal practice of recognizing actions (inaction) as unlawful if they contradict the requirements of legal norms.

According to the Resolution of the State Duma of the Russian Federation dated November 11, 1996 No. 781-II GD “On appeal to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation,” a legal norm is usually understood as a generally binding state order of a permanent or temporary nature, designed for repeated use. The position of the Ministry of Finance on this issue is expressed in Letter dated April 25, 2017 No. 02-09-08/24851.

From these norms we can conclude that illegal spending means spending budget funds in violation of current legislation, that is, the term “wrongful spending” is synonymous with the term “illegal use of funds.” These violations include, in particular:

– making advance payments in excess of the established amount; – use of budget funds without confirmation by supporting documents; – overpayments and improper payments of wages (salary, allowance); – excess expenses (except for overpayments and improper payments of wages (salary, allowance); – other violations.

In accordance with the Instructions on the procedure for applying the budget classification of the Russian Federation, approved by Order of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation dated July 1, 2013 No. 65n (as amended in force during the controversial period), expenses under Article 226 “Other expenses, services” of KOSGU and code of the type of expenses of the classification of budget expenses 244 “Other purchases of goods, works and services to meet state (municipal) needs” did not include expenses for holding cultural events and other special events.

At the same time, the approximate list of expenses given in this article indicates the need for their connection with the functions of the institution for which it was created. At the same time, when assessing the nature of the costs incurred for holding events to celebrate Customs Officer's Day, the courts did not see such a connection.

Please note: In this case, the expenditure of federal budget funds on celebrations does not comply with current legislation.

Payment of canteen workers using subsidies

Subject of dispute. The Resolution of the AS VSO dated February 14, 2019 No. A58-4308/2017 considered the dispute between the State Educational Institution of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) “Yakut Industrial College” (hereinafter referred to as the institution) and the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) (hereinafter referred to as the control body). During the inspection, the control body found that the staffing table in the institution provided for eight staff positions for canteen workers (production manager, four cooks, two dishwashers, a cleaning lady). According to the control body, the institution misused subsidy funds for government tasks, which was expressed in the direction of these funds:

– for remuneration of canteen workers not related to the provision of public services and performing functions not related to the main activities of the institution; – to compensate for the cost of travel and baggage transportation to and from the place of vacation use for canteen workers not related to the provision of public services and engaged in activities not related to the main activities of the institution; – for bonuses for canteen workers performing functions not related to the main activities of the institution.

Disagreeing with the conclusions of the control body, the institution went to court.

The court's position. Considering the controversial situation, the court proceeded from the following.

By virtue of Art. 38 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, the targeted nature of budget funds means that budget allocations and limits on budget obligations are communicated to specific recipients of budget funds, indicating the purpose of their use. At the same time, the law (decision) on the budget establishes the distribution of budget allocations for each main manager of budget funds in the context of codes of sections, subsections, target items and types of expenses of the classification of budget expenses, reflecting the directions (goals) of financing budget expenses.

According to Part 1 of Art. 78.1 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation in the budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation, budgetary and autonomous institutions are provided with subsidies for the financial support of their implementation of state (municipal) tasks, calculated taking into account the standard costs for the provision of state (municipal) services to individuals and (or) legal entities and standard maintenance costs state (municipal) property.

In addition, from the budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation, subsidies may be provided to budgetary institutions for other purposes. The procedure for their provision is established by the Government of the Russian Federation, the highest executive body of state power of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, local administration or government bodies authorized by them (state bodies), local government bodies.

Based on Part 1 of Art. 306.4 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, misuse of budget funds is recognized as the direction of budget funds of the budget system of the Russian Federation and the payment of monetary obligations for purposes that do not fully or partially correspond to the goals determined by the law (decision) on the budget, the consolidated budget list, the budget list, the budget estimate, the contract (agreement) or another document that is the legal basis for the provision of these funds.

By virtue of Art. 23 of the Federal Law of December 29, 2012 No. 273-FZ “On Education in the Russian Federation” (hereinafter referred to as the Law on Education), the institution refers to professional educational organizations, which recognize educational organizations that carry out educational activities according to secondary vocational educational programs as the main purpose of their activities. education and (or) vocational training programs. Article 12 of this law establishes that educational programs determine the content of education.

The main educational programs include, inter alia, educational programs of secondary vocational education - training programs for skilled workers, office workers, training programs for mid-level specialists.

The educational institution is guided by federal standards containing requirements for the conditions for the implementation of the main educational program, which consist of requirements for psychological, pedagogical, personnel, logistics, financial and other conditions.

