Inciting Sanctions Against Russia: Administrative and Criminal Liability

 

September 22, 2026

BRACE Law Firm©

 

Russian legislation currently does not establish liability for violating foreign sanctions and, under current regulations, for complying with them. However, since March 2022, the act of inciting foreign states and their associations to impose or extend restrictive measures against the Russian Federation has been consistently criminalized: administrative liability is provided for by Article 20.3.4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (the Code of Administrative Offences), and criminal liability is provided for by Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (the Criminal Code).

This review systemizes the elements of the offense, the subject, procedural specifics, and established judicial practice, as well as the associated risks and consequences for calling for the imposition of sanctions against the Russian Federation: confiscation, termination of mass media operations, and the invalidity of transactions executed in violation of Russian special economic measures.

Restrictive Measures in Russian Law: Terminology and Sources

Russian legislation does not use the term sanctions as a formalized legal concept. The foundational acts defining the proprietary restrictive measures of the Russian Federation are Federal Law No. 281-FZ dated December 30, 2006, On Special Economic Measures and Coercive Measures and Federal Law No. 127-FZ dated June 4, 2018, On Measures of Influence (Counteraction) Against Unfriendly Actions of the United States of America and Other Foreign States. The list of foreign states and territories committing unfriendly actions against the Russian Federation, Russian legal entities, and individuals is approved by the Government of Russia.[1]

Regarding foreign sanctions, the legislator employs the phrasing "measures of a restrictive nature expressed in the imposition or extension of political or economic sanctions against the Russian Federation, citizens of the Russian Federation, or Russian legal entities", adopted by "a foreign state, state association and (or) union, and (or) state (interstate) institution of a foreign state or state association and (or) union". This specific construct is reproduced in Article 20.3.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences and Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code, as well as in Article 248.1 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (the "APC RF") regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of arbitration courts of the Russian Federation over disputes involving persons subject to restrictive measures.

Terminological consistency has practical significance and determines the standard of proof. It is not an abstract call for "sanctions" that must be established, but rather an appeal inciting a specific addressee among the subjects named in the provision to impose or extend specific restrictive measures. As demonstrated below, it is precisely the defective description of these elements that most frequently leads to the overturning of judicial acts issued in a case.

Administrative Liability Under Article 20.3.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences

Administrative liability is established by Article 20.3.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences, introduced by Federal Law No. 31-FZ dated March 4, 2022, and effective from March 4, 2022. Calls for a foreign state, state association and (or) union, and (or) state (interstate) institution of a foreign state or state association and (or) union to implement restrictive measures expressed in the imposition or extension of political or economic sanctions against the Russian Federation, citizens of the Russian Federation, or Russian legal entities, committed by a citizen of the Russian Federation and (or) a Russian legal entity, provided these actions do not contain elements of a criminally punishable act, entail the imposition of an administrative fine:

• Citizens face fines ranging from 30,000 to 50,000 rubles;
• Officials are subject to penalties of 100,000 to 200,000 rubles;
• Legal entities may be penalized between 300,000 and 500,000 rubles.

The subjects of this offense are strictly defined, as liability applies specifically to citizens of the Russian Federation and (or) Russian legal entities. Foreign citizens, stateless persons, and foreign organizations are not subjects of this offense. The specific nature of the subject is preserved even after the expansion of the territorial scope of the Code of Administrative Offences. Judicial practice indicates that the subject can be not only the author of the materials containing the calls but also an official, in particular, the editor-in-chief of the mass media outlet that distributed such materials. Alongside the official, the legal entity acting as the publisher of the mass media outlet may also be held liable for the same publication.

For example, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the Altai Republic dated July 28, 2022, in case No. 12-76/2022, the court indicated that the official, the editor-in-chief of the newspaper, is the subject of the administrative offense provided for by Article 20.3.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences. The prosecuted individual, "acting as an official responsible for fulfilling the requirements applicable to the activities of mass media, improperly performed their official duties, and published in the mass media materials containing calls for the implementation of restrictive measures expressed in the imposition or extension of political or economic sanctions against the Russian Federation, citizens of the Russian Federation, or Russian legal entities".[2]

For the same publication in a print edition, both the official, the editor-in-chief (a fine of 120,000 rubles), and the legal entity, the publisher (a fine of 300,000 rubles, representing the lowest threshold of the sanction for legal entities), were held liable. The defense's argument that the publisher is not an appropriate subject was rejected with reference to Article 56 of Law of the Russian Federation No. 2124-I dated December 27, 1991, On Mass Media.[3]

