Administrative and criminal liability for violation of consumer rights in the legislation of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus: a comparative legal study

Chagina Elizaveta Mihailovna Junior Researcher ; Department of Private Law ; Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation 31 Bolshaya Cheremushkinskaya str., Moscow, 117218, Russia chagina.elizaveta1997@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Sisoev Yurii Evgen'evich Senior lecturer; Department of Organization of activities of Road Safety Units; Moscow Regional Branch of the Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs named after V.Ya. Kikot 117437, Russia, Moscow, Akademika Volgina str., 12 support_mosu@mvd.ru

General remarks

In modern economic conditions, the protection and protection of the rights of citizens – consumers of goods and services is no less important task of the state than ensuring the rights of entrepreneurs. Creating an adequate level of consumer rights guarantees is extremely important for the economy, since consumer demand is a powerful factor in its development. Thus, according to the Eurasian Economic Commission (hereinafter referred to as the EEC), the share of consumer spending in the GDP of the member countries of the Eurasian Economic Union exceeds (hereinafter referred to as the EAEU) 50% (https://potrebitel.eaeunion.org/ru). In addition, the protection of the rights of citizens as consumers is also a manifestation of the social function of the state, since it is designed, among other things, to give them access to various kinds of social benefits and ensure a decent standard of living. In this regard, the literature notes that "the protection and effective protection of consumer rights are among the priority areas for the development of modern law and order, focused on building a civil society, a legal and social state." ^{[1, c. 15]}

These circumstances determine the need to ensure consumer rights guarantees by the norms of not only private, but also public law, namely through the establishment of administrative and criminal liability, which allows the state to prevent, firstly, massive, and secondly, the most socially dangerous violations of consumer rights. The above fully applies to both the legislation of the Russian Federation and the legislation of the Republic of Belarus. Article 43 of the Law of the Russian Federation dated 07.02.1992 No. 2300-1 "On Consumer Rights Protection" (hereinafter – the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection") established that violation of consumer rights entails not only civil law, but also in cases provided for by law, criminal and administrative liability. It follows from the provisions of Articles 42 and 43 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus dated 09.01.2002 No. 90-Z "On Consumer Rights Protection" (hereinafter – the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Rights Protection") that the legislation of the Republic of Belarus establishes both civil, administrative and criminal liability for violation of consumer rights.

Meanwhile, the following should be noted. Both countries are members of a number of regional associations, participation in which involves the harmonization of legislation in the field of consumer protection, which raises the question of whether this involves the convergence of only the provisions of legislation regulating civil law relations with the participation of consumers, or also the provisions of criminal and administrative legislation regulating public law relations related to the involvement of to the public responsibility of persons who have committed crimes or administrative offenses that infringe on the rights of consumers.

The Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus are members of the EAEU, within the framework of which, in accordance with the 2014 EAEU Treaty, the member States undertake to pursue a coordinated policy in the field of consumer protection and protection (Article 61), including taking measures aimed at bringing the legislation of the participating countries closer, that is, establishing similar, comparable regulation in matters of consumer protection (sub-item 5, paragraph 3 of Appendix No. 13 to the EAEU Treaty). However, does this mean a convergence of measures of criminal and administrative legislation in terms of liability for acts infringing on consumer rights? It should be noted that the EEC has the authority to develop recommendations for the EAEU member states defining areas for improving legal regulation in the field of consumer protection (sub–item 2, paragraph 6 of Annex No. 13 to the EAEU Treaty). Meanwhile, such recommendations contain provisions concerning the civil law regulation of contractual relations with the participation of consumers, while in matters of establishing measures of public liability for violation of consumer rights, the EEC proceeds from the fact that this area belongs exclusively to the competence of the national legislator, therefore, as a rule, the recommendations do not contain provisions relating to this issue. The only exception may be the Recommendation of the EEC Board dated 05/21/2019 No. 15 "On general issues for the establishment of special measures to protect the rights and interests of certain categories of consumers", which states that in order to protect vulnerable categories of consumers, such as the disabled, minors, the elderly, etc., the legislation of the EAEU member states It may provide for special measures to protect the rights and interests of such persons, including special liability measures for misleading them about consumer properties, quality or availability of goods, as well as for denying them access to goods, works or services (paragraph 6). The wording of the said provision gives grounds for concluding that that in this case, we can also talk about the establishment in national legislation of public law, for example, administrative responsibility for violation of the rights of such persons, but the Recommendation does not contain a direct requirement to consolidate such measures.