At the same time, according to the court, the above-mentioned federal standards do not provide for the mandatory staffing of educational organizations, along with teaching and other employees, as catering workers.

According to Part 1 of Art. 52 of the Law on Education in educational organizations, along with the positions of teaching staff and researchers, provides for the positions of engineering, technical, administrative, production, educational support, medical and other workers performing auxiliary functions.

Based on the content of the above standards in their systemic unity, it is necessary to include workers performing responsibilities for compliance with sanitary and hygienic standards of educational activities, sanitary and living conditions, including maintenance of equipped wardrobes, as well as compliance with health requirements.

The court came to the conclusion that the educational institution did not have the right, at the expense of the subsidy received from the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation for financial support for the fulfillment of the state task for the provision of public services (performance of work), to pay canteen workers.

According to Part 1 of Art. 37 of the Law on Education, the organization of meals for students is entrusted to organizations carrying out educational activities. Providing meals to students at the expense of budgetary allocations of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation is carried out in cases and in the manner established by the state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation; students studying at the expense of budgetary allocations from local budgets - by local governments.

At the same time, although the organization of meals for students is also included in the protection of their health, the remuneration of workers in the canteen of a secondary vocational educational institution cannot be provided at the expense of subsidies of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation provided for the execution of state assignments, since, by virtue of the direct prescription contained in Art. 37 of the Law on Education, the organization of meals for students is entrusted to organizations carrying out educational activities. Providing meals to students at the expense of budgetary allocations from the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation is carried out in cases and in the manner established by the state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

Within the meaning of Part 2 of Art. 8 of the Law on Education, state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation have the right to additional financial support for catering activities for students, but this is not their responsibility.

Please note: funding for student meals is provided through other funds (own and allocated).

It is necessary to take into account the provisions of SanPiN 2.4.5.2409-08 “Sanitary and epidemiological requirements for the organization of meals for students in general education institutions, institutions of primary and secondary vocational education”, approved by the Resolution of the Chief State Sanitary Doctor of the Russian Federation dated July 23, 2008 No. 45, which establish sanitary and epidemiological requirements to the organization of meals for students in educational institutions, regardless of departmental affiliation and forms of ownership, are mandatory for all legal entities and individual entrepreneurs whose activities are related to the organization and (or) provision of hot meals to students.

From the content of clause 2.1 of SanPiN 2.4.5.2409-08 it follows that meals for students in educational institutions are provided by public catering organizations that carry out activities for the production of culinary products, flour confectionery and bakery products and their sale.

Consequently, financial support for catering activities for students in secondary vocational educational institutions is not the responsibility of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation, since this funding is not directly provided for by the state federal educational standards of secondary vocational education.

Violations of budget legislation and liability for them

1. What is a violation of budget legislation

Such a violation is recognized as an action (inaction) of an institution that contradicts the provisions of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, the federal law (law of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, municipal legal act) on the budget, other federal laws (similar laws at the regional level and municipal acts at the local level) regulating budgetary legal relations ( Article 2 of the BC RF).

According to Art. 306.1 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, a budget violation is recognized as committed by the highest executive body of state power of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation (local administration), financial body, chief administrator (administrator) of budget funds, state (municipal) customer:

1) violation of the provisions of the budget legislation of the Russian Federation and other legal acts regulating budget legal relations;

2) violation of the provisions of legal acts stipulating public regulatory obligations and obligations for other payments to individuals from the budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation, resulting in damage to public legal education;

3) violation of the terms of contracts (agreements) on the provision of funds from the budget;

4) violation of the requirements for planning, justification for the procurement of goods, works, services to meet state (municipal) needs, as well as requirements for change, established by the legislation of the Russian Federation on the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to meet state (municipal) needs, termination of a state (municipal) contract;

5) violation of the terms of state (municipal) contracts;

6) violation of the terms of contracts (agreements) concluded for the purpose of executing contracts (agreements) on the provision of funds from the budget, resulting in damage to public law education;

7) non-compliance with the goals, procedure and conditions for providing loans secured by state and municipal guarantees.

