30 April 2024

Customs Evasion in Russia: Criminal & Admin Liability

April 30, 2024

BRACE Law Firm ©

Law enforcement is a core function of customs authorities. This activity aims to combat smuggling, other crimes, and administrative offenses in the customs sphere to protect the country's economic security.

Customs authorities consistently encounter offenses related to the underpayment of funds. Foreign trade participants (the "Foreign Trade Participants") evade customs payments to reduce costs by failing to declare or by inaccurately declaring goods when moving them across the customs border of the Eurasian Economic Union (the "EAEU"). While customs control is vital to suppress such offenses, factors like selective control create a risk that customs authorities will not receive the full amount of due payments.

The Russian Federation provides for both criminal and administrative liability for violations of customs legislation.

Criminal Liability for Evasion of Customs Payments

In certain cases, inaccurate declaration may lead to criminal liability under Section 194 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (the "Criminal Code"), titled Evasion of Customs Payments Levied on an Organization or an Individual.

Section 194 of the Criminal Code is a blanket provision, referring investigators to customs and tax legislation regarding the definition and types of customs payments, grounds, deadlines, payment procedures, and categories of payers. Goods moved across the EAEU customs border are subject to customs duties and taxes.

Article 46 of the Customs Code of the Eurasian Economic Union (the "CC EAEU") lists the following customs payments:

Import customs duty – a mandatory payment levied by member states’ customs authorities in connection with the import of goods into the Union's customs territory;
Export customs duty – a payment made for exporting products outside of Russia, often referred to as an export duty;
Value-added tax (VAT), levied upon the import of goods into the EAEU customs territory;
Excises (excise tax or excise duty), levied upon the import of goods into the Union's customs territory;
Customs fees.

This section has been in effect since the Code's inception. Until December 8, 2011, criminal cases under Section 194 of the Criminal Code were rare because only actions related to evading customs payments committed after the customs authority's decision to release goods into free circulation were qualified under it. In other cases, actions involving the illegal movement of goods across the customs border, including for the purpose of evading customs payments, were qualified under Section 188 of the Criminal Code (Contraband). The number of cases initiated under that section was dozens of times higher. Section 194 began to be actively applied at the end of 2011, when Section 188 was repealed by Federal Law No. 420-FZ dated December 7, 2011, On Amending the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation. Thus, prior to December 8, 2011, customs authorities charged individuals under Section 188 when, in essence, the crime should have been classified under Section 194. Consequently, the number of crimes committed under Section 194 was minimal and insignificant, as the actual failure to declare goods was treated as "contraband." Currently, such actions are correctly classified as evasion of customs payments.[1]

In 2023, as part of their efforts to identify and prevent threats to economic security, customs authorities initiated 1,822 criminal cases. Of these, 285 cases involved the evasion of customs payments. In 2022, there were 344 such cases. The federal budget received 1.1 billion rubles in customs payments that were the subjects of crimes in cases initiated under Section 194 of the Criminal Code (compared to 1.76 billion rubles in 2022).[2]

According to judicial statistics, 41 people were convicted under Section 194 of the Criminal Code in the first half of 2023: 22 under Part 1, 11 under Part 2, and 8 under Part 4, while there were no convictions under Part 3. Additionally, criminal proceedings against 45 individuals were terminated.[3]

A crime is defined as a culpably committed socially dangerous act prohibited by this Code under threat of punishment (Part 1 of Section 14 of the Criminal Code).

Thus, the elements of a crime are:

Guilt;
Social danger of the act;
Criminal wrongfulness;

To apply Section 194 of the Criminal Code correctly, one must clarify the interpretation of the term evasion. However, the legislation does not define what exactly constitutes evasion. This forces law enforcement to decide independently whether a particular act constitutes evasion of customs payments, which is undoubtedly a gap in current legislation that complicates the classification of crimes.[4]

Evasion of customs payments can be defined as legal inaction in the form of failure to perform the duties of paying customs payments imposed on individuals, legal entities, and organizations that are not legal entities.[5]

A crime of evading customs payments is considered completed at the moment the deadline expires by which the individual, legal entity, or organization was obligated to pay the customs payments established by law.

