"Legalization" (money laundering) of funds in the interests of a legal entity (article 15.27.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation): commentary on possible law enforcement

Kocheva Darina Viktorovna ORCID: 0000-0002-1031-5423 Postgraduate student; St. Petersburg Law Institute (branch) University of the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation Deputy Head of the Department of Legal Support for Financial Investigations of the Legal Department; Rosfinmonitoring 44 Liteyny Ave., Saint Petersburg, 191014, Russia slovnovetervstepi@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

The Administrative Code of the Russian Federation provides for a set of norms (articles 14.25.1, 15.23.2, 15.27, 15.27.1, 15.27.2, 15.27.3, 15.39, 19.5.1), which are part of the legal mechanism for countering the legalization of proceeds from crime (hereinafter also referred to as legalization), the financing of terrorism and the financing of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (AML/CFT/CFMEU). At the same time, most authors in their writings, with rare exceptions ^{[9; 2]}, mention only one composition (Article 15.27 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation) ^{[5; 3]}) or do not cover the measures of administrative responsibility in this area at all ^[8].

Only one detailed publication has been found on the topic of this study ^[1].

At the same time, administrative responsibility in this area is an important component of the multilevel AML/CFT/CFMEU system, which complements, among other things, criminal liability measures.

Due to the active commercial and entrepreneurial activities carried out by organizations, their role is natural and significant in the global economy. At the same time, business entities, in addition to legitimate ones, can pursue criminal goals, as a result of which criminal assets are formed — the building blocks in the foundation of the shadow economy, supporting its existence and functioning.

Disguising the origin of criminal proceeds damages the financial stability of the country, complicates the fight against crime, and promotes illegal activities.

In accordance with Recommendation 3 of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) and its explanatory Note, jurisdictions are called upon to ensure that legal entities (hereinafter referred to as organizations) are criminalized and sanctioned for legalization, and where this is not possible (as in Russia, which does not have this type of corporate responsibility) — including administrative responsibility and proportionate, deterrent sanctions ^{[6, p. 39; 7, p. 41]}.

In fulfillment of the obligations assumed by Russia to comply with the FATF Recommendations and bring national legislation into line with them, Federal Law No. 31-FZ dated 03/04/2022 "On Amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation" (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 31—FZ) the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation) amended by article 15.27.3.

The relevant norm provides for the possibility of bringing legal entities to administrative responsibility for making transactions or financial transactions in their interests with funds or other property knowingly obtained for the person performing the specified transactions or financial transactions by criminal means, in order to legitimize the possession, use and disposal of the specified funds or other property.

The establishment of appropriate responsibility is conditioned by the need to create new effective measures to counteract the criminalization of the economy and the introduction into economic circulation of criminally acquired property, and is aimed, among other things, at solving the tasks set out in the strategic planning documents at the federal level (Strategy of National Security of the Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated 07/02/2021 No. 400; Strategy of Economic Security of the Russian Federation For the period up to 2030, approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated 05/13/2017 No. 208).

This work is devoted to the specifics/peculiarities of possible law enforcement of Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, as well as fragmentary accompanying procedural procedures and rules of procedure in cases of administrative offenses (hereinafter referred to as the AP).

Terms and definitions

The content of individual terms, phrases, categories, and legal constructions is disclosed in the text in the meanings defined in Federal Law No. 115-FZ dated 08/07/2001 "On Countering the Legalization (Laundering) of Proceeds from Crime and the Financing of Terrorism" (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 115—FZ, the Anti-Money Laundering Law), in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in judicial acts on the application of various norms of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.

The reason for the intersectoral borrowings is the lack of a thesaurus in the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation for the purposes of law enforcement of the code as a whole ^{[4, p. 13; 13, p. 30]}, and Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation in particular, as well as the author's desire to ensure a systematic approach. It seems that when using industry-specific terms in an act without legislative interpretations, they usually retain their meaning defined in the industry where these concepts originated and received their main regulation, unless the act itself provides a different interpretation specific to its purposes.

The definition of legalization as a phenomenon is contained in the anti-money laundering law. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation regulates the signs of legalization as a crime (Articles 174, 174.1). In the norm of Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, the terms "legalization" and "money laundering" are not used, but the objective side of the AP covers the definition of legalization from Law No. 115-FZ. There are both similarities and differences between the relevant norms, but they all describe the process of legitimizing criminally obtained money or other property.

The effect of the legislation on AP in time

The law establishing administrative responsibility for criminal offenses is not retroactive (parts 1 and 2 of Article 1.7 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

Law No. 31-FZ, the norms of which are supplemented by Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, entered into force on 09/01/2022.

Transactions or financial transactions with funds or other property knowingly obtained for the criminal person performing the specified transactions or financial transactions in order to legitimize the possession, use and disposal of the specified funds or other property do not form the composition and event of the AP provided for in Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, committed before 09/01/2022 in the interests of a legal entity.

The effect of legislation on AP in the space

A legal entity that commits an act on the territory of Russia provided for in Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation is liable in accordance with the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, except in cases provided for by an international agreement of the Russian Federation.

An organization that commits an act outside Russia provided for in Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation is liable in accordance with the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (part 3 of Article 1.8 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation):

- if the AP is directed against the interests of the Russian Federation;

- in cases stipulated by an international treaty of the Russian Federation, if the legal entity has not been held criminally or administratively liable in a foreign country for the relevant action.

A foreign legal entity that commits an act outside Russia directed against its interests, provided for in Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, is subject to administrative liability on general grounds (part 2.1 of Article 2.6 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

Signs of AP composition

The object of the AP provided for in Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation is legal relations regulated and protected by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Law No. 115-FZ, Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.

The provisions of Articles 174, 174.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation protect public relations that develop during the implementation of the legal mechanism for countering the legalization (laundering) of criminal proceeds defined in Law No. 115-FZ, and provide for the possibility of bringing individuals to criminal responsibility for transactions or financial transactions involving criminally obtained property, and legal entities are held administratively liable if transactions/operations are carried out in the interests of the organization.