Procedural specifics critical for risk assessment include the following. Cases of administrative offenses provided for by Article 20.3.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences are initiated by a prosecutor (Part 1 of Article 28.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences) because Article 20.3.4 was included in the relevant list by Item 16 of Article 1 of Federal Law No. 31-FZ dated March 4, 2022, and are heard by judges of district courts (Parts 1 and 3 of Article 23.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences). Part 1 of Article 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offences does not establish a special statute of limitations for this offense; therefore, the general statute of limitations for cases heard by a judge applies, which is 90 calendar days from the date the offense was committed. The method for calculating this period regarding internet publications varies in judicial practice. The general rule is established by Part 1.1 of Article 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offences: the statute of limitations is calculated from the date the administrative offense is committed. An exception is made for a continuing offense, for which the period is calculated from the date of its discovery (Part 2 of Article 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offences).

Judicial practice regarding the calculation of the statute of limitations remains inconsistent, which is of paramount practical significance given the brief 90-day period. One approach assumes the continuing nature of the offense: the court indicated that it "is a continuing one, expressed in the prolonged failure to perform duties, for the non-observance of which administrative liability is established", but simultaneously limited the moment of discovery, stating that "the date of discovery of the administrative offense cannot arise later" than the day when the individual's statement was taken regarding this fact. The proceedings were dismissed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.[4]

The opposing approach is grounded in Part 1.1 of Article 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offences: the period is calculated from the date of commission, the offense is not recognized as continuing, and the proceedings are dismissed under Item 6 of Part 1 of Article 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offences, including during the preparation for the hearing without examining the evidence.[5] In another case, the proceedings were dismissed due to the expiration of the period after the materials were returned to the prosecutor to cure notice deficiencies. The court specifically noted that the case file contained no evidence of the suspension of the period pursuant to Part 5 of Article 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offences.[6]

Thus, in cases of this category, it is necessary to establish and document (1) the date the act was committed (the material was posted), (2) the date it was discovered by the authority, and (3) the date of the first procedural action taken against the individual, namely taking their statement. Given the 90-day statute of limitations and the practice of returning materials to the prosecutor, the expiration of the period remains the most effective ground for dismissing the proceedings.

Failure to comply with the requirements for describing the event of the offense results in the overturning of the adopted acts. For instance, in the decision of the Ivanovo Regional Court dated October 10, 2022, in case No. 12-123/2022, the court noted that "the circumstances that constitute the objective element of this administrative offense, as correctly stated in the appealed judicial ruling, are not reflected in the prosecutor's resolution. The resolution does not specify to whom exactly the call is addressed, and to what restrictive measures the call was made".[7]

Established practice allows identifying the following court approaches. The objective element presumes a public, active action addressed to an indefinite group of persons. The calls may be expressed in any form, orally, in writing, or using technical means, and must have an inciting nature.[8] A reference to the freedom of expression guaranteed by Part 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation does not preclude the offense, as this right may be restricted by federal law under Part 3 of Article 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.[9] Posting materials on the internet prior to March 4, 2022, does not preclude liability if the materials continued to be publicly accessible after Article 20.3.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences entered into force (the offense encompasses both direct and indirect calls).[10]

The necessity of a linguistic examination warrants separate attention. According to one approach, ordering an expert examination is not required because the concept of "public calls" is a legal one, and the analyzed text "has a generally accessible and uniform meaning, for the determination of which no specialized knowledge in the field of linguistics is required in this case".[11] According to another approach, conclusions are based on a specialist's report or a certificate from a forensic expert unit establishing the "linguistic signs of incitement".[12] A procedural defect in the pre-trial examination (the specialist was not warned about liability under Article 17.9 of the Code of Administrative Offences) was deemed curable by the judge warning the specialist and the specialist confirming their conclusions during the court hearing.[13]

Practice regarding the addressee of the call is not uniform. Alongside the cited position of the Ivanovo Regional Court, which requires the prosecutor's resolution to specify the exact addressee of the call and the specific restrictive measures, an opposing approach exists asserting that public calls may be addressed to an indefinite group of persons.[14] There are no clarifications from the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation regarding Article 20.3.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences. When formulating a defense strategy, it is advisable to rely on the requirements for describing the event of the offense (Part 2 of Article 28.2, Article 28.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences), since defects in describing the objective element serve as the most robust ground for overturning adopted acts. The same approach applies at the preparatory stage: materials are returned to the prosecutor if the resolution to initiate the case "does not indicate to whom exactly the call for the implementation of restrictive measures is addressed, and it is also not indicated to which exact restrictive measures the individual's call via video message was made", which violates the individual's right to defense (Ruling of the Shuya City Court of the Ivanovo Region dated September 26, 2022, in case No. 5-226/2022). Considering the 90-day statute of limitations, returning the materials to the prosecutor often results in the de facto dismissal of the proceedings.