The mens rea (subjective side) of this type of crime is characterized by guilt in the form of direct intent. A crime is committed with direct intent if the person was aware of the social danger of their actions (omissions), foresaw the possibility or inevitability of socially dangerous consequences, and desired their occurrence (Part 2 of Section 25 of the Criminal Code). Courts refer to the defendant's direct intent when considering criminal cases. For example, the Avtozavodsky District Court of Togliatti, Samara Region, stated that the defendant, "aware of the social danger of his actions, foreseeing the possibility of socially dangerous consequences, and desiring their occurrence, executing a criminal intent aimed at criminal enrichment by evading customs payments, submitted instructions for the customs declaration of goods."[6]

Evasion of customs payments is committed with direct unspecified intent when the person obligated to pay, while failing to fulfill their obligations, does not know exactly in advance the amount they will manage to evade. In this case, the act is qualified depending on the resulting consequences — the amount of damage caused by the crime. Consequently, it may be found non-criminal if, for example, the amount of unpaid payments does not exceed 2 million rubles. However, if an investigation establishes that the intent was to evade customs payments on a large scale, but the person actually evaded a smaller amount, the act is qualified as an attempt to evade customs payments on a large scale (Section 30 of the Criminal Code).[7]

A person who has committed a crime may voluntarily admit their guilt. Such an admission may take the form of a confession (self-incrimination), which, according to Section 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (the "Code of Criminal Procedure"), is a voluntary report by a person of a crime they committed. A confession may be made orally or in writing upon the person's personal appearance at a law enforcement agency. As a primary source of vital information about a crime reported by the perpetrator, the confession is subject to subsequent verification, and the circumstances stated therein must be proven according to the rules of criminal procedure.

Under Section 140 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a confession serves as grounds for initiating a criminal case and is documented in a confession protocol. This protocol outlines the circumstances of the crime, including the time and place of its commission. After the protocol is drawn up, if there are sufficient grounds, a criminal case must be initiated, and the person who confessed must be interrogated as a suspect in compliance with criminal procedural guarantees.

Regarding the subject of the crime is the person burdened with the obligation to pay customs payments. Under the CC EAEU, declarants and other persons who have an obligation to pay customs payments are recognized as payers. A customs representative is responsible for paying customs duties and taxes when they perform the customs declaration. The circle of persons responsible for paying customs fees is determined based on the specific type of fee.

Evasion of customs payments constitutes a crime under Section 194 of the Criminal Code only if the act is committed on a large scale, which is defined as an unpaid amount of customs payments exceeding 2 million rubles. In turn, if several acts of non-payment were covered by a single intent, they are considered to form a continuing crime. In the latter case, the large scale is formed by the non-payment of several types of payments.

A crime cannot be considered completed until the deadline for payment expires. If a person actually pays the customs payments but does so after the established deadline, their actions (omissions) still contain the elements of a completed crime under Section 194. This necessitates initiating a criminal case, and the fact of payment should be viewed as voluntary restitution of damage and serve as grounds for exemption from criminal liability under Part 2 of Section 76.1 of the Criminal Code. Accordingly, if a crime is committed under Parts 3 or 4 of Section 194, the person remains subject to criminal liability even if they fully pay the due duties and taxes after the deadline established by customs legislation.[8]

Pursuant to Article 354 of the CC EAEU and Section 151(3)(9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, customs authorities have the right to conduct inquiries for crimes classified under Parts 1 or 2 of Section 194 of the Criminal Code. For Parts 3 and 4, the preliminary investigation is conducted by investigators of the Investigative Committee of Russia.

Liability for Crimes under Section 194 of the Criminal Code

Committing a crime on a large scale (Part 1 of Section 194 of the Criminal Code) is punishable by a fine ranging from 100,000 to 500,000 rubles, or in the amount of the convict's wages or other income for a period of 1 to 3 years, or by mandatory works for up to 480 hours, or by compulsory labor for up to 2 years, or by imprisonment for up to 2 years.