The objective side of the criminal procedure provided for in Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation is an action of an individual involving administrative responsibility, which is expressed in the commission of a transaction or financial transaction in the interests of a legal entity with funds or other property knowingly obtained for the perpetrator (i.e., this individual) by criminal means, in order to legitimize the possession, use and disposal of the specified in cash or other property.

Transactions are actions of citizens and legal entities aimed at establishing, changing or terminating civil rights and obligations (Article 153 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

Transactions with monetary funds or other property are actions of individuals and legal entities with monetary funds or other property, regardless of the form and method of their implementation, aimed at establishing, changing or terminating related civil rights and obligations (fifth paragraph of the first part of Article 3 of Law No. 115-FZ).

Proceeds from crime are monetary funds or other property obtained as a result of the commission of a crime (paragraph two of the first part of Article 3 of Law No. 115-FZ).

Legitimizing the possession, use or disposal of funds or other property obtained as a result of the commission of a crime is the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime (paragraph three of the first part of Article 3 of Law No. 115-FZ).

The subject composition of the AP

An offense of this category is committed in the interests of a legal entity by an individual with a certain legal status (in accordance with note 1 to Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation), and administrative liability for its commission is subject exclusively to the legal entity in whose interests this offense was committed.

Although the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation does not define the concept of "natural person" for the purposes of law enforcement of its norms, it follows from the context of some provisions of the Code that this is any person who can be brought to administrative responsibility for the commission of criminal offenses regardless of nationality, that is, a capable person who has reached the age of 16 years, who committed criminal offenses (Part 1 articles 1.4, part 1 of Article 2.1, part 1 of Article 2.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

A legal entity is an organization that has separate property and is responsible for its obligations, can acquire and exercise civil rights and bear civil duties on its behalf, and be a plaintiff and defendant in court. The organization must be registered in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities (USRLE) in one of the organizational and legal forms provided for by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Articles 48-50).

A legal entity is found guilty of committing an offence under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation and is subject to administrative liability in cases of this offence (note 1 to the said article):

- an individual authorized on the basis of a law, other legal act, constituent document, contract or power of attorney to perform actions on behalf of a legal entity;

- an individual who holds a position in the management bodies of a legal entity or bodies that control the financial and economic activities of a legal entity;

- the beneficial owner of a legal entity in the meaning defined by paragraph 8 of Article 6.1 of Law No. 115-FZ.

It seems that the definition of individuals falling into the first two categories should not cause difficulties in law enforcement, while the definition of the category "beneficial owner of a legal entity" requires closer attention.

Thus, the anti-money laundering law provides for a legal mechanism to ensure that certain entities (including Rosfinmonitoring) are provided with information about the beneficial owner (in fact, the person responsible for the activities carried out by the controlled organization, who has information about its financial activity, property and other information), which is expressed in the duties:

- all legal entities (with exceptions related to economically significant organizations) should know their beneficiaries, update and store certain information about them, and provide upon request (Articles 6.1 of Law No. 115 and 14.25.1 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 913 dated July 31, 2017; order of Rosfinmonitoring dated November 13, 2017 No. 373; Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated January 27, 2024 No. 73);

- organizations that carry out transactions with funds and other property (listed in Article 5 of Law No. 115-FZ), provide to the authorized body, upon request, the available information on the beneficiaries of clients (paragraphs ten and thirteen of Article 3, subparagraph 5 of paragraph 1 of Article 7 of Law No. 115-FZ, Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 19.03.2014 No. 209, Appendix No. 3 to Rosfinmonitoring Order No. 156 dated 07/16/2021, Part 2.3 of Article 15.27 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

Criteria for classifying an individual as the beneficial owner of a legal entity (clause 8 of Article 6.1 of Law No. 115-FZ):

- an individual who ultimately directly owns (has a predominant participation of more than 25% in the capital) a legal entity;

- an individual who ultimately indirectly (through third parties) owns (has a predominant participation of more than 25% in the capital) a legal entity;

- an individual who ultimately has the ability to control the actions of a legal entity.

Rosfinmonitoring's information letter No. 57 dated 12/04/2018 "On methodological recommendations for establishing information about beneficial owners of clients" clarifies the wording "ultimately owns", "ultimately has the ability to control", which refer to situations where ownership/management is carried out through a chain of ownership or other control other than direct control. At the same time, as we can see, in paragraph 8 of Article 6.1 of Law No. 115-FZ, the initial legal construction "ultimately" refers to an individual who directly owns the organization.

In a broader, extra-legal interpretation ^[11], a beneficiary is a person(s) who, regardless of legal (on paper) formalities, controls an organization or actually owns it (enjoys the advantages of owning the capital and assets of a legal entity; performs operational management of the organization's capital and assets; on behalf of this individual in his absence including ownership rights, transactions are made by the organization), namely:

1) can manage a legal entity through its share in ownership at the expense of:

- participation in more than 25% of the capital — a legally established threshold, which limits the maximum number of beneficiaries to three;

- ownership of shares (individually or jointly with other persons at the expense of the overwhelming majority of shares);

2) can manage through positions held in the structure of a legal entity:

- being responsible for making strategic decisions that have a decisive impact on business development or on the overall direction of the organization's development (officials holding senior positions, for example, an organization may be managed by one or more equal independent managers (general and executive directors reporting to the owner/owners of the business, whose powers are diversified due to differences in the types of activities carried out by the organization and (or) introduced for the purpose of representing the interests of each of the co-owners);

- through executive control over the activities of a legal entity (financial director, managing or executive director, president). An individual(s) who has significant authority in resolving financial issues related to the work of an organization (including financial organizations that maintain their accounts on behalf of a legal entity) and in resolving current financial issues of the legal entity;

3) may manage a legal entity in other ways:

- through personal contacts with persons holding managerial positions in the organization and (or) the owners (including due to close family relationships, ties that have developed historically or formed as a result of cooperation, etc.);

- without ownership rights — by participating in the financing of the enterprise or in the event that the company defaults on its debts.