The subject of the call is interpreted broadly in practice. The offense covers calls for the imposition of personal sanctions against a specific citizen of the Russian Federation (Resolution of the Sovetsky District Court of Vladikavkaz of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania dated April 8, 2022, in case No. 5-590/2022: posting a petition, fine of 35,000 rubles); calls for the imposition of sanctions against Russian legal entities (Resolution of the Lensk District Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) dated April 23, 2026, in case No. 5-27/2026: a comment of a few words in a messenger group, fine of 30,000 rubles); calls for the imposition of sanctions against third states that are allies of the Russian Federation and countries of parallel import (Resolution of the Kirovsky District Court of Kazan of the Republic of Tatarstan dated February 1, 2024, in case No. 5-38/2024: public speech with a demand addressed to the UN Security Council and the G7 states, fine of 35,000 rubles); calls for maintaining and extending already imposed sanctions (Decision of the Moscow City Court dated September 21, 2022, in case No. 7-16147/2022).

The method of distribution is not limited to original text: liability also arises for posting someone else's material or a hyperlink to it, with the content accessible via the link imputed as the individual's own call; a low number of views of one's own publication does not refute publicity (Resolution of the Avtozavodsky District Court of Tolyatti of the Samara Region dated December 8, 2022, in case No. 5-3651/2022: imposed fine of 50,000 rubles, representing the maximum threshold of the sanction for citizens; the motive was the failure to admit guilt and refusal to delete the materials). Arguments claiming insignificance of the act (Article 2.9 of the Code of Administrative Offences), seeking a fine reduction below the statutory minimum (Parts 2.2 and 3.2 of Article 4.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences), and requesting a fine substitution with a warning (Article 4.1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences) were rejected in all the reviewed judicial acts.

The temporal application of the provision requires separate consideration. Pursuant to Part 1 of Article 1.7 of the Code of Administrative Offences, an individual is subject to liability based on the law effective at the time the offense was committed, and a law establishing or aggravating liability does not have retroactive effect. One line of practice resolves this issue by classifying the posting of materials on the internet as a continuing offense: significance is attributed not to the date of the initial publication, but to the material remaining in public access after March 4, 2022. Two practical conclusions follow from this. First, it is necessary to establish the exact date on which the material was accessible to an indefinite group of persons and the source of this information. Second, deleting the material prior to the provision entering into force precludes imputation, whereas its deletion afterward determines the moment the offense ceases and, consequently, the calculation of the statute of limitations (Part 2 of Article 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offences).

The modification of the territorial scope of the provision warrants specific attention. Federal Law No. 168-FZ dated June 10, 2026, On Amending the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation revised Part 3 of Article 1.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences, which took effect on September 1, 2026: administrative liability extends to a number of acts committed outside the Russian Federation, including those provided for by Article 20.3.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences, if such acts are directed against the interests of the Russian Federation, as well as in cases provided for by an international treaty of the Russian Federation, and provided that the individual has not been held criminally or administratively liable for the respective act in a foreign state. The same Federal Law amended Article 2.6 of the Code of Administrative Offences: foreign citizens, stateless persons, and foreign legal entities that committed an offense listed in Part 3 of Article 1.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences outside the Russian Federation and directed against the interests of the Russian Federation are subject to administrative liability on general grounds. Furthermore, the possibilities for seizing the property of a person subject to administrative offense proceedings have been expanded.[15]

The practical significance of the novelty concerning Article 20.3.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences is limited by the structure of the offense itself: the subject remains specific, namely a citizen of the Russian Federation and (or) a Russian legal entity. Therefore, the expansion of the territorial scope of the Code primarily covers citizens of the Russian Federation located abroad. In addition, the new wording of Part 3 of Article 1.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences highlights legal entities concerning Articles 15.27.3 and 19.28 of the Code of Administrative Offences, whereas Article 20.3.4 is named in the list of acts committed by a "person"; the question of the applicability of extraterritorial jurisdiction to Russian legal entities for this offense should be considered open until judicial practice is formed. The details and content of the novelty must be verified against the official internet portal of legal information (pravo.gov.ru) on the date the material is used.

Criminal Liability: Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code

If such calls are committed by a citizen of the Russian Federation after being held administratively liable for a similar act within one year, criminal liability ensues. Notably, the subject of the crime is defined more narrowly than the subject of the administrative offense: under Part 1 of Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code, only a citizen of the Russian Federation can be the subject, whereas under Article 20.3.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences, a Russian legal entity also bears liability.