From what has been said, it follows that within the framework of the EAEU, it is obvious that the convergence of civil law regulation in the field of consumer protection is assumed, whereas the establishment of measures of public liability is attributed to the discretion of the national legislator. However, in this regard, it should be noted that the improvement of civil law regulation of consumer relations usually also entails the modernization of the system of measures of public liability for violation of consumer rights: for example, in the Russian Federation, amendments to the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection" led to the transformation of the norms of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation (hereinafter - Administrative Code of the Russian Federation), establishing liability for violation of consumer rights, including the inclusion in the Code of new administrative offenses in this area. ^[2]

Russia and Belarus are also members of the Union State, established on the basis of the Treaty of 1999. The very idea of creating a Union State is to "unite the peoples of the two countries into a democratic state governed by the rule of law" (Article 1). This determines the deeper nature of integration processes, including the processes of harmonization and subsequent unification of legislation in the field of protection and protection of consumer rights.

In particular, the Agreement provides for the establishment of uniform rules for consumer protection within the framework of the Union State (Article 17). This issue is attributed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Union State, which implies the adoption of relevant documents by its bodies, and not by the bodies of the participating countries (Article 59). On issues of regulatory regulation attributed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Union State, laws or decrees are adopted – acts that are binding on all participating countries and have direct effect (Part 1 of Article 60). However, it should be noted that such acts, as follows from Article 17 of the Treaty, are adopted on a well-defined range of issues attributed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Union State.

In general, the issue of harmonization and unification of legislation belongs to the joint responsibility of the Union State and the participating countries (Article 18). On subjects of joint jurisdiction, normative legal acts are adopted in the form of Legislative Bases or directives, which, being mandatory, leave a certain scope for discretion for the participating countries in regulating a particular sphere of public relations (Part 4 of Article 60). The Treaty explicitly states that "normative legal acts of the Union State on subjects of joint jurisdiction of the Union State are implemented through the adoption of national normative legal acts of the participating States on relevant issues" (Part 3 of Article 59). In this regard, it seems that in a number of areas, certain differences in legal regulation may remain, although its convergence is expected.

It should be noted that the literature critically evaluates the "complete harmonization" of even consumer protection legislation. T.A. Gorupa in this regard notes that, despite the need for harmonization processes, and in some aspects unification of legislation, countries need to preserve their own traditions of regulatory regulation in order to stimulate a competitive environment. ^{[3, p. 118]} Moreover, it is hardly possible to completely unify criminal legislation or legislation on administrative offenses, even if it concerns only issues of establishing liability for violation of consumer rights. Securing a comparable level of consumer rights guarantees, of course, also applies to liability for violation of their rights. However, the establishment of administrative or criminal liability for certain violations of consumer rights cannot be based on a purely mechanical copying of the experience of legislative regulation of another State, but must take into account the state of national legal regulation of consumer protection and law enforcement practice.

At the same time, the study of the provisions of the legislation of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus establishing administrative and criminal liability for violation of consumer rights is of scientific interest, since it allows us to compare two different approaches to determining the public liability of business entities for violation of the rights of consumer citizens.

The specificity of the research topic determines the choice of methodology: first of all, we are talking about the use of formal legal, as well as comparative legal research methods.

Criminal liability for violation of consumer rights in the legislation of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus

In the Russian scientific literature, little attention is paid to special consideration of criminal liability for violation of consumer rights, which is not least due to the fact that the current version of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) does not fix the elements of crimes in which consumer rights would be the main object of criminal protection. The work of E.Y. Pospelova deserves attention, in which an attempt is made to classify crimes that infringe on consumer rights. ^[4] In turn, in the Belarusian legal literature, more attention is paid to the issues of criminal liability for violation of consumer rights, in particular, in the works of V.V. Hilyuta and K.Y. Shcherbak. The latter author pays attention not only to research in the field of criminal law of the Republic of Belarus, but also to the comparative legal analysis of the norms of criminal law of the post-Soviet states. ^[5]

The study of the problems of criminal liability for violation of consumer rights requires, first of all, to determine which crimes should be attributed to violating consumer rights.

