Misappropriation and embezzlement of someone else's property and funds Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

One of the types of crimes against property is the misappropriation and embezzlement of entrusted property, described in Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. They are in many ways reminiscent of theft, but differ in the subject composition. After all, those who perform their labor and official duties are involved in the act.

American writer and entrepreneur Napoleon Hill said: “Honesty is the only thing for which no worthy substitute has been found.” And indeed, when an employee does not deceive anyone, treats with respect not only the employer, but also his property, he receives the same attitude in return. Promotion up the career ladder is also possible.

In this material, misappropriation and embezzlement are comprehensively analyzed from the perspective of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In addition, you can study answers to the most common questions and some examples from recent judicial practice. The logical conclusion will be practical recommendations.

Qualification of the crime “Misappropriation or embezzlement”

The type of theft in question is included in Chapter 21 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation under the title “Crimes against property.” It is no coincidence that the legislator put it together with such offenses as robbery along with extortion, robbery and theft. After all, appropriation and waste are also considered an encroachment on the property of others.

The next article in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation appeared in 2003. It is formulated clearly, there are also clarifications from the Supreme Court, but the investigation still faces procedural difficulties.

Statistics from the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation for 2021 indicate that embezzlement or embezzlement is in 8th place on the list of crimes. This is 0.7% of all criminal offenses committed.

A total of 12,337 episodes were registered, of which 10,949 were solved. This suggests that there are some obstacles in the investigation of the remaining 1.9% of crimes in the category under consideration.

Subjects and composition

As already noted, embezzlement or embezzlement refers to types of illegal acquisition of property of other owners. That is, the victim is deprived of property legally owned.

General signs of theft:

the attacker uses the stolen goods himself or transfers them to a third party;
the object of encroachment belongs to a legal or natural person;
Illegal methods are used to acquire property;
the injured party suffers material damage.

The above list is exhaustive and applies to all crimes against property. In specific offenses, of course, there are individual characteristics that distinguish one act from another.

Assignment (characteristic)

Paragraph 24 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 30, 2017 No. 48 (hereinafter referred to as Resolution No. 48) describes what is considered misappropriation. So, this is a free, committed solely for selfish motives, unlawful use by a person of received property in his own favor against the will of the owner. This is considered to be the one that is in the employee’s possession due to the performance of official duties.

Situation. An illegal act by a security guard who takes away several boxes of goods at night when no one is there. And in the morning he declares that there was a theft in a store. Here there is appropriation, namely the theft of someone else's property entrusted to the culprit.

Or the driver is tasked with delivering the cargo to the client. He has access to the product, the opportunity to take part of it. Although in essence, this is the property of the employer.

Waste (characteristic)

The definition of this act is contained in paragraph 24 of Resolution No. 48. Embezzlement is the actions of a criminal who, for his own benefit, used the property entrusted to him against the will of the owner by consuming, selling or transferring it to third parties.

Situation. It’s not easy for the driver to keep the cargo received for delivery and also sell it. Accordingly, he takes the proceeds for himself, and the company remains at a loss, and even gets problems with the counterparty, who found himself without the required quantity of goods.

Important circumstance! The attacker must have a duty to supervise the property entrusted to him. Otherwise, his actions are regarded as theft.

When a criminal steals from a company without being an employee or there is no clause on financial liability in his employment contract, then he is prosecuted under Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. After all, the main feature of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is the right granted to the employee to use the entrusted assets of the organization.

Object of encroachment

The object of a crime in criminal law is the element of social relations towards which the attacker’s attacks are directed. In the case of theft, this is the property of third parties; the situation is similar with misappropriation along with embezzlement.

There must be a trusting relationship between the attacker and the victim. After all, the latter himself transfers property and money to complete the assigned tasks.

Real reality . When renovating an apartment, the customer gave the contractor 600 thousand rubles so that he could buy the material in the store. However, the product cost 30 thousand rubles less because there was a discount. The seller gave the change, and the construction company employee decided to keep it. Here, too, it is permissible to talk about appropriation.

The subject of the crime in the misappropriation and embezzlement of entrusted property

The subject will be considered a person who is already 16 years old. Additionally, the citizen is granted a special right.

Property is entrusted or transferred to a person due to official duties or an agreement between individuals. Moreover, the agreement can be oral or written.

The sanity of the person who committed illegal actions with property is also taken into account. After all, when a person, due to mental problems, does not understand the significance and social danger of his actions, he cannot be held criminally liable.

Judicial practice: sentences and punishment under Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 07/02/2009 N... CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION RULING dated July 2, 2009 N 1037-О-О ABOUT REFUSAL TO ACCEPT A CITIZEN'S COMPLAINT FOR CONSIDERATION...
Appeal ruling of the Board of Appeal... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION APPEAL DECISION dated September 21, 2017 N APL17-372 Appeal Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in...
Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination No. 53-АПУ17-14... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 53-АПУ17-14 APPEAL DECISION Moscow July 25, 2021 Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases...
Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination No. 35-UDP14-5 dated... SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION CASSATION DECISION (in accordance with Chapter 47.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation) No. 35-UDP14-5 Moscow December 4, 2014...
Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PLENARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION dated December 27, 2002 N 29 ON JUDICIAL PRACTICE IN CASES OF THEFT,...
Decision of the Supreme Court: Resolution No. 310P13 dated... DECISION OF THE PRESIDIUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 310-P13 Moscow January 23, 2014 Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation...
Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination N 203-APU17-21... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 203-APU17-21 APPEAL DECISION Moscow August 31, 2021 Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel of the Supreme...
Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases, appeal:... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 72-APU 17-21 APPEAL DECISION Moscow October 04, 2021 Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases...
Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PLENARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION of November 15, 2021 N 48 ON THE PRACTICE OF APPLICATION BY COURTS OF LEGISLATION GOVERNING FEATURES...
Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PRESIDIUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION dated December 5, 2018 N 126-P18 ON RESUMING PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE DUE TO NEW...

What does Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provide for?

The criminal act in question is considered completed from the moment the valuables are disposed of. For example, a criminal sells stolen goods and spends the money received for other purposes.

In this case, the person committing illegal actions must have the intention in advance to carry them out. It is also necessary to understand that the goal is someone else's property.

It also happens that the illegal appropriation of someone else’s property and embezzlement follow each other. Here the punishment is imposed for one act, and not separately, but taking into account the harm caused.

Responsibility under Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Sanctions under Part 1 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is provided for a simple type of misappropriation (embezzlement), without other qualifying components of the crime.