Based on the practice of regulatory authorities, such violations are:

1. misuse of budget funds;
2. misuse of budget funds;
3. ineffective use of budget funds;
4. acceptance of budgetary obligations in amounts exceeding the approved budgetary allocations and (or) LBO (Article 15.15.10 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation);
5. violation of the conditions for the provision of subsidies (Article 15.15.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation);
6. failure to fulfill a state (municipal) task (Article 15.15.5-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation);
7. violation of the requirements for budgetary (accounting) accounting, preparation and presentation of budgetary, accounting (financial) reporting (Article 15.15.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation);
8. violation of the procedure for the formation and presentation (approval) of information (documents) used in the preparation and consideration of draft budgets, as well as in their execution (Article 15.15.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

1.1. What actions of an institution are recognized as unlawful use of budget funds?

Unlawful spending of budget funds should include actions (inaction) that contradict the requirements of budget legislation and other legal regulations governing budgetary legal relations (Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated April 25, 2017 N 02-09-08/24851).

The Federal Treasury defines the misuse of budget funds as payment of monetary obligations in violation (Classifier of violations (risks), approved by the Treasury of Russia on December 19, 2017):

• budgetary legislation of the Russian Federation and other regulations governing budgetary legal relations (with the exception of misuse of budgetary funds);
• legislation of the Russian Federation regulating legal relations arising during the execution of the budget for expenditures;
• documents that are the legal basis for accepting budget obligations (contracts (agreements, agreements) concluded for the purpose of fulfilling contracts (agreements) on the provision of funds from the relevant budget, and state (municipal) contracts).

Based on the practice of regulatory authorities, the following is recognized as unlawful use of budget funds:

• spending subsidy funds for state assignments for purposes not related to the implementation of the state assignment (Submission of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation dated September 30, 2016 N PR 09-230/09-02);
• payment for uncompleted work (unprovided services) (Submission of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation dated December 17, 2015 N PR 09-264/09-04);
• not a transfer of budget funds to the budget, but use for current expenses (Submission of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation dated December 29, 2014 N PR 14-370/14-03);
• carrying out transactions without supporting documents (Decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 12, 2017 No. 302-KG17-169 in case No. A69-19/2016);
• making advance payments in excess of the established amount;
• overpayment of wages.

2. What liability is established for violation of budget legislation?

The following types of liability are established for violation of budget legislation:

1. administrative (clause 3 of article 306.1, clause 7 of article 306.2 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation);
2. criminal (for misuse of budget funds) (clause 3 of article 306.1, clause 7 of article 306.2 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation);
3. in the form of budget coercive measures (clause 1 of Article 306.2 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation).

The application of administrative liability to institutions and (or) their officials depends on the type of violation committed and (or) the type of institution.

Examples of violations for which administrative liability is established for budgetary (autonomous) institutions and (or) their officials

Limitation period for attraction

administrative liability depends on which person (legal or official) is involved:

1. for a legal entity it is two years from the date of commission of the administrative offense (Part 1 of Article 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation);
2. for an official is determined taking into account whether the article provides for administrative punishment in the form of disqualification:

- if yes, then the statute of limitations is no later than one year from the date of commission of the administrative offense (Part 3 of Article 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, Letter of the Treasury of Russia dated October 27, 2017 N 07-04-05/09-826);

- if not provided, then the statute of limitations is two years from the date of commission of the administrative offense (Part 1 of Article 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

2.1. What responsibility is provided for misuse or ineffective spending of budget funds by an institution?

For misuse of budget funds, administrative and criminal liability is established, and budgetary coercive measures are also applied.

Article 15.14 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation provides for liability for misuse of budget funds, which entails the imposition of an administrative fine on officials in the amount of twenty thousand to fifty thousand rubles or disqualification for a period of one to three years; for legal entities - from 5 to 25 percent of the amount of funds received from the budget of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation, used for purposes other than their intended purpose.

Article 285.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation establishes criminal liability for violations of the activities of the public apparatus of power and management in the field of budgetary relations for the misuse of budgetary funds.

The subject of the crime is budgetary funds (budgetary allocations) - funds from budgets of various levels, with the exception of funds from state extra-budgetary funds.

Objective side

The crime under consideration is expressed in the action of spending (spending) budgetary funds for purposes that do not meet the conditions for receiving these budgetary funds, committed on a large scale. The specified conditions are determined by the approved: budget, budget schedule, notice of budget allocations, estimate of income and expenses, or other document that is the basis for receiving budget funds.

For criminal liability to arise, a necessary condition is a large amount of misappropriation of budget funds. In accordance with note. to comment A large-scale article is considered to be an amount of budget funds exceeding 1 million 500 thousand rubles.

Formal corpus delicti

.
The crime is completed
from the moment budget funds are directed to purposes not provided for by the relevant document, i.e. from the moment they are written off from the personal account of a budgetary institution.

Subjective side

crimes are characterized
by direct intent
.