Currently, criminal liability for calls to impose or extend restrictive measures against the Russian Federation is governed by Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code, introduced by Federal Law No. 32-FZ dated March 4, 2022. Part 1 of the cited article was revised by Federal Law No. 90-FZ dated April 21, 2025 (effective from April 21, 2025). Part 1 of this article provides for punishment in the form of a fine of up to 500,000 rubles or in the amount of the convicted person's wage or other income for a period of up to 3 years, or restriction of freedom for a term of up to 3 years, or forced labor for a term of up to 3 years, or arrest for a term of up to 6 months, or imprisonment for a term of up to 3 years with a fine of up to 200,000 rubles or in the amount of the convicted person's wage or other income for a period of up to one year, or without such fine.

Part 2 of this article, introduced by Federal Law No. 90-FZ dated April 21, 2025, establishes liability for calls made out of mercenary motives or for hire in the form of a fine from 1 million to 3 million rubles or in the amount of the convicted person's wage or other income for a period from 3 to 5 years, or forced labor for a term of up to 5 years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to 5 years, or imprisonment for a term of up to 5 years with a fine of up to 500,000 rubles or in the amount of the convicted person's wage or other income for a period of up to 2 years, or without such fine, and with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to 5 years.

It is fundamentally important to note that Part 2 of Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code constitutes an independent offense and does not require administrative prejudice. Criminal liability is triggered by the presence of mercenary motives or the commission of the act for hire, regardless of whether the individual was previously held administratively liable. Unlike Part 1, the provision of Part 2 does not limit the circle of subjects to citizens of the Russian Federation.

In addition to the primary punishment, supplementary criminal law consequences must be considered. Property acquired as a result of committing the crime provided for by Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code is subject to confiscation if the crime was committed out of mercenary motives (Item "a" of Part 1 of Article 104.1 of the Criminal Code); Article 284.2 was included in this list by Federal Law No. 90-FZ dated April 21, 2025. Upon conviction under Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code, the court, taking into account the identity of the guilty party, has the right to strip them of a special, military, or honorary title, class rank, and state awards (Article 48 of the Criminal Code). Such a possibility is predicated on a direct reference to Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code in Article 48 of the Criminal Code:[16] as a general rule, the deprivation of a title, rank, and awards is permissible only upon conviction for a grave or especially grave crime, which acts provided for by Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code are not.

Regarding Article 48 of the Criminal Code, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation indicated that it "does not contain provisions allowing the court to adopt an arbitrary decision to impose such an additional punishment: when resolving this issue, the court takes into account the identity of the guilty party, other circumstances material to the case, such as the form of guilt, the person's behavior after committing the crime, including their active repentance and desire to mitigate the harm caused, and other factors relevant to achieving the goals of punishment" (Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 799-O dated March 28, 2024). For the defense, this means that the imposition of additional punishment under Article 48 of the Criminal Code must be independently reasoned and can be the subject of an appeal.

An independent consequence of conviction under Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code is the termination of citizenship of the Russian Federation. Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code is included in the list of Part 1 of Article 24 of Federal Law No. 138-FZ dated April 28, 2023, On Citizenship of the Russian Federation; conviction under this article of a person who acquired citizenship through admission or recognition is evaluated by courts as an absolute ground for terminating citizenship "regardless of the time the respective crime was committed, the date the court verdict convicting the person for committing the respective crime was issued, and the date the decision to admit to citizenship of the Russian Federation was made".[17] The presence of close relatives who are citizens of the Russian Federation and the length of residency in the country do not prevent this. The details and current wording of the cited Federal Law must be verified.

The mechanism of administrative prejudice concerning Part 1 of Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code requires careful attention to the calculation of the one-year timeframe. The provision of the Criminal Code employs the formula "after being held administratively liable for a similar act within one year", whereas Article 4.6 of the Code of Administrative Offences defines the period during which a person is considered to have been subjected to an administrative penalty as the period from the date the resolution enters into legal force until the expiration of one year from the date its execution is completed (and in the event the fine is paid before the resolution enters into force, from the date the fine is paid). The correlation between these formulations regarding Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code has not been clarified by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. In practical terms, this signifies that when formulating a defense strategy, both the fact of the resolution in the administrative offense case entering into legal force and the period during which the person is considered subjected to an administrative penalty (Article 4.6 of the Code of Administrative Offences) must be examined: the expiration of this period by the time the new act is committed precludes administrative prejudice and, consequently, the corpus delicti provided for by Part 1 of Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code.