Thus, E.Y. Pospelova identifies crimes that violate the consumer's rights to own, use and dispose of property (Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), crimes that violate the consumer's rights to receive goods and services of appropriate quality or the right to receive reliable information about the product, work or service or about the seller (manufacturer, performer) (art. 180, 181, 184 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), as well as crimes that violate the consumer's right to the safety of goods, works and services (Articles 215-1, 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). ^{[4, p. 7]} Meanwhile, this point of view seems controversial, if only because the author combines into one category the elements of crimes having different objects, i.e. public relations, which are harmed by criminal encroachment ^{[6, p. 198-210]} For example, the object of fraud (Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) are property relations, the object of illegal use of means of individualization (Article 180 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) – relations in the field of intellectual property, the object of production, storage, transportation, sale of goods and products, or the performance of works or services that do not meet safety requirements (Article 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) – public relations regarding human life and health ^{[7, p. 194]}. Of course, all these acts in one way or another cause harm to the legal relations in which the consumer participates, however, these norms have other objects of criminal law protection, while the rights of consumers are protected only indirectly by them.

It can be said that only Article 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is aimed directly at protecting consumer rights in the sense that it protects the right of consumers to the safety of goods, works and services for life and health, provided for in Article 7 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Protection". Nevertheless, in this case, the object of criminal law protection is not limited only to contractual relations in which consumer citizens participate, but covers, in principle, relations related to the protection of public health. It is precisely because of this circumstance that any individual can be recognized as a victim under Article 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, regardless of whether he was in a contractual relationship with a person (organization) that carried out production, storage or transportation for the purpose of marketing or selling goods and products, performing works or providing services that do not meet safety requirements the life or health of consumers (paragraph 4 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/25/2019 No. 18 "On judicial practice in cases of crimes provided for in Article 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation").

The crime provided for in Part 1 of Article 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation has a formal composition, that is, to bring a person to justice, the onset of consequences in the form of harm to the health of consumers is not required. At the same time, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation draws attention to the fact that in order to bring a person to responsibility under Part 1, as well as paragraphs "a" (commission of an act by a group of persons by prior agreement or an organized group) and paragraph "b" (if the act concerned goods, works or services that are intended for children in 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a prerequisite is the presence of a real danger of goods, products, works or services for human life or health (paragraph 2 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/25/2019 No. 18 "On judicial practice in cases of crimes provided for in Article 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation"). In the event that a person sells goods, performs work or provides services of inadequate quality or in violation of the requirements established by law, but this does not pose a danger to the life and health of consumers, such a person will not be criminally liable, but administratively liable under Article 14.4 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation or, if there has been a violation of the requirements of technical regulations, according to Article 14.43 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (paragraph 3 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/25/2019 No. 18 "On judicial practice in cases of crimes provided for in Article 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation"). The material composition of the crimes provided for in paragraph "b" of Part 2 (if the commission of these actions negligently caused serious harm to health or death to a person) and Part 3 of Article 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (if the commission of these actions negligently caused the death of two or more persons).

The acts listed in Article 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are characterized by an intentional form of guilt (paragraph 6 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/25/2019 No. 18 "On judicial practice in cases of crimes provided for in Article 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation"). At the same time, the literature justifiably draws attention to the fact that the commission of this crime is possible with both direct and indirect intent, since there is no indication in the wording of the norm that the goods sold, products, etc. must obviously not meet safety requirements. ^{[8, p. 55]} This position is also confirmed in judicial practice (see e.g. Cassation ruling of the Fourth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated 07/21/2021 in case No. 77-2256/2021).

The Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus), as well as the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, contains norms establishing responsibility for the release or sale of substandard products (Article 337 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus) and for the provision of services that do not meet safety requirements (Article 338 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus).

Article 337 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus establishes responsibility for a number of acts.

Firstly, it is the release to the commodity market or the sale to consumers of substandard products that are obviously capable of causing diseases or poisoning of people, or knowingly contaminated with radionuclides beyond acceptable levels. This composition provides for administrative prejudice, i.e. the crime must be committed within a year after bringing a person to administrative responsibility for a similar act provided for in Article 17.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Belarus (hereinafter – the Administrative Code of the Republic of Belarus). The composition is formal, since it does not require the occurrence of any dangerous consequences for bringing a person to criminal responsibility. The crime is characterized by an intentional form of guilt, and it is in the form of direct intent, as evidenced by the indication that the person must know about the danger of the product.