Management may be assumed even in cases where it has never actually been carried out, but the benefits, profits, and assets in the possession of a legal entity have been received and (or) used.

Separate regulations related to the identification of beneficiaries are also provided for in other acts (for example, in the regulations of the Bank of Russia dated 03/02/2012 No. 375-P and dated 10/15/2015 No. 499-P).

It is important to note that in Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation there are no conditions stating that it was the criminal actions of the person indicated in Note 1 to it that led to the receipt of funds or other property by the organization, as well as the main (predicate) crime and legalization established by the court verdict that entered into force (Articles 174, 174.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). This means that it is not always the case that an individual who has committed an OFFENCE under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation and a person who has committed a crime (predicate, legalization) coincide in one person.

An example of this discrepancy may be a situation conceptually similar to the following circumstances: an individual who committed a crime, as a result of which he took possession of someone else's real estate, asked his friend, the director of the organization, for assistance in its implementation, dedicating him to the story of the criminal origin of the asset. Having agreed to help, the latter, acting on behalf of a legal entity, concluded a fictitious transaction with an acquaintance who had committed a crime, which was registered with the competent authority, thereby receiving the designated property into the ownership of the organization without payment. Subsequently, the legal entity sold the specified property, and the income received from the transaction was divided by the defendants among themselves.

At the same time, in order to qualify the actions of the director of the company under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation and bring the organization headed by him to administrative responsibility, a set of conditions must be met, including evidence of the criminal nature of the property sold.

The subjective side of AP

The specifics of Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation determine the need to establish the guilt components of both the individual who committed this offense and the guilt of the legal entity subject to administrative responsibility for its commission.

From the positions formulated by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (Resolutions No. 7-P dated 04/27/2001, No. 18-P dated 11/26/2012, No. 1-P dated 01/17/2013, No. 17-P dated 04/14/2020; definitions No. 934-O dated 07/06/2010, No. 2254-O dated 10/10/2017, No. 3062-O dated 11/26/2018), it follows that — despite the fact that the guilt of a legal entity is always a consequence of the guilt of an individual, this circumstance:

- it does not mean that the fault of a legal entity in the commission of an AP is identical to the fault of the individual who committed it (the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation establishes different criteria for their guilt);

- it does not imply the establishment of the guilt of a legal entity through the presence of the guilt of an individual in the commission of the same act^.

In this regard, it seems that the guilt of the organization in the case of AP under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation is subject to clarification (part 2 of Article 2.1 and paragraph one of Note 1 to Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation):

- the ability to comply with rules and regulations, for violation of which administrative liability is provided if all measures depending on the organization (necessary, reasonable and sufficient) are not taken on their compliance (general rule);

- compliance of the legal status of the individual who committed this offense with the provisions of Note 1 to Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (the specifics of the composition of this Code) by establishing the basis/authority (law, constituent document, legal act, etc.) for an individual to make transactions or financial transactions with criminally obtained funds or other property.

The organization's ability to prevent an individual with a certain legal status from performing appropriate actions in the interests of this organization may indicate intent in the actions of a legal entity to comply with the specified rules and regulations, which must be established in accordance with procedural requirements (Article 1.5, part 2 of Article 2.1, paragraph 3 of Article 26.1 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, the position of the Constitutional Court Of the Russian Federation, formulated in the fourth paragraph of paragraph 2 of the definition dated 04/02/2009 No. 486-O-O: "...legal provisions that, in conjunction with other norms of legislation on administrative offenses, presuppose the existence of a legal entity's guilt in order to bring it to administrative responsibility ...").

Although, as a general rule, in judicial practice, the forms of guilt of a legal entity are not divided into intent and negligence, the limits of the organization's guilt cover both of these forms (the legal position from paragraph 3 of paragraph 3, paragraphs 1 and 2 of paragraph 5 of the resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 04/14/2020 No. 17-P, as well as paragraph 7 of paragraph 2 of the Dissenting Opinion to to this resolution).

At the same time, irremediable doubts about the guilt of a person brought to administrative responsibility are interpreted in his favor (part 4 of Article 1.5 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

With regard to the guilt of an individual who committed an AB provided for in Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, it seems advisable to find out if he has any money or other property obtained by criminal means when making transactions or financial transactions:

- awareness of the criminal nature of property;

- an individually defined purpose of making transactions/transactions with criminally acquired property;

- the intention to make transactions / financial transactions with criminally acquired property or actually commit them in the interests of a legal entity.

The listed characteristics collectively indicate that "legalization" in the interests of a legal entity can be carried out by an individual with a certain legal status only intentionally (part 1 of Article 2.2 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

Awareness.

The relevant individual should have known in advance (the characteristic of knowledge), that is, before making transactions / financial transactions with property/funds obtained by criminal means, about the criminal nature of their receipt.

Knowledge presupposes accurate knowledge. Awareness excludes any conscientious misconception or ignorance.

Purposefulness of actions.

The purpose of giving a legitimate appearance to the possession, use and disposal of funds or other property obtained by criminal means is established on the basis of the factual circumstances of the case, indicating the nature of financial transactions or transactions, as well as other related actions aimed at concealing the fact of criminal origin, location, placement, movement of property or rights to it, and also to ensure the possibility of its free circulation.