A guiding principle here is the legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The Court stated that criminal prosecution for such an offense requires establishing not only the fact that the person was held administratively liable but also that the respective resolutions entered into legal force by the time the act imputed as a crime was committed; any other interpretation would contradict the principle prohibiting double jeopardy. While this position was formulated regarding a different article, its methodological significance for all offenses involving administrative prejudice, including Part 1 of Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code, appears direct.[18]

The classification of the crime is also of practical significance. The act provided for by Part 1 of Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code (maximum penalty of three years of imprisonment) is classified as a minor crime, while the act under Part 2 (up to five years of imprisonment) is classified as a medium-gravity crime. This dictates the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution: two years for Part 1 and six years for Part 2.[19] Moreover, for Part 1, administrative prejudice further limits the timeframe within which the act can even be qualified as a crime to the period the individual is deemed subjected to an administrative penalty. The classification of the crime is also relevant for assessing the prospects of exemption from criminal liability with the imposition of a judicial fine: such exemption is permissible for minor and medium-gravity crimes, but regarding Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code, a practical obstacle is establishing the method of mitigating the harm, since there is no victim in this offense.

During qualification, it is necessary to distinguish Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code from related offenses. Article 280.4 of the Criminal Code, "Public calls to engage in activities directed against the security of the state", applies in the absence of elements of crimes provided for by Articles 205.2, 280, 280.1, 280.3, 284.2, and 354 of the Criminal Code. The practical significance of this competition lies in the differences in crime classifications and penalties: Part 1 of Article 280.4 of the Criminal Code prescribes imprisonment for a term of two to four years and is classified as a medium-gravity crime (Part 3 of Article 15 of the Criminal Code), whereas the act provided for by Part 1 of Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code is a minor crime. Accordingly, re-qualifying the charge to Article 280.4 of the Criminal Code worsens the individual's position, including with respect to the statute of limitations and preventive measures. Located in the same Chapter 29 of the Criminal Code are Article 284.1 (participation in the activities of a foreign or international organization with respect to which a decision was made recognizing its activities as undesirable on the territory of the Russian Federation, as well as organizing such activities) and Article 284.3 (rendering assistance in executing the decisions of international organizations in which the Russian Federation does not participate, or foreign state bodies), which was supplemented with Part 2 effective April 21, 2025, by Federal Law No. 90-FZ dated April 21, 2025.

The procedural parameters of criminal prosecution under Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code are as follows. The preliminary investigation is conducted by investigators of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation.[20] Criminal cases regarding the crime provided for by Part 1 of Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code are exempt from the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace and are heard by a district court (Part 1 of Article 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), despite the maximum penalty not exceeding three years of imprisonment.

Part 5 of Article 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation warrants special attention: Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code is explicitly included in the list of offenses for which, in exceptional cases, a court trial is permitted in absentia of the defendant who is outside the territory of the Russian Federation and (or) evades court appearance, provided that this person was not held liable in a foreign state for this criminal case.[21] In conjunction with the expanded territorial scope of the Code of Administrative Offences, this creates a consistent framework: administrative prejudice can be established against a person located abroad, and the subsequent criminal case can be heard in absentia. For defense practice, this means that engaging with the case file must commence at the administrative proceedings stage, rather than after the initiation of a criminal case.

Finally, Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code is not among the offenses listed in Part 1.1 of Article 108 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; therefore, the restrictions stipulated by said provision on the application of pre-trial detention in cases involving crimes committed in the sphere of entrepreneurial activity do not apply to it. At the same time, restrictions stem from the classification of the crime. Under Part 1 of Article 108 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 13-FZ dated February 28, 2025), pre-trial detention is applied to a suspect or accused of committing a medium-gravity crime involving the use of violence or the threat of its use, or a grave or especially grave crime. For a suspect or accused of committing a minor crime – which the act provided for by Part 1 of Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code is – this preventive measure may be chosen only in exceptional cases and only provided that the person violated a previously chosen preventive measure or absconded from the preliminary investigation authorities or the court (Sub-item 2 of Part 1 of Article 108 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). For Part 2 of Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code (a medium-gravity crime not involving violence), the circumstances stipulated by Sub-items "a" and "b" of Item 1 of Part 1 of Article 108 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation are additionally applicable.[22]

Non-criminal consequences must also be considered. The mechanism of Article 16 of Law of the Russian Federation No. 2124-I dated December 27, 1991, On Mass Media applies to a mass media outlet: the activities of mass media may be terminated by a court upon a lawsuit by the registering authority in the event of repeated violations within a twelve-month period of the requirements of Article 4 of the cited Law, regarding which the registering authority issued written warnings. Part 1 of Article 4 of the Mass Media Law prohibits the use of mass media for the purpose of committing criminally punishable acts, which makes this mechanism potentially applicable in the presence of elements of a crime provided for by Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code. The practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on terminating the activities of mass media based on Article 16 of the said Law is established, although known decisions are based on other violations of Article 4 of the Mass Media Law.[23]

In addition to the mechanism of Article 16 of the Mass Media Law, two independent legal information consequences occur regardless of whether a specific individual is held liable.