Secondly, the mentioned norm establishes responsibility for the release or sale of substandard products, which inadvertently caused serious or less serious bodily injury (Part 2 of Article 337 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus) or death of a person (part 3 of Article 337 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus). These acts are characterized by complex guilt, that is, intentional commission of a crime and negligence in relation to the consequences resulting from this crime (Article 25 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus). In general, such crimes are considered to have been committed intentionally.

It should be taken into account that products in Article 337 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus are understood not only goods that are directly sold to consumer citizens, but also any other products intended not for personal consumption, but for use in production and other activities. ^{[9, p. 41]} In this regard, it should be borne in mind that the object of criminal law protection is not only the right of consumers to the safety of goods, but in general the relationship of public health protection.

Article 338 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus establishes responsibility for the performance of works or the provision of services that knowingly do not meet the safety requirements for the life or health of consumers, which inadvertently caused less serious bodily injury (Part 1 of Article 338 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus) or causing death or serious bodily injury (part 2 of Article 338 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus). In this case, there is a difference in the approach to establishing responsibility in the criminal law of Russia and Belarus: if the corpus delicti provided for in Part 1 of Article 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is formal, then in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus criminal liability for the performance of work or the provision of services that do not meet safety requirements is provided only in the event of any consequences for the life or health of people, that is, the crime has a material composition. Just like the acts provided for in Part 2 of Article 337 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus, the crimes specified in Article 338 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus are characterized by complex guilt.

Before 2003 The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation also provided for liability for consumer deception (Article 200 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), which meant measuring, weighing, cheating, misleading about consumer properties or quality of goods (services) or other consumer deception committed on a significant or large scale (Article 200 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). At the same time, causing damage to the consumer in the amount of more than one tenth of the minimum wage (hereinafter referred to as the minimum wage) was recognized as a significant amount, and in the amount of at least one minimum wage was recognized as a large amount. In the literature, this provision of the criminal law has been critically evaluated, in particular, it was pointed out that such a low amount of damage does not give grounds to believe that the said act has the level of public danger that gives grounds to consider it a crime. ^[10]

The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation also established liability for the use in advertising of deliberately false information about goods, works or services, as well as their manufacturers, sellers or performers, committed out of self-interest and causing significant damage (Article 182 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In the literature, this norm was also considered as aimed at protecting the rights and interests of consumers, which should be agreed with. ^{[11, p. 23]}

Federal Law No. 162-FZ dated 08.12.2003 abrogated these norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The explanatory note to the relevant draft law indicated that responsibility for consumer deception, as well as for violation of advertising legislation, has already been established by the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, which is sufficient. At the same time, attention is drawn to the fact that this does not give grounds to talk about the complete decriminalization of consumer deception in domestic criminal law, since the commission of such actions is covered by Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which establishes liability for fraud. ^{[12, p. 95]} The same can be said about deliberately false advertising, which can be considered as a means of committing fraudulent actions. ^{[13, p. 43]}

The Criminal law of the Republic of Belarus also previously provided for liability for consumer fraud (Article 257 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus). Unlike the Russian law, the Belarusian law did not specify in what form the deception is committed. In this regard, the doctrine noted that "deception of consumers should be understood as any actions of the perpetrator aimed at obtaining from citizens amounts exceeding the cost of goods or services rendered, underestimation (overestimation) of the qualitative or quantitative characteristics of goods sold, works performed or services rendered." ^{[14, p. 328]} The Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus provided the onset of criminal liability for consumer deception not only if this act caused damage to the consumer in a significant amount (i.e. in the amount of one second of the basic amount established on the day of the crime), but also if the person was previously brought to administrative responsibility for consumer deception, regardless of the size of the damage caused damage.

The mentioned norm of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus has been critically evaluated in the scientific literature. Thus, V.V. Khilyuta drew attention to the problems of distinguishing the composition of consumer deception and fraud, including the fact that homogeneous actions are qualified differently depending on whether a consumer citizen is a victim of a crime or a citizen who purchases goods for the purpose of carrying out entrepreneurial activity, or a legal entity. ^{[14, pp. 240-243]} Scientists also noted that the establishment of a minimum amount of damage as a necessary condition for criminal prosecution in the amount of only half the size of the base value indicates a slight public danger of the consequences of consumer fraud, which, in turn, calls into question the need to criminalize this act. ^{[15, pp. 39-40]} In 2024, art. 257 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus was canceled.