Subject

crime -
special
- an official of the recipient of budget funds who has the right to sign the relevant expenditure documents.

Such acts are punishable by a fine in the amount of one hundred thousand to three hundred thousand rubles or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of one to two years, or by forced labor for a term of up to two 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, or arrest for a term of up to six months, or imprisonment for a term of up to two 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.

Responsibility for ineffective use of budget funds is not established by law. Funds recognized by inspectors as ineffectively used may be required to be reimbursed to the budget based on an order from the supervisory authority. Inspectors also have the right to oblige the institution to eliminate the violation and take measures to prevent ineffective spending of funds (clause 3 of Article 270.2 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation).

3. What budget enforcement measures are applied?

Budget enforcement measures are sanctions that are applied for budget violations.

The Budget Code of the Russian Federation provides for the following budget coercive measures (clause 2 of Article 306.2 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation):

• recovery of funds provided from one budget to another;
• collection of fees for the use of funds provided from one budget to another;
• collection of penalties for late return of budget funds;
• suspension (reduction) of the provision of office labor (with the exception of subventions).

Budget coercive measures can be applied for such actions as (Chapter 30 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation):

• misuse of budget funds (Article 306.4 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation);
• non-repayment or untimely repayment of a budget loan (Article 306.5 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation);
• failure to transfer or untimely transfer of fees for using a budget loan (Article 306.6 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation);
• violation of the conditions for granting a budget loan (Article 306.7 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation).

Along with budget coercive measures, other measures of liability may be applied (clause 7 of Article 306.2 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation).

Purchase of breathalyzers using compulsory medical insurance funds

Subject of dispute. The Resolution of the AS VSO dated January 23, 2019 No. A74-5515/2018 considered the dispute between the State Budgetary Healthcare Institution of the Republic of Khakassia “Montenegrin City Emergency Medical Care Station” (hereinafter referred to as the institution) and the Territorial Compulsory Health Insurance Fund of the Republic of Khakassia (hereinafter referred to as the TFOMS). During the inspection, the control body found that the institution misused compulsory health insurance funds aimed at purchasing a breathalyzer (a professional breathalyzer for quantitatively measuring the concentration of alcohol vapor in exhaled air). Disagreeing with the conclusions of the TFOMS, the institution went to court.

The court's position. Considering the controversial situation, the court proceeded from the following.

According to Art. 15 of the Federal Law of November 29, 2010 No. 326-FZ “On Compulsory Medical Insurance in the Russian Federation” (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 326-FZ), a medical organization carries out its activities in the field of compulsory medical insurance on the basis of an agreement for the provision and payment of medical care under compulsory health insurance.

From the provisions of Part 2 of Art. 28 and part 2 of Art. 39 of Law No. 326-FZ it follows that under an agreement for the provision and payment of medical care under compulsory health insurance, a medical organization undertakes to provide medical care to the insured person within the framework of the territorial compulsory health insurance program, and the insurance medical organization undertakes to pay for medical care provided in accordance with territorial compulsory health insurance program. At the same time, the medical insurance organization sends targeted funds to the medical organization to pay for medical care under contracts for the provision and payment of medical care in the amount and under the conditions established by the territorial compulsory health insurance program.

Clause 5, Part 2, Art. 20 of Law No. 326-FZ establishes the obligation of a medical organization to use compulsory medical insurance funds received for medical care provided in accordance with compulsory medical insurance programs.

By virtue of Part 5 of Art. 26 of Law No. 326-FZ, TFOMS expenses are carried out, among other things, for the purpose of financial support for the implementation of territorial compulsory health insurance programs. Expenditure of funds from TFOMS budgets for other purposes is not provided.

According to clause 158 of the Rules of Compulsory Medical Insurance, approved by Order of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation dated February 28, 2011 No. 158n (hereinafter referred to as Rules No. 158n), the calculation of tariffs includes the costs of a medical organization directly related to the provision of medical care (medical services) and consumed in the process provision, and costs necessary to ensure the activities of the medical organization as a whole, but not consumed directly in the process of providing medical care (medical services).

Costs directly related to the provision of medical care (medical services) include, among other things, labor costs and accruals for wage payments for personnel directly involved in the provision of medical care (medical services); other costs directly related to the provision of medical care (medical services).

Clause 158.2 of Rules No. 158n establishes that costs necessary to ensure the activities of a medical organization as a whole, but not consumed directly in the process of providing medical care (medical services), include costs that cannot be directly attributed to costs directly related to the provision of medical care (medical services).