Criminal prosecution occurs when the damage caused exceeds two and a half thousand rubles. Otherwise, administrative punishment is provided under Part 1 or 2 of Art. 7.27 Code of Administrative Offences.

Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation outlines various sanctions. The court retains the right to choose depending on the circumstances of the case and the personality of the defendant.

Possible punishment under Part 1 of Article 160:

fine up to 120,000 rubles;
assignment of compulsory work lasting up to 240 hours;
correctional labor for up to six months;
restriction of freedom for up to two years;
forced labor for up to 2 years;
imprisonment for two years.

Separately in Part 2 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation allocates the infliction of significant property damage to the injured citizen. The amount cannot be less than 5,000 rubles, but the financial situation of the victim is also taken into account.

Official status (Part 3 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)

From the point of view of criminal law, the subject is considered special. After all, the criminal commits theft from the legal entity with whom he has an employment relationship.

Indeed, security systems at enterprises are constantly being improved. This concerns not only the protection of property, but also information and the process of internal document flow. However, this still does not stop criminals.

Punishment under Part 3 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation:

fine from 100,000 to 500,000 rubles;
deprivation of the right to engage in relevant activities or hold a position for up to 5 years;
forced labor for up to 5 years with restriction of freedom for up to one and a half years or without the appointment of such;
imprisonment for a period of up to 6 years with a fine of up to 10 thousand rubles with possible restriction of freedom.

Tougher punishment linked to the status of the accused suggests that the legislator wants to highlight the special position of the accused. After all, in essence, they must act in the interests of their organization, and not appropriate its property for personal needs.

Criminal group under Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

The crime in question can be committed not by one, but by several participants. What does this mean?

Part 2 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation talks about the actions of a group of persons within the framework of a preliminary conspiracy. This means that several (more than two) citizens agreed in advance that they would commit theft at work . It is important to note that each of them must have a special right to the property received. And also understand the illegality of your actions.

Typical situation . Security guards work in production in shifts. They agreed that they would pick up several car parts at night. After which, the stolen goods are sold and the proceeds are divided among everyone. Such actions are fraught with imprisonment for 5 years with a possible one-year restriction of freedom.

The subject of a crime from an organized group is its participants. And the consequences are provided for in Part 4 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The criminal community is distinguished by persistence, the commission of a number of acts, and a clear distribution of roles within. The punishment is extremely harsh - up to 10 years in prison with a fine of up to 1 million rubles. Additionally, the court may impose a restriction of freedom lasting 2 years.

On an especially large scale (Part 4 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)

Not all defendants decide to commit such a type of theft as embezzlement or embezzlement on an especially large scale. In accordance with Part 4 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation recognizes as such damage caused in the amount of one million rubles and more.

Typically, large amounts are typical for group crimes. But there are episodes that are carried out by one person.

When an enterprise has suffered, the amount of losses is determined according to accounting data. For citizens' property, the current market value of the stolen assets is used for qualification.

Aggravating circumstances

In Art. 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation lists aggravating circumstances. Accordingly, if they are present, the punishment becomes more severe. It's logical. After all, the criminal will need more time to correct himself.

List of aggravating circumstances for misappropriation and embezzlement:

relapse;
committing an act as part of a group (in the presence of a preliminary conspiracy) or a criminal community;
taking an active role;
involving minors or being under the influence of alcohol or drugs;
committing a crime motivated by revenge, in order to conceal another violation of the law;
official position of the attacker.

The list provided cannot be considered exhaustive. It can be supplemented based on a specific situation. With regard to the composition under consideration, the most typical cases are given. All of them provide the court with grounds for a harsher sentence.

High-profile sentences under Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 2010-2013

On December 30, 2010, the Khamovnichesky Court of Moscow found the ex-head of the Menatep MFO Platon Lebedev and the former head of Yukos Oil Company Mikhail Khodorkovsky guilty under Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 174 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation / “legalization / laundering / of funds or other property” / for the theft of about 200 million tons of oil and laundering of proceeds for it. Both received 14 years in a general regime colony. In May 2011, the sentence was reduced to 13 years, and in December 2012 - to 11 years. This was the second sentence to Khodorkovsky and Lebedev - on May 16, 2005, the Meshchansky District Court of Moscow sentenced them to 9 years in prison.

On January 17, 2011, the Kirovsky District Court of Irkutsk found the former deputy head of the administration of the Irkutsk region, Sergei Voronov, and the former acting head of the administration of Irkutsk guilty of embezzlement of 42 million rubles. General Director of the regional State Unitary Enterprise "Road Service of the Irkutsk Region" Viktor Bushuev. Voronov and Bushuev were sentenced under Part 4 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 6 and 5.3 years of imprisonment, respectively, with the sentence served in a general regime correctional colony.

On July 28, 2011, by a verdict of the Kurgan City Court, the director of the Department of State Property and Industrial Policy and the deputy governor of the region, Dmitry Bektimirov, was convicted under Part 4 of Art. 160 and part 2 of Art. 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The court sentenced him to 3 years in a general regime colony with deprivation of the right to hold positions in government and local government for a period of 3 years. His accomplice, former deputy Alexander Kovalchuk, was sentenced to 1.5 years in prison. Director of the State Unitary Enterprise Kurganfarmatsiya Igor Gluzman was fined 300 thousand rubles. As a result of the illegal actions of the official and his accomplices, the State Unitary Enterprise "Kurganpharmacy", whose owner was the Kurgan region, caused damage in the amount of 2.1 million rubles. In addition, in 2005-2008, Bektimirov used his official position to partially reimburse travel expenses for personal foreign trips to Austria, where his wife and son lived, as well as to Latvia, the USA and Sweden.

On August 4, 2011, the Kuntsevsky Court of Moscow sentenced the former prefect of the Southern Administrative District of the capital, Yuri Bulanov, to 3.5 years in prison and a fine of 400 thousand rubles. The court found the official and the other defendants in this case guilty under Part 4 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for theft in the amount of about 17.7 million rubles - embezzlement of funds allocated for major repairs of 189 houses in the Southern Administrative District. In the same case, deputy ex-prefect Vyacheslav Shcherbakov received 3.5 years of imprisonment, businessman Viktor Voevodin - 3.5 years of probation. The court ordered all three defendants to pay more than 17 million rubles to the Moscow government.

On February 7, 2012, the Topchikhinsky District Court of the Altai Territory found the former head of the Federal Treasury Department for the Altai Territory, Sergei Gusev, guilty of theft of funds on an especially large scale / hour. 4 tbsp. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation/ and misuse of budget funds /p. “b” part 2 art. 285.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation/. He was accused of misappropriation and embezzlement of more than 30 million rubles and was sentenced to 3.1 years in prison in a general regime colony and a fine of 30 thousand rubles.

