Annually, the statistics of debtors in Russia are growing rapidly. This situation is caused by a large number of financial institutions willing to provide loans to citizens. At the same time, many people take so much money that in the end they are not able to give it on time. Of course, banks want to return the funds and are forced to use the services of collectors. At the same time, domestic legislation provides for liability for malicious evasion of paying off payables. Let us further consider which norm governs this sphere.
The legislative framework
In the event of a situation where the debtor is in no hurry to return the money taken on credit, the bank does not immediately begin to intimidate him. First of all, the reasons for the delay are clarified. If they are insignificant and did not create obstacles for a timely return of funds, the credit structure warns the borrower about the liability, which, in particular, is provided for in Article 177 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Failure to repay a loan can result in various penalties, including imprisonment. It should be said that until recently, this norm was used quite rarely. However, after February 2008, Article 177 of the Criminal Code began to be applied much more actively. This was due to the fact that the consideration of cases in this area was transferred to the FSSP.
Article 177 of the Criminal Code: myths
There are several misconceptions in society about the application of this norm. Among the most common should be noted:
- Lack of opportunities for effective accountability.
- The norm can only be applied to accounts payable.
- It’s easy to get rid of responsibility.
- In the case of proper application of the article there will be many sentences.
Consider these myths in more detail.
Lack of punishment
Experts consider this a statement of myth, drawing an analogy with Art. 157 of the Criminal Code, establishing liability for malicious defaulters of alimony. As statistics show, this norm is applied quite often. Over the course of one year, a relatively large number of sentences are handed down in various courts. In general, according to statistics, the percentage of application of this article is 10% of the total number of similar cases.
Object of crime
As was said, many believe that Art. 177 is applicable only to debtors who are past due and maliciously do not pay loans. This error is a consequence of the carelessness of citizens to the letter of the law. Article 177 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation covers all accounts payable. It does not include only accounts receivable, tax and other obligations excluded by the norm. Thus, Article 177 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation can be applied not only to delinquencies in bank loans, but also in case of violation of the terms of the supply contract, refusal of the damages imputed by the court, and so on.
Ease of responsibility
Many believe that by partially repaying the debt, they will thus be exempted from punishment. This misconception is based on an analogy with Art. 159 "Fraud." In it, in some cases, partial closure of a debt indicates a lack of intent in committing theft of property. However, article 177 does not consider malicious evasion as theft. In this regard, partial deductions will not help the entity get rid of responsibility.
The likelihood of a large number of sentences
This assumption can also be considered a delusion. Article 177 is applicable when an entity has a real opportunity to transfer amounts on time, but does not. However, you can still get rid of responsibility. If the threat of punishment is already real enough, often the debt is repaid. In this case, the subject is released from liability as a result of reconciliation with the victim. As practice shows, such situations, as a rule, happen already at the trial stage.
Article 177 of the Criminal Code (with commentary)
The norm defines the signs by which the actions of the subject are qualified as a crime. Responsibility arises in case of evasion by the head of the company or an individual from repayment of his large payables or payment of shares and other securities after the entry into force of the court decision. For such acts established several options for punishment. In particular, article 177 provides:
- Fine up to 200 thousand rubles. or in the amount of income or salary of the perpetrator received for a period of up to 18 months.
- Arrest up to six months.
- Mandatory work up to 480 hours
- Imprisonment up to 2 years.
- Forced labor up to 2 years.
As a "large size" acts the amount of 1.5 million rubles. Such should be the minimum loan debt of a citizen in order to initiate criminal proceedings. Moreover, fines, penalties, interest are not included in this amount. In order to qualify the legal entity’s actions according to the composition provided for in Article 177, the amount of the obligation must be at least 3 million rubles. In this case, funds must be issued by one banking organization. That is, if the subject took 1 million each in different institutions and does not return them, it is impossible to initiate production. Until recently, it was possible to bring to justice with a debt of 250 thousand rubles.
additional information
As a rule, Article 177 is applied at the initiative of the bailiffs after the appeal of the bank employees. At the initial stage, a civil lawsuit is received from the legal department of the financial institution . During the proceedings, the debtor provides evidence of payments made by him, disagrees with certain charges, and substantiates his position. In general, holding the defendant accountable is quite problematic. The norm sets the minimum amount of debt - 1.5 million for citizens without additional charges. But it is they, as a rule, that form the sum necessary for the initiation of production. Large loans are usually secured. In connection with the increasing cases of default, banking institutions have tightened the check on the solvency of entities.
Conclusion
The consequences of avoiding debt repayment include property damage caused by the behavior of the borrower. It is expressed not only in the form of direct financial losses, but also in the lost profit of the bank. In addition, this attitude of the borrower undermines the trust of customers, entails a downgrade of the company. Crime under Art. 177 of the Criminal Code is included in the category of lasting. The onset of consequences from the behavior of the subject indicates the presence of intent in his actions.