Thus, we see that for an act with a lower degree of social danger — namely, an administratively punishable violation of customs rules — a fine significantly higher than that for a similar but more socially dangerous act (a customs crime) may be imposed.[9]

One of the aggravating factors defined by Section 194 of the Criminal Code is the evasion of customs payments by a group of persons by prior agreement (Part 2(a) of Section 194). The definition of a group of persons by prior agreement is provided in Section 35 of the Criminal Code, which states that a crime is committed by such a group if the perpetrators agreed in advance to commit it jointly. The subject of this type of crime is special; however, under Section 34(4) of the Criminal Code, guilty parties may be held liable as organizers, instigators, or accomplices.

Another aggravating factor is the evasion of customs payments on a particularly large scale, which must exceed 6 million rubles (Part 2(g) of Section 194).

Punishment under Part 2 is provided in the form of a fine ranging from 300,000 to 500,000 rubles, or in the amount of the convict's wages or other income for 2 to 3 years, or by compulsory labor for up to 5 years with or without the deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for up to 3 years, or by imprisonment for up to 5 years with or without such deprivation.

The factor provided for in Part 3(a) of Section 194 — committing the crime by an official using their official position — is clarified primarily by the definition of an "official" found in the note to Section 285 of the Criminal Code. This attribute of the subject can only apply to officials of agencies or institutions burdened with the obligation to pay customs payments. This restriction arises because the elements of evading customs payments can only be fulfilled by a special subject, defined as an individual or an authorized employee of a legal entity upon whom the specific payment obligation is imposed. However, it cannot be ruled out that officials, including those from agencies exercising customs or border control, may be part of an organized criminal group. This would be qualified as joint perpetration without reference to Section 33 of the Criminal Code. If officials use their position while committing a crime as part of an organized group, this attribute must be imputed not only to them but also to other members of the group if the circumstances of the evasion were covered by their common intent, as this attribute characterizes the increased social danger of each member's act.

In turn, if a customs official is not a co-perpetrator within an organized group but assists in the crime, their actions are qualified as complicity in a crime under Section 194 of the Criminal Code, in conjunction with sections providing liability for criminal offenses against the interests of the civil service.[10]

Part 3(b) of Section 194 provides for the use of violence against a person exercising customs or border control. This attribute can only be imputed if the actions of said officials in exercising their rights and control functions are lawful.

Thus, the use of violence as a reaction to unlawful demands by customs officials is not considered an attribute of evading customs payments, though it contains elements of a crime against the person.

Crimes qualified under Part 3 are punishable by imprisonment for 5 to 10 years, with a fine of up to 1 million rubles or the convict's income for up to 5 years (or without it), and with a restriction of liberty for up to 1.5 years (or without it).

Increased liability for evading customs payments as part of an organized group is provided by Part 4 of Section 194. Under Section 35 of the Criminal Code, an organized group is an established group of two or more persons who have joined together in advance to commit one or more crimes. Persons who do not meet the criteria of a special subject may also be part of an organized group. In such cases, additional qualification of their actions under Section 33 of the Criminal Code is not required.

Punishment is provided in the form of imprisonment for 7 to 12 years, with a fine of up to 1 million rubles or the convict's income for up to 4 years (or without it), and with a restriction of liberty for up to 2 years (or without it).

Methods of Committing Evasion of Customs Payments

Section 194 of the Criminal Code does not specify the methods for committing this offense, referring only to the evasion (as such) of customs payments levied on an organization or individual. The method of evasion can involve failure to comply with requirements of customs legislation, a direct refusal (motivated or unmotivated) to pay mandatory payments, or the submission of documents that, in the view of the interested parties, exempt them from customs payments.

Methods of committing this type of crime are diverse, with the most common being:

Inaccurate, i.e., undervalued, declaration of the customs value of goods;
Intentional misclassification of the TN VED code to evade customs payments;
Evasion of prohibitions and restrictions established for specific types of goods movement. These are usually established for the movement of medicines, potent substances, and precious animals or plants protected by international and national law;
Non-compliance with the conditions for placing goods under a customs procedure;
Violation of rules by persons entitled to use simplified procedures or provide services in the customs sphere.[11]

The peculiarity of evasion methods is that the guilty parties provide inaccurate information to customs authorities, thereby violating prohibitions and restrictions established by law.