On April 16, 2012, the Lefortovo Court of Moscow sentenced Andrei Zvyagin, the former rector of the Moscow Institute of Public and Corporate Management, to 5.5 years in prison and a fine of 1 million rubles. Together with the chief accountant of the institute, Elena Badalyan, and the vice-president of the capital’s bank, Nailya Sibusheva, he was found guilty of embezzlement of 86.5 million rubles/hour. 4 tbsp. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation/. Badalyan was sentenced to 4 years, Sibusheva - to 3.6 years of suspended imprisonment.

On July 9, 2012, the Zavodskoy District Court of Orel passed a verdict in the case of the former first vice-governor of the Oryol region, Vitaly Kochuev, who built the Lesnoye hotel complex for 18 million rubles at budget expense, and then bought it for 600 thousand rubles. Kochuev was sentenced under Part 4 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 5 years of suspended imprisonment and a fine of 500 thousand rubles. Together with him in the case were the former head of the Oryol Region Property Fund Vladislav Doluda, the ex-head of the regional state property department Oleg Kozlov and the general director of Orel-TISIZ OJSC Sergei Belkin. Doluda and Kozlov were sentenced to 4.5 and 4 years of suspended imprisonment with a fine of 300 thousand rubles each, Belkin was fined 400 thousand rubles.

On August 8, 2012, the Simonovsky Court of Moscow convicted the director of the Obraztsov Puppet Theater Andrei Luchin and his wife Natalya Peshenkova under Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for 5 and 4 years probation. Luchin and Peshenkova were found guilty of embezzling budget funds in the amount of 18.5 million rubles. In addition, Luchin was deprived of the right to hold leadership positions for two years.

On September 17, 2012, the Dorogomilovsky District Court of Moscow sentenced Yuri Privalov, the former head of Fiona Maritime Agencies, a state subsidiary, to 4.5 years in prison in a general regime colony and a fine of 1 million rubles. He was convicted under Part 4 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Part 5 of Art. 33 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation /"complicity in the misappropriation of funds as part of a criminal group"/. Privalov was accused of stealing $67 million as part of an organized group from subsidiaries, as well as from the Novoship enterprise and its subsidiaries. At the request of Russian investigative authorities, Privalov was detained in Switzerland in 2006, and in 2008 extradited to Russia.

On February 26, 2013, the Klimovsky District Court of the Bryansk Region found the head of the Bryansk branch of the Communications Property Support Center of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation Andrey Usok guilty of abuse of office and embezzlement on an especially large scale - more than 44 million rubles and sentenced him to 4.5 years in a general regime colony. In addition, he was banned from holding public office for two years and fined 100 thousand rubles.

On April 22, 2013, the Vasileostrovsky District Court of St. Petersburg issued a verdict in the case of the theft of more than 19 million rubles allocated for the renovation of the main building of the Russian Academy of Arts and Repin’s estate house “Penates”. Head of the capital construction department of the Russian Academy of Arts Andrey Uzun, engineer of the Russian Academy of Arts Irina Ginkel and Roman Svirsky were found guilty of committing crimes under Parts 3, 4, 5 of Art. 33, part 3, 4 art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The court sentenced Uzun to 2 years and 4 months in a general regime colony, Ginkel to 2 years of suspended imprisonment with a probationary period of 2 years and a fine of 250 thousand rubles, and Svirsky to a fine of 1 million rubles.

On April 25, 2013, the Ozersk City Court of the Chelyabinsk Region sentenced the former head of the Ozersk administration Evgeny Tarasov to 4.5 years in a general regime colony and a fine of 900 thousand rubles, and his former deputy Valentin Gunin to 4.3 years in prison and a fine of 600 thousand rubles . They were found guilty of embezzlement of about 22.5 million rubles. Tarasov was accused under Part 3 of Art. 33, part 4 art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Gunin - under Part 5 of Art. 33, part 4 art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. On May 15, the Ozersk City Court convicted four of Tarasov’s accomplices, who were found guilty of embezzlement. The former director of a diversified communal enterprise, Konstantin Novikov, was sentenced to 3.5 years in prison in a general regime colony with a fine of 400 thousand rubles; Deputy head of the Ozersk administration Elena Krylova, as well as Larisa Razenkova and Valery Zuev were each sentenced to 3 years of suspended imprisonment with a fine of 300 thousand rubles.

Difference Art. 160 from other articles of the Criminal Code, similar in composition

All types of theft are similar to each other, because there is an encroachment on someone else’s property. However, in the case of misappropriation or embezzlement, the property was initially entrusted to the perpetrator due to his job duties or official position. Well, then there was an unlawful disposal of it.

When a citizen believes that values belong to him by right, then there is arbitrariness, for which he is charged under Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

So, when an employee is not given a salary, and he decides to take it without permission, not in money, but in manufactured products. That is, in such cases he assumed that he had the right to do so. However, this is against the law.

Most often Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is compared with the misuse of budget funds, liability for which comes under Art. 285.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Meanwhile, the differences are obvious. Let's start with the fact that the objects of crime differ.

In the first case, these are property relations, and in the second, these are the interests of the public service. After all, it is not easy to issue budget funds, but for certain purposes, local government employees distribute them across all areas. Accordingly, the injured party will not be the enterprise, but the state.

Another difference is the benefit from the committed act. In Art. 285.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it is not considered a mandatory feature. And in Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is a prerequisite for prosecution. The attacker must use the stolen property at his own discretion.

Criminal prosecution under Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Having discovered the loss, the head of the organization or company writes a statement to the police about the theft. And only after a large amount of work has been done, it becomes clear that this is not a simple theft. After all, the crime was committed by a person who is responsible for the employer’s property.

The simplest punishment in such cases is dismissal for theft. It is quite possible that the damage will be compensated voluntarily and will not lead to a criminal case, but situations are different.

The investigation is divided into several stages. Below is a brief description of them.

Determining the value of stolen property

For this purpose, an audit is carried out in the company. In parallel, if necessary, the investigator, at the stage of verifying the facts stated in the application, appoints accounting and other types of examinations. Based on their data, the question of the further course of investigative measures is decided.

The study is carried out by persons with special knowledge within a month. That is why investigators take so long to decide whether to initiate a criminal case for misappropriation of someone else’s property and embezzlement or not.

If an attacker has appropriated the property of an individual, then everything is based on the victim’s explanations. And when there are witnesses, testimony is taken from them.

Preliminary investigation under Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

The preliminary investigation in this category of cases begins with the initiation of a criminal case. Most often, during the inspection they already find out the person who committed the crime. Since without determining the damage, it will not be possible to investigate such cases.