First, the posted information may be recognized as prohibited for distribution upon an administrative lawsuit filed by a prosecutor pursuant to Chapter 27.1 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure of the Russian Federation; the ground is the presence in the material of elements of acts provided for by Article 20.3.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences and Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code.[24] Establishing the identity of the person who posted the information is not required in this instance, and the decision is subject to immediate execution.[25] In certain acts, the refusal of the lawsuit is reasoned by the fact that access to the material is already restricted or the material was deleted by the owner of the resource – meaning that voluntary deletion retains practical significance at this stage as well.

Second, the very fact of initiating a criminal case under Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code or an administrative offense case under Article 20.3.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences connected with the dissemination of information on the internet serves as a departmental ground for the extrajudicial restriction of access to the information resource pursuant to Article 15.3 of Federal Law No. 149-FZ dated July 27, 2006. The relevant provision [26] was reiterated by the court of cassation: "information on the initiation of criminal cases under Articles 207.3, 280.3, 284.2 of the Criminal Code, as well as administrative offense cases provided for by Articles 20.3.3 and 20.3.4 of the CAO RF, related to the dissemination in information and telecommunication networks, including the internet, of information in violation of the law, constitutes a ground for implementing measures". Moreover, as indicated by the court of first instance and concurred with by the court of cassation, "the purpose of issuing the demand is not to restrict access to specific information, but to take measures to restrict access to information resources, pages on a social network", meaning access is restricted to the resource as a whole, rather than to an individual publication.[27] The lifting of the restriction is executed through the owner of the information resource after the unlawful information is deleted, rather than by challenging the demand.

Concurrently, already at the stage of hearing the case under Article 20.3.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences, the prosecutor submits evidence to the court on whether the person was held administratively liable for a similar act within the year.[28] For the defense, this implies that the materials of the initial administrative proceedings must be evaluated considering their subsequent criminal law significance, and the decision to refrain from appealing a resolution in an administrative offense case should be made accounting for the risk under Part 1 of Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code.

Liability for Violating Russian Restrictive and Special Economic Measures

The aforementioned offenses encompass liability for calls to impose sanctions. Meanwhile, liability is also established for violating restrictive and special economic measures imposed by the Russian Federation itself. The foundational acts in this regard are Federal Law No. 281-FZ dated December 30, 2006, On Special Economic Measures and Coercive Measures and Federal Law No. 127-FZ dated June 4, 2018, On Measures of Influence (Counteraction) Against Unfriendly Actions of the United States of America and Other Foreign States, as well as decrees of the President of the Russian Federation adopted since 2022.

Administrative liability for failing to apply coercive measures to freeze (block) monetary funds and other property provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation on special economic measures and coercive measures is established by Part 2 of Article 15.27.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences[29] and entails the imposition of an administrative fine on legal entities in the amount of 300,000 to 500,000 rubles. The statute of limitations is explicitly defined by law. Part 1 of Article 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offences establishes a six-year period from the date the administrative offense is committed, particularly for violating the legislation of the Russian Federation on countering terrorism and the legislation of the Russian Federation on special economic measures and coercive measures – with the reservation "regarding the administrative offense provided for by Article 15.27.1 of this Code". The reservation applies to the article in its entirety and covers both of its parts; thus, a six-year, rather than general, statute of limitations applies to Part 2 of Article 15.27.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences; the current wording of the provision provides no grounds for an opposing conclusion.