Based on clause 158.3 of Rules No. 158n, the costs necessary to support the activities of a medical organization as a whole include, in particular, the following cost groups: costs for the purchase of transport services; labor costs and charges for wage payments for employees of medical organizations that are not directly involved in the provision of medical care (medical services) (administrative, administrative, administrative, support and other personnel not directly involved in the provision of medical care (medical services)).

Rules No. 158n do not contain a closed list of employees of medical organizations who are not directly involved in the provision of medical care, but are necessary to ensure the activities of the medical organization as a whole. In each specific case, the question of whether the activity of the relevant employee is necessary to ensure the activities of the medical organization in the implementation of compulsory medical insurance must be considered taking into account all applicable compulsory medical insurance programs and the responsibilities assigned by these programs to medical institutions.

By Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated December 19, 2016 No. 1403, the Program of State Guarantees for the provision of free medical care to citizens for 2021 was approved.

By Decree of the Government of the Republic of Khakassia dated December 29, 2016 No. 655, the Territorial Program of State Guarantees for the provision of free medical care to citizens in the territory of the Republic of Khakassia for 2021 was approved.

At the same time, in both the federal and territorial programs for 2017, the types of free medical care (types of medical services) are differentiated by funding sources: from the federal, regional, local budgets, as well as from compulsory medical insurance funds.

At the same time, the procedures and standards for the provision of medical care within the framework of the compulsory health insurance program do not include driver examination services.

For your information:

the courts came to the conclusion that the institution’s expenses for purchasing a device to determine the level of alcohol in the blood for examining vehicle drivers at the expense of compulsory medical insurance funds are a misuse of funds.

Examples of court decisions.

Let us consider, as examples, several court proceedings, the subject of which was the imposition of a fine on officials of an autonomous institution, and sometimes on the AU itself.

The first case is the bringing to administrative responsibility of the head of an institution for failure to fulfill a state task (a violation identified in 2015, qualified under Article 15.15.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). The official was fined 30,000 rubles, did not agree with the decision of the administrative body and went to court. However, the courts of three instances considered the imposed punishment to be legal. The circumstances of the case are set out in Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 13, 2017 No. 18-AD17-2.

The institution received a state task for 2014, which included the service of providing specialized baby food products to children in the first six months of life from low-income families, and also established the volume of provision of the designated service. By virtue of the agreement on the provision of a subsidy, the state task was considered completed if the actual volume of services provided was at least 85% of the planned volume. However, the report on the completion of the task indicated that the said service was provided in the amount of 11.3%. The administrative body, having identified the failure to fulfill the state task in this part, regarded this as a violation of the terms of the subsidy (Article 15.15.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

The arguments of the official of the institution (fulfillment of the task in this part was made dependent on external factors) remained unheeded, since the judges found that the head of the autonomous enterprise, being aware of the non-fulfillment of the task indicators for the mentioned service, did not contact the founder in the fourth quarter of 2014 for task adjustments. That is, the official did not take measures to prevent the violation.

The second example is fines for violation of the conditions for the provision of budget investments, imposed on both an official and an autonomous institution (resolutions of the Moscow City Court dated May 11, 2017 No. 4a-1652/2017 and No. 4a-1653/2017). The court upheld the decision of the administrative body: by virtue of Art. 15.15.4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the official was rightfully fined 10,000 rubles, and the administrative authority – 1,658,819.6 rubles. (2% of the amount of the received budget investment). The court's conclusions are as follows. The autonomous educational institution of higher education unsatisfactorily exercised the powers of the state customer for the construction of a dormitory transferred by the founder, without complying with the terms of the agreement on the transfer of powers of the state customer (in particular, it did not coordinate its actions with the relevant department of the founding body). The institution did not take all measures within its power to comply with the rules and regulations, for violation of which administrative liability is provided. And the official (Deputy Vice-Rector for Economics, Housekeeping and Construction) improperly fulfilled his duties as enshrined in the employment contract and job description.

Finally, the third case concerns non-compliance with the conditions for the provision of subsidies (or rather, subsidies for other purposes). A fine of 30,000 rubles. was also exposed to an official - the director of an autonomous cultural institution (see Decision of the Moscow City Court dated November 30, 2016 in case No. 7-12751/2016). The director of the institution decided to pay the contractor for services before the actual execution of the contract in full, which was a violation of one of the conditions for the allocation of a targeted subsidy (the agreement on its provision stipulated that payments under the contract made from these funds are made upon the provision of services on the basis of an act their delivery and acceptance). This act constitutes an administrative offense established by paragraph 2 of Art. 15.15.5 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.