When the property of a legal entity has been appropriated, no particular difficulties arise. There are employment contracts and agreements on liability, according to which the employee is obliged to ensure the safety of the organization’s property. Accordingly, the offending employee will answer according to the law.

However, when a case is initiated based on a statement of misappropriation of a citizen’s material assets, the investigator is required to exclude other types of theft. It is additionally clarified how exactly the property or money fell into the hands of the suspect, and whether there are witnesses to the incident. A reservation cannot be ruled out. Therefore, several versions are being worked out.

Preventive measure

It all depends on the severity of the crime and the behavior of the suspect himself. After all, when there are no obstacles to the investigation on his part, a written undertaking not to leave the place is sufficient. It consists of limiting the movement of a citizen. He cannot leave the city without the permission of the investigator and is obliged to come to each of his calls.

However, if an attacker threatens the injured party, tries to hide stolen property, or otherwise tries to obstruct the investigation of a criminal case, he may be placed in a pre-trial detention center. This requires a corresponding court decision.

If, for medical reasons, it is not possible to keep the suspect in custody, then the court has the right to choose house arrest. This preventive measure allows the suspect to live at home, but he is not allowed to communicate with anyone outside or go online. Walks and visits for investigative actions are possible accompanied by police officers.

Punishment by the court under Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

After collecting all the required evidence, the case is sent to court for consideration. The assessment of the criminal act of the accused is based on the materials obtained by the investigation.

Judges also rely on the personality of the citizen who committed the offense. If this happens for the first time and the damage is small, then most likely the punishment will be mild. After all, the correction of such a person, in the opinion of the legislator, occurs quickly.

Often, admission of guilt and repentance for what has been done takes place already during the preliminary investigation. Then the case will be considered in a special manner (Article 314 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

When a crime has many aggravating circumstances, the court will certainly not show leniency.

Let's give an example. The employee decided to take revenge on the manager for the delay in salary, embezzled the company's money, and then spent it on buying a house. If he confirms this fact, the likelihood of imprisonment will increase.

Execution of the sentence

The decision of the court becomes decisive. Each type of punishment represents restrictions established by law for the convicted person. All of them are spelled out in Chapter 9 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The procedure for their execution is established by current legislation. Let's briefly look at the main ones.

When a fine is imposed , bailiffs come into play (Article 103.1 of Federal Law-229). The sentence specifies the period during which the amount will be periodically debited from the bank account to repay the debt. If there is no money, the bailiff imposes a penalty on the property of the convicted person.

Mandatory work . This type of punishment is carried out taking into account the rules of Art. 26 of the Penal Code of the Russian Federation. The types of work are determined by local government bodies together with the criminal-executive inspection.

Punishments in the form of imprisonment are carried out according to the rules of Chapter 11 of the Penal Code of the Russian Federation in correctional institutions of the Russian Federation.

Guilty without guilt or acquitted under Part 3 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Last March, my colleague asked me to help defend his clients - directors of local municipal cultural and educational institutions. These cases suddenly began to grow like mushrooms here in Karelia; apparently, the positive judicial practice at that time leaked into the law enforcement agencies of the republic. The situation was simple: for certain violations (usually in the field of fire safety), the director of a municipal institution was held administratively liable and fined, but subsequently paid it not at his own expense, but at the expense of budget funds. Since we were talking about officials, this was all qualified under Part 3 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The directors willingly took the blame, otherwise they threatened to impose a fine on the legal entity, and then the sanction is such that it can put an end to the institution. It’s also a shame that these violations have existed for a long time, and there has never been money to eliminate them in poor settlements. This is how these directors were punished with enviable regularity. And they continue to punish to this day... Are people to blame for this?

In our area, almost simultaneously, four such cases were initiated, in three of them we defended the suspects: my colleague, lawyer Evgeniy Vladimirovich Kostyaev, and I. At the same time, pre-investigation checks were carried out at three more institutions. At the stage of pre-investigation checks, people, as a rule, wrote confessions, were intimidated and did not know what would happen next, so they willingly cooperated, if you can call it that. In total, there were about 30 municipal institutions where the same facts were revealed, and in the case of convictions in “pioneer cases” the picture seemed very unfavorable...

During the preliminary investigation, all defense tactics boiled down to denial of guilt, refusal to testify, and moderately active use of their procedural rights. They tried to convince us in every way that it was useless to fight, they would condemn them anyway, there is 100% positive practice in Russia, and so on.

Since the courts of the first and second instances did not pay much attention to the procedural violations committed during the preliminary investigation, I will not focus on this.

So, one of the cases was finally sent to court - in relation to B.I.A... Following this, with an interval of a week, the second was filed - in relation to B.E.V. B.I.A. was accused of committing six counts of embezzlement, B.E.V. - committing two embezzlements.

Since such cases had not been considered in our court before, we felt a certain caution, or rather wariness of the judge towards the actions and issues of the defense, especially since it was clear from the case materials that we did not agree with the prosecution, and there could be no talk of any confession . By the time of the trial, I managed to find on the Internet a number of acquittals in a similar category of cases (namely, about fines paid from the budget), as well as others, but similar in situation. Having assessed the motives and reasons for their issuance in conjunction with the actual circumstances of our cases, we decided to focus on them in the course of examining the evidence.

The main aspects of the defense were: 1) the insignificance of the crime; 2) the absence in the actions of the defendants of the main signs of theft - illegality of seizure of property; 3) the absence of the main sign of misappropriation and embezzlement - entrustment of property and the presence (and not absence) of the owner’s will to embezzle; 4) complete absence of the subjective side of the crime. In support of each of them, there were a couple or three acquittals with cassation rulings. They were planned to be included in the case along with the written speech of the defense in the debate.

The case of B.I.A. was considered first, and during its consideration the victim, witnesses and financial specialist gave testimony, from which the complete absurdity of the accusation already followed. In particular, these testimonies concerned the essence of the expenditure of budgetary funds by municipal institutions on the principle of authorization and agreement with the main manager of these expenses, and also concerned the amount of damage, which in the volume of the annual budget of, say, a settlement was less than 0.13%. Simply put, before stealing budget funds, the director, through an accountant, asked the owner for permission to do this theft, and received it! In principle, it was enough for the investigation to analyze the provisions on the budget process in order to see the true picture of the non-criminal nature of these actions, especially since it was at the stages of its execution that the main evidence of the accusation was collected (payments, cash applications, other accounting waste paper, etc., etc.) .P.). But they needed corruption cases...