At the same time, the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus retains the norm on liability for the dissemination of deliberately false information about goods and services or the use of advertising misleading consumers regarding the quality, quantity, composition, method of manufacture and other characteristics of goods, works or services (Article 250 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus). It draws attention to the fact that, unlike the previously valid Russian criminal law, the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus formulates this corpus delicti as a formal one, since responsibility comes regardless of whether the commission of the above actions caused any damage. In this regard, the doctrine notes that this circumstance does not allow us to consider the dissemination of deliberately false information about goods, works or services as a kind of fraud, since the latter implies the onset of consequences in the form of causing property damage to the victim. ^{[16, p. 37]} The crime is characterized by an intentional form of guilt. The qualifying feature for this crime is the dissemination of deliberately false information regarding products that may harm the health of consumers (part 2 of Article 250 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus).

The scientific literature suggests that the actions provided for in Article 250 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus essentially constitute either a violation of advertising legislation or consumer deception, and therefore the existence of criminal liability for such acts in the presence of administrative measures is criticized as excessive. ^{[15, p. 39]} However, this position it seems indisputable. Indeed, the Administrative Code of the Republic of Belarus establishes liability for violation of the legislation on advertising (Article 13.9 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Belarus), which implies liability, including for false advertising in the sense in which it is understood in Article 26 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus dated 05/10/2007 No. 225-Z "On Advertising", as well as liability for consumer deception (Article 13.10 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Belarus), which involves, among other things, bringing to the attention of one or many consumers deliberately false information about the characteristics of a product, work or service. In this regard, it can be agreed that the acts provided for in Part 1 of Article 250 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus are fully covered by these types of administrative offenses. At the same time, the dissemination of deliberately false information or the use of misleading advertising in relation to goods, works or services that may harm the health of consumers has a much greater public danger than simply violating advertising legislation or deceiving consumers, since it can potentially lead to serious consequences, in connection with which the establishment of criminal liability in in this case, it seems reasonable.

Thus, until 2024, the criminal legislation of the Republic of Belarus differed from the Russian one in a stricter approach to criminalizing consumer fraud, but today in both countries this act is only an administrative offense. However, unlike Russian criminal law, Belarusian criminal law retains provisions on liability for the dissemination of deliberately false information about goods, works and services or misleading advertising. Taking into account the criticism of these norms of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus expressed in the scientific literature, it nevertheless seems justified to consolidate in the criminal law liability for the dissemination of deliberately false information about goods, works and services or misleading advertising in relation to goods, works or services that may harm the life or health of the consumer, and precisely as a formal composition crimes, since the public danger of such actions is quite high.

At the same time, it is impossible not to note a softer approach of the legislation of the Republic of Belarus in terms of establishing criminal liability for the sale of substandard products and the performance of works or services that do not meet safety requirements, since criminal liability for such acts occurs either on condition of socially dangerous consequences, or presupposes the presence of an administrative prejudice. On the contrary, the criminal law of the Russian Federation makes it possible to bring to criminal responsibility for the sale of unsafe goods, works and services simply by virtue of the very fact of committing these actions, regardless of the occurrence of socially dangerous consequences and regardless of whether the person was previously brought to administrative responsibility.

Administrative liability for violation of consumer rights in the legislation of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus

In the Russian literature, issues of administrative responsibility for violation of consumer rights do not often deserve detailed analysis. As a rule, the problems of administrative liability for violation of consumer rights are not considered in isolation, but within the framework of more general studies, as, for example, it was done by O.E. Starodubova and P.P. Kabytov. ^{[1, pp. 174-184]} The dissertation research by E.I. Zhadanova deserves special mention, devoted to the issues of determining criteria for the allocation of administrative offenses that infringe on consumer rights, classification of such violations and analysis of norms on responsibility for them. ^[17] As for the Belarusian scientific thought, the issues of administrative responsibility for violation of consumer rights were considered in T.A. Gorupa's dissertation. ^[18] However, it draws attention to the fact that a significant part of the works on the topic under consideration were published three or more years ago, as a result of which it does not take into account changes in Russian legislation on administrative offenses that occurred in 2022-2023, as well as the adoption in 2021 of the new Administrative Code of the Republic of Belarus. In addition, the attention of scientists is focused on the analysis of the provisions of national legislation, and not on comparative legal studies.