The designated purpose may manifest itself (based on paragraphs 5, 7, paragraph three of paragraph 8 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 07.07.2015 No. 32 "On judicial practice in cases of the legalization (laundering) of funds or other property acquired by criminal means, and on the acquisition or sale of property knowingly obtained by criminal means" (hereinafter — PP RF Armed Forces No. 32), in particular:

- in the acquisition of real estate, works of art, luxury goods, etc., provided that an individual realizes and conceals the criminal origin of the funds at the expense of which such property was acquired;

- in making transactions for the alienation of property acquired by criminal means, in the absence of real calculations or economic expediency in such transactions;

- falsification of the grounds for the emergence of rights to funds or other property acquired by criminal means, including civil law contracts, primary accounting documents, etc. (for example, the conclusion of a contract for the purchase and sale of real estate, the criminal acquisition of which is masked by deliberately forged documents on ownership of this object; creating the appearance of concluding a transaction with property, whereas in reality the actual transfer of property under it is not expected; the signing by the parties of an agreement on payment for services, which disguises the criminal acquisition of the relevant funds);

- in the commission of financial transactions or transactions for cashing out funds acquired by criminal means (as a result of committing a crime) using settlement accounts of other organizations, including "one-dayers" or accounts of individuals who are not aware of the criminal origin of the relevant funds;

- in the commission of financial transactions or transactions involving front persons who are not aware that the funds and other property involved in the relevant financial transactions and transactions were acquired criminally (as a result of the commission of a crime);

- in the commission of foreign economic financial transactions or transactions with funds and other property acquired by criminal means (as a result of the commission of a crime), carried out with the participation of counterparties registered in offshore zones;

- in the commission of financial transactions or transactions using electronic means of payment, including those belonging to persons who are not aware of the criminal origin of electronic funds.

The above assumption about the possible expression of the purpose of an individual in the commission of the analyzed act is based on separate explanations contained in the RF Armed Forces Paragraph No. 32. The reasons for this are the lack of law enforcement practice of Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the substantive identity of its terminology in the part under consideration (the legal structure of the purpose) to the norms of Law No. 115-FZ (third paragraph of Article 3) and the Criminal Code (Articles 174, 174.1). Therefore, guided by the principles of legal consistency and analogy, the recommendations of the supreme judicial control body of Russia, extending their effect to the specifics of the consideration of criminal cases by the courts on legalization, are extrapolated by the author to the analyzed composition of the AP.

Since settlements with cryptocurrency (digital currency) have been intensifying in recent years (the associated risks and vulnerabilities were given special attention in the National Assessment of the Risks of Legalization (Laundering) of Criminal Proceeds in 2021-2022 in 2022 ^{[10, pp. 41-43; 12, pp. 20, 29]}) and affect, among other things, judicial practice on In cases of various categories, we note that it is necessary to identify the designated purpose in relation to such operations according to the same principles as when using property, but taking into account the specifics. In particular, the decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies, the speed of transactions, cross-border connectivity, and the ability to use privacy tools create additional opportunities for attackers to disguise the origin of criminal assets and make them look legitimately obtained.

The circumstances must also be assessed comprehensively, and in turn, the goal of legitimizing the possession, use and disposal of criminal assets using cryptocurrencies may also manifest itself.:

- in carrying out operations to convert/exchange criminally obtained cryptocurrencies into fiat money (or, conversely, criminally obtained funds into cryptocurrency, as well as the exchange of one digital currency obtained as a result of committing a crime for another), including numerous transactions to confuse traces of criminal origin;

- using anonymization services, types of cryptocurrencies with an increased level of confidentiality to make it difficult to track the movement of funds from a source, decentralized cryptocurrency exchanges, or other channels that do not require full user verification, including through third-party accounts or front organizations, including cases of formalization of these operations under the guise of legitimate transactions;

- in the acquisition of property for a criminally obtained cryptocurrency, with subsequent use or sale of the acquired;

- in the transfer of cryptocurrencies to digital wallets or accounts located in jurisdictions with low transparency or to front persons (drops) who perform further operations;

- falsification of the grounds for obtaining cryptocurrencies (for example, providing fake or false information about receiving cryptocurrencies as a result of donation, mining, investment activities, etc.).

Interests of a legal entity.

The legal structure in question has no legislative interpretation. At the same time, "acting in the interests" is a formal criterion, not an assessment of the actual benefits of the organization.

A legal entity governed by the expression of the will (decisions taken and actions performed) of individuals (its participants/ founders/beneficiaries/members of collegial bodies) is one of the subjects of civil rights that exercise these rights by virtue of the law on their own behalf and in their own interests.

Other persons authorized to act on behalf of the organization are required to act in its interests in good faith and reasonably (Article 53 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

As you can see, by definition, an organization and an individual acting on its behalf must pursue the interests of this organization.

At the same time, it is important to distinguish between the normative (based on the obligation to act in good faith and reasonably) and factual aspects of the analyzed category, i.e. to distinguish the category protected by the state from the fact of illegal use of a legal entity as a tool for achieving criminal goals.

Law No. 115-FZ is aimed at combating not the result, but the mechanism of legalization itself. The essence of money laundering is to give the appearance of legality to existing criminal proceeds.

The interests of a legal entity through the prism of the norm of Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation cannot be considered as legally protected benefits and goals that are achieved through its illegal activities, for the following reasons:

1) this rule is aimed at suppressing the illegal use of an organization, and not at protecting its interests.;

2) the pursuit of the legitimate interests of a legal entity is incompatible with the rest of the characteristics of the analyzed AP;

3) "interests" in this norm is one of the criteria of illegality, because actions in their entirety are actually aimed at circumventing the law.

So, even if the assets of an organization have not increased (or even decreased) as a result of a transaction/financial transaction, it is important that these actions are performed on its behalf, using its statutory goals, legal status, infrastructure, bank accounts, as part of its activities.

One of the main signs of the legislative differentiation of legal entities is their main purpose, for example, for commercial organizations it is profit-making (Article 50 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Non-profit organizations (NPOs) are also not prohibited from making profits in cases where this serves to achieve the goals for which they were created, provided that this activity is indicated in their constituent documents.

Therefore, the interests of the organization can include the possibility of achievement in the future or a fait accompli.:

- achieving any goals of the organization's activities (for example, increasing property assets — income, revenue, profit, movable and immovable property);

- meeting the needs of the organization, obtaining benefits, benefits, advantages, fulfilling obligations (for example, unjustified tax benefit; repayment of a preferential loan received by the organization as a measure of state support, payment of lease payments);

- building corporate relationships for the purposes of subsequent cooperation, strengthening market positions (concluding strategic contracts with counterparties; receiving investments).