The most prevalent practical consequence of non-compliance with Decrees of the President of Russia is the civil law invalidity of the transaction. In several instances, the nullity is established directly by a decree. For example, transactions (operations) executed in violation of the provisions of Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 520 are null and void pursuant to Item 4 of the cited Decree.[30]

Thus, in one of the matters, the courts recognized a pledge agreement for shares (100% participatory interest in the charter capital) as null and void and dismissed the lawsuit to foreclose on the pledged property. The ultimate beneficial owner of the Russian economic entity was registered in a foreign jurisdiction, and a company from an unfriendly state acted as the pledgee of the participatory interests in the charter capital of the affiliated entity. Among other points, the court noted that transactions (operations) with shares (participatory interests) are prohibited under Sub-item "e" of Item 2 of Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 520 dated August 5, 2022, because the entity is a user of subsoil plots located on the territory of the Russian Federation containing hydrocarbon deposits with recoverable reserves not lower than the threshold values established by the Decree (at least 20 million tons of oil, 20 billion cubic meters of natural gas, or 35 million tons of coal).[31]

The prohibition established by Decree No. 520 is extended through December 31, 2027.[32] Transactions (operations) falling under the prohibition may be executed on the basis of a special decision by the President of the Russian Federation (Item 5 of the Decree), and if at least one of the parties is an individual, on the basis of a permit from the Government Commission on Monitoring Foreign Investment in the Russian Federation, issued pursuant to an instruction from the President of the Russian Federation.[33]

In other instances, courts recognize transactions executed without the required permit from the Government Commission on Monitoring Foreign Investment in the Russian Federation or in violation of the established settlement procedure as null and void on the basis of Articles 10 and 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Is Liability Established for Complying with Foreign Sanctions?

The issue that arises most frequently in practice must be separately addressed: whether liability is established in the Russian Federation for complying with foreign sanctions. As of the date this material was prepared, no such liability is established. Draft Federal Law No. 464757-7, which envisioned supplementing Chapter 29 of the Criminal Code with Article 284.2 concerning liability for restricting or refusing to execute ordinary business operations or transactions to facilitate the implementation of restrictive measures, was passed by the State Duma in the first reading in May 2018 and was not considered thereafter.

Additionally, Draft Federal Law No. 102053-8, On Amending Article 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, was being developed, proposing to supplement Part Two of Article 201 of the Criminal Code with a new qualifying feature: abuse of authority aimed at executing a decision of a foreign state, union of foreign states, or international organization to impose restrictive measures against the Russian Federation. The Legal Department of the Apparatus of the State Duma expressed no conceptual objections to the draft, pointing out the necessity of bringing the utilized terminology in line with the wording of Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code, Article 20.3.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences, and Article 248.1 of the "APC RF". As of the date the review was prepared, Part Two of Article 201 of the Criminal Code has not been supplemented with the corresponding qualifying feature; the status of the draft law must be verified via the legislative support system.[34]

The refusal to fulfill obligations citing foreign restrictive measures is evaluated primarily within the realm of civil law. Foreign sanctions, as a general rule, are not considered force majeure circumstances within the meaning of Item 3 of Article 401 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, and disputes involving sanctioned persons are assigned to the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitration courts of the Russian Federation.[35] Furthermore, actions by individuals performing managerial functions that result in substantial harm to the organization may receive a criminal law evaluation under the current wording of Article 201 of the Criminal Code even without the discussed qualifying feature, provided all elements of the abuse of authority offense are proven.

The Russian liability model in the sanctions sphere is structured on a principle opposite to the American and European ones: it is not the violation of restrictive measures that is punishable, but the incitement to impose or extend them. Administrative liability under Article 20.3.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences serves as a gateway offense, criminal liability under Part 1 of Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code is derivative of it, while Part 2 of Article 284.2 of the Criminal Code constitutes an independent offense that does not require administrative prejudice. Operating in parallel is a block of liability for violating proprietary Russian restrictive measures, where the primary practical consequence is not a fine, but the nullity of the transaction.

This review was prepared by BRACE Law Firm; it is of an informational and analytical nature, and does not constitute legal advice, a recommendation for a specific situation, an advertisement, or a public offer. The provisions, details of acts, and their wordings must be verified as of the date of use.

The review describes the elements of an offense and a crime and the practice of their application. It does not contain calls for the imposition or extension of restrictive measures against the Russian Federation, citizens of the Russian Federation, or Russian legal entities, nor does it constitute an endorsement or support of such measures. Quotes from judicial acts are provided verbatim, from open sources, in an anonymized format, and solely for the purposes of the review. The practice of courts of first and appellate instances holds no prejudicial or precedential value.