In fact, it turned out that the prosecution witnesses, the victim and the specialist sided with the defense. Not that they stood up, but told the court such details that the investigation, for some reason, did not begin to find out. These details concerned the peculiarities of budgetary relations, including in relation to the cases under consideration, as well as the same amount of damage, or rather the absence thereof.

Very quickly the judge and prosecutor realized that it would not be easy to convict. The main thing missing was an admission of guilt. They began to put pressure on us, as if they were silently, unprocedurally warning us that they would condemn us anyway, better confess, then we’ll give you “less than the lowest.” They cited as an example court decisions that had already taken place in neighboring areas with large fines (in one case, the convicted person was fined 200 thousand rubles). Our city is small, and the cases had a certain resonance, and rumors began to spread about us that they say that we (the lawyers) are “close-minded” specialists, we are deliberately delaying the case, thereby only aggravating the situation, and that, they say, we have generally chosen the wrong tactics . We, in turn, hinted at our existing practice and the fact that sentences in other areas were taken in a special manner. At some point, court workers asked us to look at this practice. We agreed to open our cards a little and showed some of these decisions, after which a turning point came in our affairs.

In the case of B.I.A. At the request of the defense, two important pieces of evidence, in my opinion, were excluded—accounting expert opinions. They were excluded due to violations of the procedure for conducting these examinations and the procedure for drawing up expert opinions. Thus, the prosecution was left without special knowledge in the field of accounting. In my opinion, without examinations it was no longer possible to support the accusation. It’s like murder - no forensic investigation, no charges. Is not it?

The protocol of the confrontation was also thrown out, because our client did not give any testimony at all, therefore, there could be no question of the contradictions of this testimony with the testimony of witnesses. But in our investigations they like to consolidate the testimony of “important” witnesses in this way. We were further strengthened. By the way, for some reason there is not a word in the verdict about excluded evidence, although in my opinion, the judge should have indicated this.

The peculiarity of the case B.I.A. It was also that one of the six episodes is an episode of embezzlement for the benefit of a third party. Just the director of B.I.A. allowed to reimburse the payment of the fine to her subordinate, the director of the subordinate cultural center of another village. There was not a single piece of evidence in the case that B.I.A. acted with selfish goals. The indictment also stated (for all six episodes) that the damage was caused to the settlement's budget. I spoke out about this in the debate - it’s the same as taking n rubles out of a wallet, rather than causing damage to the wallet... The investigator redid the decision to bring her as an accused three times exactly. And still a “jamb.”

B.I.A. was acquitted, but only on grounds of insignificance. The judge was afraid to describe all the shortcomings of the prosecution in the verdict. Nevertheless, in the verdict there is, for example, such a blunder: the judge comes to the conclusion that B.I.A. “did not realize the nature of her actions.” That is, she actually writes that she had no intent to steal, but later in the verdict she immediately writes: “formally proven guilty, but due to its insignificance”... Well, it’s nonsense, don’t you agree?

In my objections to the prosecutor’s cassation submissions, I tried to describe all our arguments in order, and it worked - the verdict was not changed, but some of the important conclusions from my objections “migrated” to the ruling.

Case B.E.V. “awaited” cassation under B.I.A. I even had to write a fake petition to postpone the case due to illness (well, the court asked - well, okay, I did). It waited. The verdict in the case of B.E.V. was decided already with an assessment of all the arguments presented by the defense. This case was different from B.I.A. basically two things. First, in the payment documents that were considered by the regulatory authorities when authorizing expenses, it was clearly stated that the fine was payable for B.E.V. (i.e. for an individual), which the controllers could not help but see. In the case of B.I.A. there was no such nuance. Well, secondly: in one of the episodes, the fine was paid to the same budget from which the money for its payment was withdrawn (fine for late registration of a license for educational activities). Thus, funds were withdrawn during one financial year and returned to the budget. It's like transferring money in a wallet from one compartment to another.

It is also important to note that some episodes in such cases were terminated due to the fact that the damage was paid off before the initiation of the case. B.I.A., by the way, really wanted to do this, but having naively asked permission from the police officers, she received the answer - “wait a little”...

The remaining cases did not survive to trial - they were dismissed due to the lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the accused. I don’t know whether there were other cases like this in our republic, but after ours, new ones were definitely not initiated.

All details are in the attached documents. I am publishing it for use in practice and science, I hope our victory will help other colleagues in their difficult task...

PS this victory probably would not have happened if the case law had not been leaked online. Even I had to find it with great difficulty, since, it seems to me, they try not to show these solutions too much.

Added: 11:48 07/02/2015

Read the continuation of this practice in the second and third parts of the article.

Misappropriation and embezzlement: judicial practice

Deciding the fate of the accused is not an easy matter. As a rule, judges agree with the charges brought by the investigation. Sometimes during the proceedings, completely new circumstances are revealed that affect the qualification of the act.

After all, even despite the auxiliary regulations adopted by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, investigators make mistakes. Their correction falls on the shoulders of the prosecutor's office or the court.

The following are several practical examples of the application of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. They have not lost their relevance.

Damage to individuals

Citizen Kozhemyakin deceived two acquaintances and appropriated their money and property. The situation was as follows.

In the first episode, the defendant stole a car, spare parts for it, as well as money that the victim gave to Kozhemyakin to pay for the repair of his vehicle. The accused sold the car parts or sold them for scrap metal, and kept the money for himself. Thus causing significant damage to the victim in the amount of 145,000 rubles.

Kozhemyakin did not stop there. He persuaded a friend to sell her car and offered to help complete the transaction. However, after selling the vehicle, he pocketed the proceeds and disappeared. This caused damage in the amount of 150,000 rubles.

Kozhemyakin admitted guilt in committing the crime, therefore the Abakan City Court of the Republic of Khakassia issued a verdict against him in case No. 1-361/2020 dated May 29, 2020, in which he imposed punishment for committing crimes under Part 2 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The imprisonment was deemed suspended with a probationary period of 3 years. The convicted person was also ordered to compensate the victims for the material damage caused.

Official position

Citizen Serzhantova was the head of the HOA, which, according to the contract, was supposed to ensure the maintenance of the apartment building. To carry out various financial transactions on the account, the accused had an electronic signature of Sberbank PJSC.

With her help, she made a payment order and withdrew money to her card. Then she used them for personal purposes. The defendant admitted guilt and repented of her actions in the courtroom.

In this regard, the Votkinsk District Court of the Udmurt Republic issued a verdict in case No. 1-168/2020 dated May 29, 2020, in which it found Serzhantova guilty of committing a crime under Part 3 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Imprisonment was replaced by a suspended sentence with a probationary period of 1.5 years.