For an NGO, interests may include:

- achievement of statutory goals: implementation of projects, programs, initiatives for which the organization was created (for example, charitable activities for the disinterested transfer of donations of criminal origin to a fake legal entity);

- provision of operational activities: payment of rent/ maintenance of property, holding events;

- payment of fees to managers, employees or beneficiaries, payment of their expenses.

Initiation of an AP case

The limitation period for bringing to administrative responsibility for the commission of an offense provided for in Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation is 3 years (Article 4.5 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation), it begins to be calculated from the date of the offense.

The initiation of criminal proceedings after the expiration of the statute of limitations for administrative liability is unacceptable (paragraph 6 of part 1 of Article 24.5 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

AP cases under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation may be initiated:

- officials of Rosfinmonitoring (paragraph 82 of part 2 of Article 28.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation);

- prosecutors (Article 28.4 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

In accordance with Part 4 of Article 28.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, the list of officials of Rosfinmonitoring (its territorial bodies) authorized to draw up protocols on AP and conduct administrative investigations on them is subject to proper legal registration.

Typical (of those listed in Part 1 of Article 28.1 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation) reasons for initiating an AP case
according to Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, it is possible to include:

- direct detection by an authorized person of sufficient data indicating the presence of an AP event (paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 28.1 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation);

- receipt from law enforcement agencies (territorial divisions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, the Investigative Committee of Russia, the FSB of Russia), as well as from other state bodies, local governments, and public associations of materials containing data indicating the existence of an AP event under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code (paragraph 2 of part 1 of Article 28.1 of the Administrative Code);

- messages and statements from individuals and legal entities, as well as media reports containing data indicating the existence of an AP event (paragraph 3 of part 1 of Article 28.1 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

The listed materials are subject to review by officials authorized to draw up protocols on AP (Part 2 of Article 28.1 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation), which appears to include a legal assessment and preliminary (pre—trial) qualification of the act - the processes of implementation within the established competence and authority of actions (including decision-making) aimed at:

- to clarify the factual basis of the assessed event (search, accumulation and comparison of empirical data with evidentiary value and containing objective information — "such as they are", independent of the subject of assessment);

- to determine the legal basis — that is, the specific rules of law, the scope of which extends to the assessed event, their interpretation and comparison of the resulting meaning / meaning of the norm with the clarified factual basis of the subject of assessment;

- to obtain the result of the specified comparison, expressed in a judgment formulated, justified by references to the norms of legislation, on the compliance/non-compliance of the factual basis of the event being evaluated with a certain legal basis (specific legal norms);

- to fulfill the procedural requirements for recording the factual data found out in the course of the cognitive activity described above about the established circumstances of the situation being assessed and the results of their comparison with the legal basis, and, if there are grounds, the requirements for sending the collected materials for review according to competence.

If, as a result of the transition from the initial knowledge to the conclusion by building consistent logical (cause-and—effect) relationships, the official authorized to initiate an AP case forms a judgment about the contradiction of the subject of assessment to the norms of law, then its result will be a preliminary legal (legal) qualification — attribution of the act to an industry group of legal phenomena - in this case, to the AP according to Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation and the initiation of proceedings on the relevant AP.

It is important to remember:

- the right to final legal qualification of a person's actions (inaction) under the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation belongs to the powers of a judge (paragraph 20 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 03/24/2005 No. 5 "On certain issues Arising from the courts in the Application of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation" (hereinafter – RF Supreme Court of 24.03.2005 No. 5);

- the basis for initiating an AP case under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation should always be the availability of sufficient data indicating an AP event (paragraph 1 of Part 1 and part 3 of Article 28.1 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

The conclusion of the official authorized to initiate an AP case under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation on the availability of sufficient data indicating the event of the relevant AP may be based on
(including along with other materials):

1) on the verdict that has entered into legal force on charges of an individual committing a basic (predicate) crime, as a result of which criminal income (property) was obtained, confirming the fact of income received as a result of the commission of the crime (the legality of using the materials of the criminal case as evidence in the AP case was stated by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the ruling of 09.11.2017 No. 2514-O, by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in Resolution No. 77-AD22-12-K1 dated 04/07/2023);

2) on the materials of the criminal case on the predicate (main) crime, for which the verdict entered into force, containing information about transactions /financial transactions involving criminally acquired property with the participation of a legal entity, an individual whose legal status corresponds to note 1 of Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation;

3) on the verdict that has entered into legal force on charges of an individual committing money laundering (Articles 174, 174.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation);

4) on the decision of the preliminary investigation body /court to terminate the criminal case (criminal prosecution) for the commission of the main/predicate crime and (or) legalization (Articles 174, 174.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), if the materials of this criminal case contain evidence indicating the existence of an event and the composition of the main /predicate crime and (or) legalization, and the preliminary investigation body/court gave them an appropriate assessment (based on the explanations contained in paragraph 4 of the RF Supreme Court No. 32):

- in connection with the death of a person subject to criminal liability;

- due to the failure of a person to reach the age of criminal responsibility;

- due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution;

- in connection with the reconciliation of the parties;

- as a result of the amnesty Act;

- in connection with active repentance;

- on the grounds provided for in Article 25.1 or Article 28.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation;

5) on the decision of the preliminary investigation body to suspend the inquiry or preliminary investigation in connection with the failure to identify, at the time of consideration of the criminal case, the person to be brought as an accused for the main (predicate) crime and (or) legalization (Articles 174, 174.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), if the materials of this criminal case contain evidence indicating the presence of the events and the composition of the main (predicate) crime and (or) legalization, and the preliminary investigation body gave them an appropriate assessment (based on the explanations contained in paragraph 4 of the RF Supreme Court No. 32);