Taken together, these methods create a scheme for avoiding customs payments, which affects the traces of the crime. In this context, these are primarily material traces of evasion—customs declarations, receipts for customs payments, statements of operations and bank account status of the persons who moved the goods, etc.[12]

Refusal to Initiate a Criminal Case, Termination of a Criminal Case, and Dismissal of Criminal Prosecution

On the grounds provided by Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a criminal case for evasion under Section 194 of the Criminal Code cannot be initiated, and an initiated case must be terminated.

These grounds include, among others:

Absence of a criminal event;
Absence of the elements of a crime in the act;
Expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution;
Death of the suspect or defendant, except when the proceedings are necessary to rehabilitate the deceased.

In accordance with Section 25.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a court, on its own initiative or following a motion filed by an investigator (with the consent of the head of the investigative body) or an inquirer (with the consent of a prosecutor), may terminate a criminal case or prosecution in cases provided by Section 76.2 of the Criminal Code. This applies to persons suspected or accused of a crime of minor or medium severity, which includes crimes under Parts 1 or 2 of Section 194, if the person has restituted the damage or otherwise redressed the harm caused and the court imposes a judicial fine.

Termination of a criminal case or prosecution in connection with a judicial fine is allowed at any moment during the proceedings until the court retires to the deliberation room to pass judgment (or, in an appellate court, until it retires to issue a decision).

For instance, by an order of the Timiryazevsky District Court of Moscow, a criminal case against Citizen S., accused of a crime under Part 1 of Section 194, was terminated based on Section 76.2 of the Criminal Code and Section 25.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to "restitution of property damage through the payment of unpaid customs payments, as well as evidence of providing charitable assistance."[13]

Additionally, under Section 28.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a court, investigator, or inquirer dismisses criminal prosecution in cases provided by Section 76.1(2) of the Criminal Code — i.e., if the person restituted the damage caused to a citizen, organization, or the state and transferred a monetary compensation to the federal budget in the amount of twice the damage caused.

Thus, exemption from criminal liability on this basis implies a triple restitution of the amount of customs payments due (the customs payments themselves plus a double compensation). This is often burdensome and, even in the minimum case, exceeds 6 million rubles, since criminal liability for evasion only arises when the amount exceeds 2 million rubles. In cases of more significant evasion, such restitution can amount to tens or hundreds of millions of rubles.[14]

Based on Section 76.1(3) of the Criminal Code, a person is exempted from criminal liability if an offense committed before January 1, 2015, or January 1, 2022, is identified, provided that the person is a declarant or a person mentioned in a special declaration filed under Federal Law No. 140-FZ dated June 8, 2015, On the Voluntary Declaration by Individuals of Assets and Bank Accounts (Deposits) and on Amending Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation. This applies if the acts are related to the acquisition, use, or disposal of property or controlled foreign companies (or bank accounts) mentioned in the special declaration. In such cases, provisions regarding damage restitution and budget transfers do not apply.

In this situation, the court or investigator dismisses the criminal prosecution. If the head of the investigative body disagrees with the dismissal, they must issue a reasoned order refusing it and immediately notify the person, the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, and the Presidential Commissioner for Entrepreneurs' Rights.

We note that the dismissal of criminal prosecution is not allowed if the person objects to it. In that case, the criminal proceedings continue as usual (Section 28.1(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

Case Law on Evasion of Customs Payments

As seen in the judgment of the Nagatinsky District Court of Moscow dated November 27, 2023, in Case No. 1-1223/2023, Citizen B. was found guilty of a crime under Part 2(g) of Section 194 of the Criminal Code — evasion of customs payments on a particularly large scale. This citizen entered into a foreign trade contract for the supply of 600,000 disposable (non-sterile) protective medical suits in sizes XL and XXL.

The contract for these medical devices was concluded during the COVID-19 pandemic. Protective medical suits were included in the list of medical goods whose sale and import are not subject to (are exempt from) value-added tax, as established by Government Decree No. 1042 dated September 30, 2015. Furthermore, the Moscow Department of Healthcare was authorized to issue documents confirming the target purpose of the goods, allowing for an exemption from customs duties and VAT. Citizen B. applied for these documents; however, the delivered goods were not intended for their target purpose.