Particularly large size in case of misappropriation of property

Evdugov committed a crime under Part 4 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The case materials establish that the accused was entrusted with the funds transferred to pay for corn belonging to D.

Since the latter did not have a current account, he asked Evdugov for help. According to an oral agreement, he transferred money for grain to his account on behalf of the victim. The accused should have removed them and handed them over to D.

However, Evdugov decided to manage the finances independently. Despite D.’s requests for a refund, he withdrew some amount and transferred the rest to the accounts of his friends and wife. Thus, the accused squandered the funds entrusted to him.

By the verdict of the Tersky District Court of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic in case No. 1-44/2020 dated May 29, 2020, Evdugov was sentenced to three years in prison. A civil claim for compensation for damages was also satisfied.

Repeated crime: misappropriation of funds

Sheshukova was previously convicted under Part 1 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. However, she decided on one more act.

While working in a hardware store, the accused embezzled money. For some time, she misled customers by distorting data on the purchased goods on the cash register, and took the money they gave for herself. Thus, she caused damage to the employer in the amount of 270,000 rubles.

The Kamyshlovsky District Court of the Sverdlovsk Region issued a verdict against Sheshukova in case No. 1-103/2020 dated May 28, 2020, where it found her guilty of committing a crime under Part 3 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

As a result, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for three years with a fine of 10,000 rubles. However, taking into account the woman’s personality, the punishment was considered suspended with a probationary period of 3 years.

Embezzlement (theft of entrusted property of others) Article 160 Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Ekaterinburg July 19, 2007

Magistrate of the judicial district No. 1 of the Kirov district of Yekaterinburg Chirkova T.N.,

with the participation of the state prosecutor, assistant prosecutor Sharov M.Yu. ,

defendant Plastinin S.Yu.,

his defense lawyer Kuzmeko T.V., presented certificate No. 1075, issued by the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation of the Sverdlovsk Region on February 13, 2003, and warrant No. 087523 dated July 19, 2007,

the victim LLC "Metalloprokat" represented by representative Bruskov P.V., acting on the basis of power of attorney No. 2 dated 02.02.2007,

under the secretary of Fedorovskikh A.I.

Having examined in an open court session in a special manner a criminal case against SERGEY YURIEVICH Plastinin, born June 13, 1983, a native of the village. Kamyshino, Kustanay region of the Republic of Kazakhstan, citizen of the Russian Federation, single, liable for military service, no dependents, with secondary technical education, working as a manager at Stroyinvest LLC, registered at the address: Ekaterinburg, st. Lunacharskogo, 1, apt. 63, previously unconvicted, accused of committing crimes under Art. Art. 160 part 1, 160 part 1, 160 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

INSTALLED:

Plastinin S.Yu. committed 3 episodes of theft of someone else's property entrusted to him.

The crimes he committed in Yekaterinburg under the following circumstances.

January 24, 2007 during the daytime at st. Volgogradskaya, 224, apt. 77 Plastinin S.Yu., working as a manager of Metalloprokat LLC and having the authority to enter into contracts for the sale and installation of plastic structures, receiving money for performing work under contracts, received from Volik A.A. as payment under the contract for the installation of plastic windows No. FL 111 218 dated December 15, 2006, money in the amount of 7,170 rubles. 08 kopecks, which was due upon arrival at the office of Metalloprokat LLC at st. Pervomaiskaya, 24 B hand over to the cashier. Plastinin S.Yu. he did not intentionally hand over the money received to the cash desk of Metalloprokat LLC for selfish reasons, having spent the entrusted funds on personal needs, thereby causing Metalloprokat LLC material damage in the amount of 7,170 rubles. 08 kop.

February 09, 2007 during the daytime at st. Vostochnaya, 56/2 Plastinin S.Yu., working as a manager of Metalloprokat LLC and having the authority to enter into contracts for the sale and installation of plastic structures, receiving money for performing work under contracts, received from Koinov A.V. as payment under the contract for the installation of plastic windows No. FL 111 240 dated January 26, 2007, money in the amount of 3,000 rubles. 21 kopecks, which was due upon arrival at the office of Metalloprokat LLC at the address st. Pervomaiskaya, 24 B hand over to the cashier. Plastinin S.Yu. he did not intentionally hand over the money received to the cash desk of Metalloprokat LLC for selfish reasons, having spent the entrusted funds for personal needs, thereby causing Metalloprokat LLC material damage in the amount of 3,000 rubles. 21 kopecks

February 26, 2007 during the daytime at st. Bakhchivandzhi, no. 2, off. 408 Plastinin S.Yu., working as a manager of Metalloprokat LLC and having the authority to enter into contracts for the sale and installation of plastic structures, to receive money for performing work under contracts, received from IP Kobzev in the person of representative Averina E.B. as payment under the contract for the installation of plastic windows No. FI 111 236 dated January 25, 2007. money in the amount of 6,172 rubles. 92 kopecks, which should have been upon arrival at the office of Metalloprokat LLC at the address st. Pervomaiskaya, 24 B, hand over to the cashier.

Plastinin S.Yu. did not hand over the received money to the cash desk of Metalloprokat LLC, deliberately for selfish reasons, spending the entrusted funds for personal needs, thereby causing Metalloprokat LLC material damage in the amount of 6,172 rubles. 92 kopecks

By the actions of Plastinin S.Yu. The victim, Metalloprokat LLC, suffered material damage totaling 16,343 rubles 21 kopecks.

When fulfilling the requirements of Art. 217 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation Plastinina S.Yu. filed a petition for a sentence without trial due to agreement with the charges.

During the court hearing, the defendant confirmed that he understood the charge and he agreed with it, and therefore supported his petition, which he submitted voluntarily and after consultation with a defense lawyer.

At the same time, Plastinin S.Yu. understands the consequences of passing a sentence without a trial: understands that it will be based solely on the evidence available in the case file, and cannot be appealed on appeal due to the inconsistency of the conclusions set out in it with the actual circumstances of the criminal case or in part of the civil claim .

The victim agrees with the sentencing without a trial.

The state prosecutor is against considering the criminal case against Plastinin S.Yu. did not object without a trial.

The court, having studied the materials of the criminal case, came to the conclusion that the accusation, which the defendant agreed with, was justified and supported by evidence collected in the criminal case.

Taking into account the fact that in this criminal case there are grounds for applying a special procedure for making a judicial decision and the conditions provided by law for passing a sentence without a trial have been met, the court considers it possible to pronounce a guilty verdict against the defendant without conducting a general examination and evaluation of evidence, collected in a criminal case.