6) based on the materials of inspections by Rosfinmonitoring (its territorial bodies) of information on transactions (transactions) with funds or other property related to legalization (bank statements; primary payment documents; title documents; extracts with information on rights to immovable property from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, etc.);

7) on judicial acts that have entered into force recognizing transactions as null and void/fraudulent and on materials of relevant court cases that confirm data on transactions/operations characterized by pretense, hypocrisy, lack of real economic sense, focus on asset withdrawal, use of controlled/technical firms (including "one-dayers") or other signs indicating the measures taken to give the appearance of legitimate activities or the legitimacy of the origin of funds/property;

8) on acts of the tax authority on bringing to tax responsibility, materials of tax audits, as a result of which the facts of the commission of unusual or economically unjustified transactions by a legal entity that do not correspond to the profile of its activities, or financial transactions involving suspicious counterparties/using atypical financial instruments were confirmed.;

9) information about the ownership and management structure of the legal entity, its beneficiary(s), and the powers of its officials (constituent documents, registers of shareholders/participants, internal documents of the company).

In cases where the person who committed the main (predicate) crime, legalization (Articles 174, 174.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and the person who committed the criminal offense provided for in Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation coincide, it is important to consider the following:

- the legislation does not prohibit the simultaneous initiation of criminal proceedings against the specified individual and the case of an administrative offense under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation against the organization in whose interests the specified individual acted when committing this criminal offense;

- bringing the said individual to criminal responsibility for the commission of a basic/predicate crime, money laundering, does not exempt from administrative responsibility the organization in whose interests the said individual committed the criminal offense provided for in Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.

Proof and proofs

In accordance with Article 1.5 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (the note to it defines exceptions to the general rule, but there is no Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation):

- the person against whom proceedings are being conducted in the case of AP under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation is considered innocent of committing this offense until the opposite is proven during the statute of limitations in accordance with the procedure provided for by the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation and established by the decision of the judge who reviewed the case.;

- a person brought to administrative responsibility under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation is subject to a general rule that exempts him from the obligation to prove his innocence.

The proof of guilt in the commission of the relevant AP is carried out by the official who initiated the AP case (an authorized official of Rosfinmonitoring or a prosecutor) by collecting evidence, reflecting the circumstances established in the case in procedural documents and sending the materials of the AP case to the court under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation for consideration on the merits and making a decision (Chapters 26-27 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.).

At the same time, an official of Rosfinmonitoring (its territorial body) authorized to initiate an administrative division case under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, unlike a prosecutor, is not entitled to participate directly in the trial of an administrative division case by the court of first instance in order to defend a position, prove its legality and validity (Chapter 25 of the Administrative Code).

The Administrative Code of the Russian Federation does not exclude the participation of a person (not a prosecutor — he has a special legal status under the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation) who initiated an AP case under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation as a witness during the court's consideration of this case (ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 05/29/2007 No. 346-O-O; paragraph 10 of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 03/24/2005 No. 5). At the same time, the involvement of a person in an appropriate capacity is carried out not on his own initiative, but according to the requirements of Article 25.6 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.

Therefore, when forming the materials of an AP case of the appropriate category, the set of general requirements of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (Chapters 26-28) on clarifying, evidentiary confirmation and proper fixation in procedural documents of all circumstances relevant to its consideration on the merits must be observed, and the specifics of law enforcement of the norms of Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation must be taken into account.

Identification of AP

The case of AP under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation is considered initiated from the moment:

- drawing up the first protocol on the application of a measure to ensure the seizure of property (paragraph 2 of part 4 of Article 28.1, paragraph 13 of part 1 of Article 27.1, Article 27.20 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation);

- drawing up a protocol on AP under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation by an authorized official of Rosfinmonitoring (its territorial body) or issuing a prosecutor's decision to institute an AP case (paragraph 3 of part 4 of Article 28.1, part 2 of Article 28.4 of the Administrative Code);

- issuing a ruling on the initiation of a criminal complaint case if it is necessary to conduct an administrative investigation (paragraph 4 of part 4 of Article 28.1, Article 28.7 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

The protocol on AP/resolution on the initiation of an AP case are procedural documents, the content of which must include information defined in the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation as mandatory for this type of document (parts 2-5 of Article 28.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation), as well as those not specified in the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation as mandatory, but related in a doctrinal sense to the subject of evidence (information about all the signs of the composition of the administrative Division according to Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

The occurrence of an AP is the fact of a violation of legal norms that has occurred (manifested) in reality.

Information about the AP event is one of the mandatory components of the protocol, which includes information about the commission by a certain subject at a specific time in a specific place in a specific way of an unlawful act for which a separate norm of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation provides for liability (a set of norms of paragraph 1 of Article 26.1 and part 2 of Article 28.2 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation; the second paragraph of subparagraph "h" of paragraph 3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation RF Armed Forces No. 5).

In addition, it seems that the most complete data is subject to establishment and reflection in the protocol on AP under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.:

- about the legal entity in respect of which the AP protocol is being drawn up (based on information from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities — full name, INN, OGRN, registration address and location, status: current, under liquidation, etc.);

- about the individual specified in Note 1 to Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (identifying data — last name, first name, patronymic (if any), date and place of birth, citizenship, address of residence/registration (if any), details of passport or other identity document, INN, place of work, position, description of compliance legal status using the wording from Note 1 to Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

Administrative investigation

One of the possible (optional) stages of the AP case under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation is an administrative investigation, which is conducted at the place where the AP was committed or identified.

An administrative investigation is allowed only if violations are detected in the branches of legislation listed in Part 1 of Article 28.7 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, including AML/CFT legislation.

In the absence of a specific list of measures (actions) in the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation that constitute an administrative investigation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation indicated (subparagraph "a" of paragraph 3 of the RF Supreme Court No. 5) the need for strict compliance with the procedural procedure for its conduct (defined in Article 28.7 of the Administrative Code). With regard to the specifics of Rosfinmonitoring's activities, we are talking about the implementation of any of the following measures: obtaining explanations, sending instructions and requests, requesting information (Articles 26.3, 26.9 and 26.10 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

The prosecutor is also authorized to conduct an administrative investigation (paragraph 2 of Article 1 of Federal Law No. 2202-1 "On the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation" dated January 17, 1992).