The evasion of customs payments by entering inaccurate information regarding preferences in the customs declaration was carried out as follows: "aware of the social danger of his actions, foreseeing the possibility of socially dangerous consequences in the form of the non-receipt of due funds by the state budget, and desiring their occurrence, having criminal intent to evade customs payments, the accused sent commercial and transport documents required for customs clearance to a customs representative via email, including a letter from the department of healthcare confirming the target purpose of the goods."[15]

The customs representative, unaware of the criminal intent and acting under a service agreement for customs clearance, filed a declaration based on documents containing inaccurate information about the preference. After verifying the data in the declaration against the transport documents, the goods were released under the "release for domestic consumption" procedure.

Under Article 126 of the CC EAEU, goods placed under the release for domestic consumption procedure are considered conditionally released if exemptions from import customs duties and taxes were applied, subject to restrictions on use and/or disposal. For such goods, the purposes and conditions of the exemptions, as well as the restrictions on use and disposal, must be observed.

Thus, the convict in this case unjustifiably benefited from exemptions from import duties and VAT on medical devices by failing to comply with the conditions for using the declared goods.[16]

In another case also heard by the Nagatinsky District Court of Moscow, the defendant intentionally provided an incorrect TN VED code when declaring goods. The defendant provided customs support for goods arriving for an organization. Under the contract, he was responsible for the clearance and declaration of the client's cargo in customs authorities (without paying customs payments and fees).

Subsequently, the defendant, "out of mercenary motives and for financial gain, formed a criminal intent to commit intentional acts aimed at violating the legally protected economic interests of the Russian Federation in the form of non-payment to the budget of the Russian Federation of customs payments due on a large scale... by stating inaccurate information" regarding the description and TN VED code of the goods — specifically, inaccurate information about their properties and characteristics affecting their classification. Inaccurate information was stated in Column 31 (Packages and description of goods) and Column 33 (Goods code) to calculate payments at a lower rate of customs duties and with a lower total amount of duties and taxes due.

The amount of unpaid customs payments exceeded 4 million rubles, which is a large scale under the note to Section 194 of the Criminal Code. The court found the defendant guilty under Part 1 of Section 194 and sentenced him to a fine.[17]

Judicial practice also includes cases where a crime under Section 194 is qualified in conjunction with other related crimes, such as Section 226.1 of the Criminal Code (Smuggling).

For example, by a judgment of the Kansky City Court of the Krasnoyarsk Territory, Citizen K. was found guilty of crimes under Part 2(g) of Section 194 and Part 1 of Section 226.1. According to the judgment, Citizen K., "out of mercenary motives, to reduce costs for customs payments, being fully aware that tariff quotas were established for certain types of coniferous timber exported from the RF and that exporting such goods using a tariff quota required a one-time license issued by the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Russia to foreign trade participants who are lessees of forest plots with the right to harvest spruce and Scots pine," evaded customs duties levied on an organization on a particularly large scale. She did so by providing the customs authority with inaccurate information about the manufacturer of the exported timber using one-time licenses from the Ministry of Industry and Trade, which provided grounds for a preferential export duty rate of 15% (instead of 80%) of the goods' customs value.

Furthermore, Citizen K., possessing timber included in the list of strategically important goods and resources for the purposes of Section 226.1, decided to export the goods through inaccurate declaration (stating false information about the manufacturer and the assessment of customs payments). This resulted in criminal intent to illegally move strategically important resources — specifically, coniferous logs (Scots pine sawlogs)—across the customs border.

As a result of Citizen K.'s intentional actions, the total amount of unpaid customs payments exceeded 8 million rubles (a particularly large scale). Additionally, the total value of the strategically important resources illegally moved across the customs border was more than 13 million rubles.[18]

Some of the most difficult actions to uncover are those involving evasion combined with concealing the conduct of foreign trade (sometimes called shadow foreign trade activity in legal literature). By conducting business through a legal entity or an individual entrepreneur, interested parties present products actually purchased from foreign partners as if they were acquired from a domestic supplier. Similarly, various means of production (e.g., vehicles) purchased abroad and used in commercial activities are positioned this same way.[19]