The actions of the defendant are correctly qualified under Article 160 Part 1. 160 part 1, 160 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as embezzlement, that is, theft of someone else’s property entrusted to him.

When assigning a punishment, the court takes into account the degree of public danger and the nature of the crime committed, information about the personality of the defendant, obligations mitigating and aggravating the punishment, as well as the impact of the imposed punishment on the correction of the defendant.

The court takes into account that the defendant has not previously been brought to criminal liability, is not registered with a psychiatrist or narcologist, and has a permanent place of residence and work.

The representative of the victim filed a petition to terminate the criminal case in connection with reconciliation with the defendant and full compensation for property damage when deciding on the punishment, asking that this circumstance be taken into account and leniency be shown to the defendant.

As mitigating circumstances, the court takes into account the defendant’s full admission of guilt, repentance for his crime, and full compensation for property damage caused by the crime.

No aggravating circumstances have been established.

Taking into account the foregoing, the court believes that correction of the defendant is possible without isolation from society with the imposition of a real punishment within the limits of the sanction provided for by the relevant article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The application of the prosecutor of the Kirovsky district of Yekaterinburg to collect procedural fees from the defendant cannot be satisfied on the basis of Art. 316 clause 10 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

Based on the aforesaid and guided by Article. 307-309, 316 Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, magistrate

SENTENCED:

SERGEY YURIEVICH Plastinin was found guilty of committing crimes under Art. 160 part 1, 160 part 1, 160 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and sentence him:

- under Article 160 Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - in the form of a fine to the state in the amount of 5,000 rubles;

In accordance with Art. 69 part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for a set of crimes, by partial addition of punishments, impose a final punishment in the form of a fine to the state in the amount of 6,000 rubles.

Preventive measure for Plastinin S.Yu. in the form of a written undertaking not to leave the place and proper behavior shall be left unchanged until the sentence enters into legal force.

The verdict can be appealed on appeal to the Kirovsky District Court of Yekaterinburg through the magistrate judge of judicial district No. 1 of the Kirovsky District, Yekaterinburg, within 10 days from the date of its proclamation.

Magistrate G.N. Chirkova

Questions and answers

Cases of misappropriation and embezzlement are different. Unscrupulous employees do exist, and this is a fact. However, it happens that false accusations of theft are made. They are caused by a negative attitude towards the employee on the part of management and other extraneous reasons.

And if a citizen feels injustice is being done to him, it is necessary to take measures to protect his rights. Ideally, a good lawyer can come to the rescue.

In some cases, one consultation is enough. As an illustration, here are a few answers from experts to the questions asked.

Restriction of freedom

Stupidly, he appropriated property that belonged to the company. The lawyer said that the most likely consequence would be restriction of freedom. Tell me, please, what does this mean?

Pavel, Moscow.

This type of criminal punishment means that the person will not be placed in a correctional facility, but restrictions are imposed on his daily life by the court. First of all, it is the inability to leave the locality.

In addition, it may be prohibited to leave the house at certain hours or visit certain places. In addition, at established intervals, the convicted person is obliged to come to the local police officer, to the local department of the criminal-executive inspection.

A small amount of wasted funds

It so happened that I urgently needed to use part of the money allocated for a business trip to solve personal problems. The amount is small - 2200 rubles, but I have no way to reimburse it at the moment. Tell me, what could threaten me?

Dmitry, Lyubertsy.

Considering that the damage caused to the enterprise is insignificant, the case can only end in administrative liability. It is spelled out in Part 2 of Art. 7.27 Code of Administrative Offences.

Possible types of punishment will be a fine of five times the value (amount) of the stolen property. There is also arrest for 10-15 days or compulsory work lasting up to 120 hours. Therefore, in any case, it makes sense to resolve the issue with the enterprise peacefully.

Theft of trusted valuables

A bag was stolen on public transport. Among other things, it contained money issued by the enterprise for the purchase of goods. Now the management is accusing them of embezzlement and threatening to initiate a criminal case. Tell me what to do? I wrote a statement to the police immediately.

Tatiana, Moscow.

It is worth proceeding from the fact that embezzlement involves spending funds at your own discretion. Here they left against the will of the person, therefore the crime under Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is missing.

However, you will have to compensate the damage in full, taking into account the rules of Art. 241 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation - no more than 20% of wages after taxes.

If the property is not entrusted

I work as a supply manager at one of the enterprises in our city. Something went wrong and a batch of finished products disappeared from the warehouse. As a result, they suspect me of theft. Tell me what is the best way to prove non-involvement?

Andrey, Balashikha.

To avoid false accusations, it is worth insisting that monitoring the safety of property was not part of the job duties. It is permissible to refer to the absence of an agreement on full financial liability and the corresponding provisions in the job description.

There are other possible arguments. Among them are lack of access to the warehouse, being on vacation or on sick leave during the period of possible theft.

SENTENCE

IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Moscow

February 10, 2015

BUTYRSKY District Court of Moscow, represented by the presiding federal judge SHELEPOVA Y.V., with the participation of the state prosecutor, Assistant Butyrsky Interdistrict Prosecutor of Moscow G.M. SHORKIN, defendant GRANYUK A.V., his defense attorney GONCHAROVA T.I., who presented certificate No. issued by DD.MM.GG., and a warrant from DD.MM.GG., with the secretary of the court session GOROKHOVSKAYA A.V., having examined the materials of criminal case No. 1-93 in open court in a special judicial procedure 2015 regarding

GRANYUKA A. V.,

accused of committing a crime under Part 3 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,

INSTALLED:

Granyuk A.V. committed misappropriation and embezzlement, that is, theft of someone else's property entrusted to the culprit, using his official position, on a large scale, namely: Granyuk A.V., working as a door measurer on the basis of an employment contract concluded by DD.MM.GG ., in accordance with which, according to clause 2.2, he (Granyuk) is entrusted with a specific type of entrusted work - taking measurements at customers' addresses, having the right, on the basis of the specified agreement and the agreement on full individual financial liability from DD.MM.GG. to conclude agreements with the customers of the specified LLC, to receive from the customers part of the funds as an advance payment under contracts concluded on behalf of the customers with the provision of financial documents to the customers, implementing a criminal intent aimed at appropriating funds for the purpose of personal illegal material enrichment in pursuance of the plan, taking advantage of the trusting relationship of the employer - individual entrepreneur full name and general director full name, which, in accordance with the agreement on the provision of personnel from DD.MM.YY. provided a surveyor in the person of A.V. Granyuk. at the disposal of an individual entrepreneur F.I.O., abusing the trust of the latter in the process of carrying out labor activities, in violation of the above employment contract, during the period of time from DD.MM.YY. to DD.MM.YY. drew up contract agreements, on the basis of which he received an advance payment from clients of an individual entrepreneur, full name: DD.MM.YY. entered into an agreement with his full name and received an advance payment in the amount of rubles, DD .MM.GG.concluded an agreement with F.I.O. and received an advance payment in the amount of rubles, DD.MM.YY. entered into an agreement with the full name and received an advance payment in the amount of rubles, DD.MM.YY. entered into an agreement with the full name and received an advance payment in the amount of rubles , DD.MM.YY. entered into an agreement with full name and received an advance payment in the amount of rubles, DD.MM.YY. entered into an agreement with F.I.O. and received an advance payment in the amount of rubles, DD.MM.YY. entered into an agreement with F.I.O. and received an advance payment in the amount of rubles, DD.MM.YY. entered into an agreement with F.I.O. and received an advance payment in the amount of rubles, DD.MM.YY. entered into an agreement with F.I.O. and received an advance payment in the amount of rubles, DD.MM.YY. entered into an agreement with the full name and received an advance payment in the amount of rubles, DD.MM.YY. entered into an agreement with the full name and received an advance payment in the amount of rubles , DD.MM.YY. entered into an agreement with full name. and received an advance payment in the amount of rubles, DD.MM.YY. entered into an agreement with F.I.O. and received an advance payment in the amount of rubles, DD.MM.YY. entered into an agreement with full name and received an advance payment in the amount of rubles, and in total received funds for the total amount of rubles, after which he illegally appropriated the specified funds in a large amount, belonging to an individual entrepreneur F.I.O., which he did not deposit in the cash desk of the central office located at : and for the purpose of personal enrichment, he squandered the above funds at his own discretion.

Defendant Granyuk A.V. at the court hearing on the charge brought against him of committing embezzlement and embezzlement, that is, theft of someone else's property entrusted to the guilty person, using his official position, on a large scale, he pleaded guilty in full, confirmed the circumstances set out in the descriptive part of this verdict and fully agreed with the presented he was charged with the volume of the charges, repented of what he had done, and promised that something like this would not happen again in his life.

The court comes to the conclusion that what was presented to the defendant Granyuk A.V. the accusation with which he agreed is justified and supported by evidence collected in this criminal case, which is contained in the written materials of this criminal case.

Considering that the punishment for the crime committed by the defendant Granyuk A.V. the court considers it established, does not exceed 10 years of imprisonment (sanction of Part 3 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - up to 6 years of imprisonment), defendant A.V. Granyuk. agrees with the charges brought against him in full, admits guilt in full, the court is convinced that the petition for the application of a special procedure for the trial was submitted by the defendant voluntarily and after consultation with the defense lawyer, the defendant is aware of the nature and consequences of the petition made by him, the public prosecutor and the defense lawyer do not object to the consideration of this criminal case on the merits in a special court procedure, the victim, full name, asked the court to consider the criminal case against A.V. Granyuk. essentially in his absence, against the consideration of the criminal case against A.V. Granyuk. essentially does not object to the special procedure of the trial, the court comes to the conclusion that it is possible to pronounce a sentence in this criminal case without holding a trial in the general procedure.

Actions of the defendant A.V. Granyuk the court qualifies under Part 3 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since he, realizing the illegal nature of his actions, committed misappropriation and embezzlement, that is, theft of someone else’s property (funds belonging to the full name) entrusted to the culprit, using his official position, on a large scale (in the amount of rubles), under the circumstances of the case, which are set out in detail in the descriptive part of this verdict.

When assigning the defendant Granyuk A.V. punishment, the court is guided by the requirements of Art. 60 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and takes into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime he committed, as well as information about the personality of A.V. Granyuk. – which is regarded by the court as a circumstance mitigating his punishment. The court takes into account the age of the defendant A.V. Granyuk, the impact of the imposed punishment on the correction of A.V. Granyuk. and on the living conditions of his family, the specific circumstances of what Granyuk A.V. committed. crimes, absence in relation to Granyuk A.V. circumstances aggravating his punishment, the fact that the victim’s full name. on the part of the defendant, he voluntarily compensated for the material damage caused to him by the crime committed, which, according to paragraph “k” of Part 1 of Art. 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is a circumstance mitigating the punishment of A.V. Granyuk, full confession by A.V. Granyuk. his guilt and repentance for what he had done, which the court regards as a circumstance mitigating his punishment, as well as the opinion of the victim, full name, regarding the punishment for A.V. Granyuk, who asked the court to appoint A.V. Granyuk. a punishment not related to imprisonment, about which he submitted a corresponding statement to the court.

The court assigns defendant A.V. Granyuk punishment taking into account the provisions of Part 5, Part 1 of Art. 62 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the form of imprisonment and taking into account the specific circumstances of the crime he committed, he does not see the advisability of assigning him another type of punishment provided for by the sanction of Part 3 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as in applying to it the provisions of Part 6 of Art. 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the proposals of the first part 1 of Art. 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, that is, in assigning him a suspended sentence. In appointment to Granyuk A.V. The court does not see any advisability for additional types of punishment - a fine and restriction of freedom. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph “b” of Part 1 of Art. 58 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court appoints the defendant A.V. Granyuk. serving a sentence in a general regime correctional colony.

Based on the above and guided by Articles 316, 303, 304, 308, 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court

SENTENCED

GRANYUK A.V. was found guilty of committing a crime under Part 3 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and sentence him to 7 (SEVEN) months IMPRISONMENT without a fine and without restriction of freedom, serving in a GENERAL regime correctional colony.

Preventive measure for convicted Granyuk A.V. Until this sentence enters into legal force, in order to ensure the execution of the sentence, leave it as before - detention.

The term of serving the sentence for the convicted Granyuk A.V. calculate DD.MM.YY. Credit to the convicted Granyuk A.V. during the period of serving the sentence, the period of his being in custody in pre-trial detention from the moment of his actual detention in accordance with Articles 91, 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation until the date of this verdict - DD.MM.GG..

Physical evidence in the criminal case - documents on the reception of A.V. Granyuk. for work and purchase and sale agreements for construction materials concluded between A.V. Granyuk. and by individuals located in the written materials of the criminal case - keep with the written materials of the criminal case.

The verdict can be appealed on appeal to the Moscow City Court within 10 days from the date of its proclamation, and by the convicted person - within the same period from the moment of delivery of a copy of the verdict, in compliance with the requirements of Art. 317 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. In the event of an appeal against a sentence, the convicted person has the right to petition for his participation in the consideration of the criminal case by the court of appeal.

Federal Judge:

Yu.V.Shelepova