If it is necessary to conduct an administrative investigation, the following types of procedural documents are issued, which include information required for these types of documents provided for in the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (Part 6 of Article 27.20, paragraph 3 of part 4 of Article 28.1, Article 28.2, parts 2 and 3 of Article 28.7):

- a ruling on the initiation of an AP case and the conduct of an administrative investigation (if the case is initiated by an authorized official of Rosfinmonitoring/its territorial body);

- a resolution on the initiation of an AP case and the conduct of an administrative investigation (if the case is initiated by the prosecutor).

A copy of the ruling on the initiation of an AP case and the conduct of an administrative investigation within 24 hours is handed over against receipt or sent to the legal representative of the legal entity in respect of which it was issued.

An administrative investigation into an AP case initiated by an official authorized to draw up AP protocols is conducted by the said official (part 6 of Article 27.20, paragraph 3 of Part 4 of Article 28.1, Article 28.2, parts 2 and 3 of Article 28.7 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation), and by decision of an authorized official of Rosfinmonitoring (its territorial body)/his deputy is another official authorized to draw up protocols on AP.

The period for conducting an administrative investigation may not exceed 1 month from the date of initiation of the AP case, but in exceptional cases, at the written request of the official in charge of the case, it may be extended by a decision of an authorized official of Rosfinmonitoring (its territorial body). — for a period of no more than 1 month.

The decision to extend the duration of an administrative investigation is made in the form of a definition containing, among other things, a set of the following mandatory information:

- date and place of drawing up the definition;

- the position, surname and initials of the person who drafted the definition;

- the basis for extending the duration of the administrative investigation;

- the period until which the administrative investigation has been extended.

The decision to extend the term of the administrative investigation is signed by the official who issued it, and a copy of it is handed over within 24 hours against receipt or sent to the legal representative of the legal entity in respect of which this investigation is being conducted.

Upon completion of the administrative investigation, a protocol on the AP is drawn up or a resolution is issued to terminate the case on the AP.

When conducting an administrative investigation, the person who initiated it and is authorized to initiate proceedings on the AP has the right to send to the court simultaneously with the decision to initiate proceedings on the AP (the case was initiated by an official of Rosfinmonitoring /its territorial body), the decision to initiate proceedings on the relevant AP (the case was initiated by the prosecutor) a petition for the seizure of the property of a legal entity against which a criminal case has been initiated under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (Part 6 of Article 27.20, part 2 of Article 28.7 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

Consideration of the AP case

Cases of the appropriate category are considered by judges of district courts (third paragraph of part 3 of Article 23.1 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

The place of consideration of the AP case provided for in Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (parts 1, 1.3, 2 of Article 29.5 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation):

- when committing an administrative offence on the territory of the Russian Federation — according to the rules of general territorial jurisdiction, i.e. at the place of commission of the administrative offence; if an administrative investigation has been conducted in the case — at the location of the body that conducted it;

- when committing an act outside the Russian Federation — at the location of the subject of administrative jurisdiction that initiated the case.

Interim measures and types of punishments in the case of AP

In cases of AP under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, a judge may apply an interim measure in the form of seizure of the property of a legal entity in respect of which proceedings are underway in the case of AP (part 2 of Article 1.6, paragraph 13 of part 1 of Article 27.1, part 1 of Article 27.20 of the Administrative Code).

This issue, among others, is resolved by the judge in preparation for consideration of the relevant AP case by issuing, if necessary, a ruling (resolution), which can be appealed in accordance with the rules established by Chapter 30 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (Part 8 of Article 27.20, paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Article 29.4 of the Administrative Code).

The seizure of property consists in prohibiting a legal entity, in respect of which proceedings are being conducted in the case of a violation provided for in Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, from disposing of the seized property, and, if necessary, in establishing restrictions related to the possession and use of such property (part 3 of Article 27.20 of the Administrative Code).

The sanctions of Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation provide for the following types of punishments:

- the main ones are an administrative fine in the amount of up to three times the amount of money, the value of other property that are the subject of an administrative dispute; administrative suspension of activities for up to 30 days;

- additional — confiscation of funds or other property.

For one AP, the main or main and additional administrative punishment is imposed within the limits of the appropriate sanction (paragraphs 2 and 4 of part 1, part 2 of Article 3.2, Article 3.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

The decision to seize property is made by the judge in charge of the AP case under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, based on a reasoned request from an authorized official of Rosfinmonitoring (its territorial body) or the prosecutor who initiated the AP case, which was received together with the AP protocol/resolution on the initiation of the AP case, respectively.

Since the judge, when making a decision to seize property, is required to indicate the specific factual circumstances on the basis of which he made such a decision, in the indicated petition, the person who initiated the AP case should orient the judge to the actual existence of these circumstances with reasonable grounds.

In order to ensure that a judge can apply types of punishments involving monetary penalties in rubles (fine); forced gratuitous conversion of an object of property into state ownership (confiscation), it is necessary to implement measures to establish:

- property (movable, immovable) the relevant legal entity and its cost;

- details of accounts with banks/credit organizations and amounts of funds in the accounts of the relevant legal entity (funds are seized only if the legal entity does not have any other property — part 4 of Article 27.20 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

A petition for the seizure of funds or other property of a legal entity in order to provide the court with the opportunity to compare the financial situation of the organization with the sanction of Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the execution of the decision on the imposition of administrative punishment for the commission of this act, must contain the following information::

- about the subject of the AP — a specific property or amount of funds (indicating information about the title documents for the property, its identifying data: cadastral number, address of the location of the property, make and state/ VIN number of the car; the amount of funds and the number of each specific account of a legal entity in a bank or other credit institution, etc.), criminally obtained funds with which transactions or financial transactions have been made in the interests of the legal entity;

- about the specific property in respect of which it is required to apply this measure to ensure the proceedings in the AP case;

- the need to apply this measure to ensure the proceedings in the AP case (the argument is the consequences of its non-application, which may lead to the impossibility of executing the decision in the AP case, i.e. the person brought to justice will not be punished).