For example, a judgment from the Savelovsky District Court of Moscow shows that D-va and her son M., acting in concert, developed a criminal scheme for systemic evasion of customs payments levied on an organization. While jointly managing (as general director and executive director) a legal entity selling foreign-made clothing and having long-standing commercial relations with a German firm, they organized the movement of goods across the customs border using forged transport documents that misrepresented the actual value of the imported goods. They involved unsuspecting individuals as well as unidentified accomplices in this scheme. D-va ordered the foreign clothing in the name of her LLC and paid for the orders using the bank accounts of various foreign legal entities. M., a former customs official with specialized knowledge of customs clearance, organized and controlled the delivery and clearance using forged documents that misstated the value, shippers, and consignees. At a certain stage of transit, the genuine documents were replaced with fakes. Upon arrival, D-va, to "conceal the fact that this LLC was conducting foreign trade, ensured it was reflected in accounting as if purchased from Russian suppliers."[20]

In court, the defense often argues there was no intent to commit a crime or that there was a bona fide mistake regarding the origin of the assets. The term "evasion" inherently implies direct intent — the conscious nature of the subject's actions to achieve an unlawful goal. In other words, criminal liability is excluded for unintentional non-payment, a fact often used by suspects and defendants. While not denying the failure to pay, they try to convince the court that the intent was missing, portraying the individual as a bona fide purchaser misled by the unlawful acts of others who sold them foreign goods that had not cleared customs.[21]

For example, the Belgorod Regional Court, when considering an appeal by Citizen D., noted that "the prosecution provided no evidence of his guilt; he did not know that the buses he purchased were not properly cleared and that customs payments had not been made." Nevertheless, the courts established the mechanism of the crimes. Specifically, it was found that "the buses were sourced by D. outside the EAEU customs territory, where funds in foreign currency were transferred. With the help of unidentified persons, these buses were legalized in Russia under the names of third parties. In all cases, the traffic police (GIBDD) issued vehicle titles (PTS) containing false information that they were issued in exchange for lost ones and that the buses had allegedly been registered in the RF for a long time and were free of customs restrictions. Legalization took place in the North Caucasus republics to make it difficult for law enforcement in Central Russia to detect the scheme."[22]

Note that judicial practice also includes acquittals. The Yartsevsky District Court of the Smolensk Region motivated an acquittal by stating that "the mere provision of an incorrect goods code, in the absence of inaccurate information about other properties of the goods affecting their classification and the amount of customs payments, does not constitute a crime under Section 194." When stating the TN VED code, the defendant was confident it was correct but acknowledged that customs might disagree and adjust the VAT. Consequently, he offered to deposit 10,192,147 rubles into the customs authority's account as an advance payment. The court noted that the case files showed no property damage had been caused to the Russian Federation, and the defendant was acquitted.[23]

Administrative Liability for Evasion of Customs Payments

Regarding administrative liability, one of the most frequent offenses is the inaccurate declaration of moved goods, for which liability is provided by Parts 1–3 of Section 16.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (the "CAO RF").

Part 1 of Section 16.2 of the CAO RF establishes liability for the failure to declare goods in the prescribed form and carries a sanction of an administrative fine on citizens and legal entities ranging from 1/2 to twice the value of the goods, with or without confiscation. Part 2 of Section 16.2 provides liability for the statement by a declarant or customs representative of inaccurate information regarding the TN VED classification code, combined with incomplete or inaccurate descriptions of quantity, properties, characteristics, names, etc. This part imposes a fine on citizens and legal entities ranging from 1/2 to twice the amount of due customs duties and taxes, with confiscation, provided the duties and taxes were not paid upon import.

Part 3 of Section 16.2 of the CAO RF, alongside providing inaccurate information about goods, establishes liability for the provision of invalid documents that resulted in the violation of statutory prohibitions and restrictions. This implies that, in addition to stating inaccurate information, the declarant or representative submitted invalid documents. For legal entities, the punishment is a fine of 50,000 to 300,000 rubles with or without confiscation of the goods.

Issues of administrative liability and relevant case law were discussed in our article Inaccurate Customs Declaration dated March 30, 2024.[24]

In conclusion, the increased social danger of the customs crime of evading customs payments lies in the perpetrators' infringement on the order of moving goods across the Union's customs border established by the EAEU member states.