_____________________

References

1. Order of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 430-r dated March 5, 2022.
2. Decision of the Supreme Court of the Altai Republic dated July 28, 2022, in case No. 12-76/2022.
3. Resolution of the Gorno-Altaysk City Court of the Altai Republic dated April 27, 2022, in case No. 5-3302/2022; resolution of the same court dated June 21, 2022, in case No. 5-3898/2022, upheld by the decision of the Supreme Court of the Altai Republic dated July 28, 2022, in case No. 12-76/2022. Judicial acts are presented below in an anonymized format; the acts of district, city, and regional courts hold no prejudicial or precedential value.
4. Resolution of the Yakutsk City Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) dated May 2, 2024, in case No. 5-802/2024.
5. Resolution of the Aleksandrovsk City Court of the Perm Territory dated September 24, 2025, in case No. 5-25/2025: the act was committed on September 25, 2024, discovered on October 16, 2024, and the case was initiated on September 19, 2025.
6. Resolution of the Avtozavodsky District Court of Tolyatti of the Samara Region dated November 11, 2022, in case No. 5-3573/2022.
7. Decision of the Ivanovo Regional Court dated October 10, 2022, in case No. 12-123/2022.
8. Decision of the Supreme Court of the Altai Republic dated July 28, 2022, in case No. 12-76/2022.
9. Decision of the Moscow City Court dated September 21, 2022, in case No. 7-16147/2022.
10. Decision of the Samara Regional Court dated July 19, 2022, in case No. 12-425/2022.
11. Decision of the Supreme Court of the Altai Republic dated July 28, 2022, in case No. 12-76/2022.
12. Resolution of the Lensk District Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) dated April 23, 2026, in case No. 5-27/2026; resolution of the Kiselyovsk City Court of the Kemerovo Region dated June 17, 2025, in case No. 5-84/2025.
13. Resolution of the Gorno-Altaysk City Court of the Altai Republic dated June 21, 2022, in case No. 5-3898/2022.
14. Decision of the Supreme Court of the Altai Republic dated July 28, 2022, in case No. 12-76/2022.
15. Federal Law No. 168-FZ dated June 10, 2026, On Amending the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (official publication: publication.pravo.gov.ru, publication number 0001202606100028; draft federal law No. 840397-8).
16. As amended by Federal Law No. 11-FZ dated February 14, 2024.
17. Appellate ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Administrative Cases of the Kursk Regional Court dated June 30, 2026, in case No. 33a-1548/2026; appellate ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Administrative Cases of the Court of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug dated August 10, 2026, in case No. 33a-2110/2026.
18. Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 2-P dated February 10, 2017 (on the case concerning the review of the constitutionality of the provisions of Article 212.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
19. Items "a" and "b" of Part 1 of Article 78 of the Criminal Code.
20. Sub-item "a" of Item 1 of Part 2 of Article 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
21. Part 5 of Article 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is provided as amended by Federal Law No. 101-FZ dated April 21, 2025.
22. General grounds and circumstances considered when imposing a preventive measure are defined by Articles 97 and 99 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
23. Decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. AKPI22-679 dated September 15, 2022 (upheld without modification by ruling of the Appellate Panel of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. APL22-550 dated December 22, 2022): termination of the activities of mass media based on Article 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation On Mass Media due to a violation of Part 9 of Article 4 of the cited Law.
24. Part 6 of Article 10 of Federal Law No. 149-FZ dated July 27, 2006, On Information, Information Technologies and Data Protection.
25. Decisions of the Balashikha City Court of the Moscow Region dated August 5, 2022, in case No. 2a-5618/2022 and dated August 15, 2022, in case No. 2a-5710/2022; decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Novorossiysk of the Krasnodar Territory dated July 22, 2022, in case No. 2a-3207/2022.
26. Item 7.4 of the Instruction approved by Order of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation No. 596 dated August 26, 2019.
27. Cassation ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Administrative Cases of the Seventh Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated June 5, 2024, in case No. 8a-8937/2024 [88a-10530/2024].
28. Resolution of the Kirovsky District Court of Kazan of the Republic of Tatarstan dated February 1, 2024, in case No. 5-38/2024.
29. Part 2 was introduced by Federal Law No. 31-FZ dated March 4, 2022, and entered into force on September 1, 2022, following the expiration of 180 days after the date of its official publication, pursuant to Part 1 of Article 2 of the cited Federal Law.
30. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 520 dated August 5, 2022, On the Application of Special Economic Measures in the Financial and Fuel and Energy Sectors in Connection with the Unfriendly Actions of Certain Foreign States and International Organizations.
31. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Volga District dated January 25, 2023, in case No. A06-12409/2018; Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Volga District dated February 27, 2023, in case No. A06-12408/2018.
32. Item 1 of the Decree as amended by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 897 dated December 8, 2025.
33. Item 5-3 of the Decree, introduced by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 435 dated July 1, 2025.
34. Opinion of the Legal Department of the Apparatus of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on Draft Federal Law No. 102053-8 On Amending Article 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (first reading). The status of the draft law must be verified via the legislative support system (sozd.duma.gov.ru).
35. Article 248.1 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.