It should be noted that further administrative offenses in the field of consumer protection are understood only as administrative offenses that directly encroach on civil law relations with the participation of consumers. Since this issue was previously considered in more detail by one of the authors ^[19], we will not dwell on this in detail here.

The Administrative Code of the Russian Federation provides for an extensive system of provisions establishing liability for violation of consumer rights.

First of all, it is worth mentioning Article 14.7, which establishes liability for consumer fraud. This may be expressed in measuring, weighing, defrauding the consumer, as well as performing other actions aimed at intentionally misleading the consumer and which may affect the transaction. ^{[20, p. 106]} A special case of consumer deception is misleading the consumer about consumer properties or the quality of goods (part 2 of Article 14.7 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation). A stricter responsibility has been established for this act, which is largely due to the high importance of information about consumer properties and quality of goods both to ensure the consumer the opportunity to make a free and informed choice of goods (Article 11 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection") and the right to safety of the purchased goods for life and health (Article 7 of the Law The Russian Federation "On Consumer Protection").

Deception of consumers should be distinguished from violation of the consumer's right to receive complete and reliable information about a product, work or service (Part 1 of Article 14.8 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation). Responsibility for this act occurs in cases when the consumer has not been provided with information about the product, work or service, which must necessarily be provided to him in accordance with the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection" or other regulatory legal acts, but has not been provided, and such actions are not related to the introduction of the consumer misleading. ^{[2, p. 8]} It is also necessary to take into account that, taking into account the provisions of Article 12 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection", failure to provide the consumer with the necessary information about a product (work, service) can be considered as unlawful evasion from concluding a public contract.

The Administrative Code of the Russian Federation also establishes responsibility for the sale of goods, performance of works, provision of services in the absence of established information about the manufacturer, seller or contractor or other information, the provision of which is mandatory in accordance with the law (Article 14.15 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation). In contrast to Part 1 of Article 14.8 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, in order to be held accountable under this article, it is necessary that the conclusion of a contract with the consumer take place (see paragraph 39 of the Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 3 (2020), approved. By the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 11/25/2020).

The Administrative Code of the Russian Federation provides for liability for the inclusion in the contract with the consumer of conditions that infringe on his rights in comparison with how they are guaranteed by law (Part 2 of Article 14.8 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation). A special case of inclusion of unfair conditions in the contract is the inclusion of conditions in it that condition the purchase of basic goods, works, services by compulsory purchase of additional goods, works, services, unless otherwise provided by law. These actions form a special part of an administrative offense provided for in Part 2.1 of Article 14.8 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. In addition, this norm also establishes liability for unlawful actions of the seller committed before concluding a contract with the consumer and expressed in imposing additional goods, works or services on the consumer for a fee.

The Administrative Code of the Russian Federation also contains a number of provisions aimed at protecting socially vulnerable categories of consumers. Firstly, this is the norm on liability for failure to provide the consumer with the benefits and advantages prescribed to him by law (Part 3 of Article 14.8 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation). Secondly, the provisions on liability for refusal to conclude a contract with a consumer for reasons related to his state of health, age, etc. (Part 5 of Article 14.8 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation). The latter norm follows the Recommendation of the EEC Board dated 05/21/2019 No. 15 "On General approaches to the establishment of special measures to protect the rights and interests of certain categories of consumers", which draws attention to the need for increased protection and protection of the rights of vulnerable categories of consumers.