The reluctance of certain categories of citizens to pay established customs payments and their use of diverse methods to achieve this is a common phenomenon in every country. Criminal evasion is accompanied by a complex set of measures taken by the subjects to hide these infringements by concealing, destroying, masking, or falsifying the circumstances of the criminal act.

_______________________________

References

[1] Cherepkov, D.S. Evasion of Customs Payments under the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: Controversial Issues of Legislation. Journal of Economic Problems and Legal Practice, 2015, No. 4.

[2] Annual collection "Customs Service of the Russian Federation. 2023".

[3] Report of the Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the number of convicts for all types of crimes under the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the first half of 2023.

[4] Klubkova, V.A., Paulov, P.A. Evasion of Customs Payments as One of the Most Common Crimes in the Customs Sphere. Proceedings of the Samara Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Social, Humanitarian, Medico-Biological Sciences, 2018, No. 5.

[5] Bayramov, R.R., Petukhov, Ya.V. Evasion of Customs Payments: A Comparative Analysis of Liability within the EAEU. Scientific Notes of the St. Petersburg Branch of the Russian Customs Academy, No. 3, 2019.

[6] Judgment of the Avtozavodsky District Court of Togliatti, Samara Region, dated August 28, 2017.

[7] Bayramov, R.R., Petukhov, Ya.V. Evasion of Customs Payments: A Comparative Analysis of Liability within the EAEU. Scientific Notes of the St. Petersburg Branch of the Russian Customs Academy, No. 3, 2019.

[8] Korennaya, A.A. Evasion of Customs Payments Levied on an Organization or Individual in Russia and EAEU Countries: Classification Problems. Russian-Asian Law Journal, 2019, No. 3.

[9] Podroykina, I.A., Lavrinov, V.V. Offenses in the Customs Sphere: Social Danger and Criteria for Distinction. Theory and Practice of Social Development, 2020, No. 12.

[10] Bayramov, R.R., Petukhov, Ya.V. Evasion of Customs Payments: A Comparative Analysis of Liability within the EAEU. Scientific Notes of the St. Petersburg Branch of the Russian Customs Academy, No. 3, 2019.

[11] Skachko, A.V. On the Methods of Evasion of Customs Payments Levied on an Organization or Individual as an Element of the Forensic Characterization of the Crime. Society: Politics, Economics, Law, 2018, No. 4.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Order of the Timiryazevsky District Court of Moscow dated February 18, 2020, in Case No. 1-67/2020.

14] Artemov, A. Termination of Criminal Prosecution in Connection with Restitution of Damage in Cases of Non-payment of Customs Payments. Zakon.ru, May 6, 2020.

[15] Judgment of the Nagatinsky District Court of Moscow dated November 27, 2023, in Case No. 1-1223/2023.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Judgment of the Nagatinsky District Court of Moscow dated July 22, 2019, in Case No. 1-416/19.

[18] Judgment of the Kansky City Court of the Krasnoyarsk Territory dated June 6, 2018, in Case No. 1-13/93328/2018.

[19] Plyasov, K.A., Vardanyan, A.V. Evasion of Customs Payments Levied on an Organization or Individual in the System of Foreign Economic Crimes: Legal and Forensic Analysis. All-Russian Criminological Journal, 2019, Vol. 13, No. 2.

[20] Judgment of the Savelovsky District Court of Moscow in Case No. 1/25/2015.

[21] Plyasov, K.A., Vardanyan, A.V. Evasion of Customs Payments Levied on an Organization or Individual in the System of Foreign Economic Crimes: Legal and Forensic Analysis. All-Russian Criminological Journal, 2019, Vol. 13, No. 2.

[22] Appellate Order of the Belgorod Regional Court dated February 26, 2018, in Case No. 22-227/2018.

[23] Judgment of the Yartsevsky District Court of the Smolensk Region dated October 7, 2020, in Case No. 1-5/2020.

[24] Inaccurate Customs Declaration, March 30, 2024. Source: https://brace-lf.com/informaciya/pravo-i-mezhdunarodnaya-torgovlya/2017-nedostovernoe-tamozhennoe-deklarirovanie.