The Administrative Code of the Russian Federation also establishes responsibility for:

- failure to fulfill the obligation to ensure the possibility of paying for goods (works, services) by cash payments or using national payment instruments within the framework of the national payment card system at the consumer's choice (Part 4 of Article 14.8 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation);

- unjustified refusal to consider the consumer's claims related to violation of his rights, or evasion from their consideration in accordance with the procedure established by law (Part 4.1 of Article 14.8 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation);

- sale of certain types of technically complex goods with pre–installed computer programs in violation of the requirement established by law to ensure the possibility of using certain types of technically complex goods with pre-installed computer programs, the countries of origin of which are the Russian Federation or other EAEU member countries (Part 6 of Article 14.8 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation);

- refusal to conclude, amend or terminate an agreement with a consumer in connection with the latter's refusal to provide his personal data in the event that their provision is not necessary to fulfill obligations under the agreement and is not required in accordance with the law (Part 7 of Article 14.8 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

It is also worth noting Article 14.15 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, which establishes liability for violation of the rules for the sale of certain types of goods. At the same time, it seems that this norm has as an object of administrative offense not only civil law relations with the participation of consumers, but also administrative and legal relations in the field of trade regulation.

Article 14.4 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation is also aimed at protecting consumer rights, which establishes responsibility for the sale of goods, performance of works or provision of services to the public of inadequate quality or in violation of requirements established by law. At the same time, this administrative offense encroaches not only on relations with the participation of consumers, but also on relations in the field of trade regulation, as well as in the field of public health protection.

In comparison with the Russian legislation, the legislation of the Republic of Belarus in matters of establishing administrative liability for violation of consumer rights is much more concise.

In fact, Article 13.10 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Belarus, which establishes liability for consumer deception, is aimed directly at the protection and protection of consumer rights. Unlike the Russian law, the Belarusian law does not disclose in what form consumer deception can be committed, however, the literature supports the opinion that consumer deception consists in any actions aimed at misleading the consumer about the quantitative characteristics of the product, its completeness, as well as the quality of goods, works and services. ^{[21, p. 115]} Part 2 of Article 13.10 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Belarus establishes stricter liability for consumer deception committed within one year after the imposition of an administrative penalty for the same violation or in a significant amount (that is, in the amount of half the amount of the basic amount established on the day of the offense). In fact, this norm reproduces the provisions of the previously valid Article 257 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus.

Article 13.11 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Belarus, which establishes liability for violation of the procedure for trade and catering, provision of services to the public, sale of goods by individuals, is partly aimed at protecting consumer rights. At the same time, it seems that the compositions of administrative offenses provided for by this norm still have legal relations in the field of state regulation of trade as the main object of encroachment, whereas relations with the participation of consumers are an additional object.

The same can be said with regard to Article 17.4 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Belarus, which establishes responsibility for the release to the commodity market or the sale to consumers of substandard products that are known to cause diseases or poisoning of people or knowingly contaminated with radionuclides beyond acceptable levels. Of course, this offense encroaches on the rights of consumers, primarily on their right to the safety of goods, works and services (Article 5 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Rights Protection"), but it encroaches on public health relations in general.

Thus, it can be seen that the legislation of the Russian Federation is characterized by a more detailed regulation of administrative liability for violation of consumer rights, its greater concretization, which is expressed in the consolidation of a number of administrative offenses infringing on consumer rights in the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. In this regard, it seems that the legislation of the Republic of Belarus in this area needs to be improved in order to expand administrative and legal guarantees of consumer protection from violations by unscrupulous business entities.

Conclusion

Despite the need to bring closer the provisions of the legislation of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus establishing liability for violation of consumer rights, it seems that today complete harmonization of the provisions of criminal legislation and legislation on administrative offenses in this part is hardly possible and necessary. The development of legislation in this area should not be based on a purely mechanical copying of the experience of legal regulation of another state, but take into account the state of national legal regulation of consumer protection.

A comparative legal analysis of the provisions of the criminal and administrative legislation of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus allows us to conclude that the two countries have fundamentally different approaches to establishing public liability for violation of consumer rights.

Russian legislation is characterized by the priority of applying administrative and legal measures. At the same time, the provisions establishing administrative liability for violation of consumer rights are very detailed. Criminal liability is considered as an extreme measure, applicable only in cases of dangerous encroachment not only on consumer rights, but on public health.

In turn, the legislation of the Republic of Belarus proceeds from the need for wider application of criminal law measures in case of serious violations of consumer rights. At the same time, the norms on administrative responsibility for encroachments on consumer rights are few and less detailed than in Russian legislation. At the same time, there is a tendency to gradually decrease the importance of criminal legal impact to ensure the protection and protection of consumer rights, which inevitably entails the need to improve legislation on administrative offenses in this area.