To prepare and send the relevant application, it is necessary:

- to inquire whether, in accordance with the criminal procedure legislation, the seizure of funds or other property recognized as the subject of a crime (basic (predicate), legalization) has been imposed;

- if money or other property recognized as the subject of a crime (basic (predicate), legalization) has been seized in accordance with the criminal procedure legislation, then find out the amount of money and other property seized.

The information established in relation to the seized property under the criminal procedure legislation is required to determine the necessity and validity of the application for seizure in the case of the AP.

A petition for the seizure of the property of a legal entity is considered by a judge no later than the next day after the day of its receipt in court without notifying its addressee (part 7 of Article 27.20 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

A copy of the ruling on the seizure of property is immediately sent by the judge to the authorized person who initiated the relevant AP case, the bailiff, the legal entity in respect of which the case is being conducted, as well as, if necessary, to the state authorities that carry out state registration of property or rights to it (part 9 of Article 27.20 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

The value of the property being seized should not exceed the maximum amount of an administrative fine imposed for the commission of an administrative offense provided for in Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (part 2 of Article 27.20 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation), that is, the amount of up to three times the amount of money, the value of other property that are the subject of an administrative offense.

The ruling on the seizure of property is an enforcement document and is enforced in accordance with the procedure established by the legislation on enforcement proceedings (part 10 of Article 27.20 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

If the judge issues a ruling on the refusal to seize the property, a copy of it is immediately sent to the authorized person who initiated the relevant criminal case (part 9 of Article 27.20 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

An arrest imposed on property may be lifted by a judge who issued a ruling on its imposition upon request (part 11 of Article 27.20 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation):

- the person who initiated the relevant AP case;

- a bailiff;

- at the reasoned request of the defender and (or) the legal representative of the legal entity, in respect of whose property the specified interim measure has been applied.

Petitions and applications for the cancellation of the seizure of the property of a legal entity are considered by a judge within 5 days from the date of their receipt with notification of the person who initiated the relevant AP case, the bailiff, the defender and (or) the legal representative of the legal entity, in respect of whose property a measure has been applied to ensure the proceedings in the AP case in the form of property seizure (part 13 of Article 27.20 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

The decision to grant a petition / application for the lifting of the seizure of the property of a legal entity, or to refuse to grant such a petition / application, is made by a judge in the form of a ruling that can be appealed in accordance with the rules established by Chapter 30 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (part 14 of Article 27.20 of the Administrative Code).

If the judge issues a ruling on the cancellation of the arrest imposed on the property, a copy of it is immediately sent to the authorized person who initiated the relevant AP case, to the bailiff, to the legal entity in respect of whose property the specified measure has been applied to ensure the proceedings in the AP case, as well as, if necessary, to the state bodies carrying out state registration of property or rights to it (part 15 of Article 27.20 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

Cases of exemption of a legal entity from administrative responsibility for the commission of an AP

The general basis for the possible exemption of an organization from administrative responsibility by a judge is its recognition as insignificant (Article 2.9 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

At the same time, it seems that, taking into account the signs of the objective side of the AP under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, under no circumstances can it be considered insignificant, since it affects significant public interests (economic security and financial stability of the state). A special public danger lies in a combination of factors — a previous crime that generates illegal property, which is introduced into legal circulation through an administrative offense, contributing to the criminalization of the economy.

The special grounds for a judge's possible release of an organization from administrative responsibility under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation are the organization's assistance:

- identification of this offense;

- conducting an administrative investigation and (or) identifying, uncovering and investigating a crime related to this offense.

By a decision to terminate the proceedings in the case, a legal entity is released from administrative responsibility (the totality of the norms of Note 2 to Article 15.27.3 and paragraph 4 of part 1.1 of Article 29.9 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

The assessment of facilitation according to Note 2 to Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation is an important process that requires a thorough analysis and a balanced approach from the law enforcement officer.

In the absence of specifics regarding the recognition of an organization's actions as contributing in the context of Note 2 to art. 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, it seems that the actions of a legal entity should be active, proactive, timely, reliable and important for identifying (detecting) an offense or related crimes and/or successfully conducting their investigation (collecting evidence, establishing guilty persons, shortened terms).

Not in every situation, a legal entity may have the opportunity to demonstrate its contribution, or such an opportunity may not always be properly implemented by the organization.

It is assumed that the assessment of assistance in each specific situation should be given individually (it is not justified to include, for example, the only actions of a legal entity consisting in responding to a mandatory request, that is, standard interaction in the relevant situation; the facts of providing information or assistance long after the legal entity became aware of the assessment of its activities for signs of the composition of the AP under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation and they were no longer essential for identifying the AP; if the actions of the legal entity were an imitation, creating the appearance of cooperation after the imminent prosecution became apparent, and did not lead to real results for the AP; obedience to a person who already had all the necessary information, confirming the circumstances of the accident, etc.).

At the same time, it seems that since the assessment of public opinion on compliance with anti-money laundering legislation in Russia in 2021 ^{[14, p. 226]}, the business community in our country has remained reluctant to report cases of violations of AML legislation to regulatory authorities. Moreover, it is not necessary to expect mass assistance from legal entities due to the fact that the analyzed AP is carried out in their interests.

Interagency cooperation

For a comprehensive, complete, objective and timely clarification of the circumstances of each AP case under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, its resolution in accordance with the law, and enforcement of the decision, it is necessary to be guided by the norms of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, related legal norms of other branches, and the emerging law enforcement practice in this category of cases.

In this context, among other things, it is important to understand the legal status of the participants in the administrative process we are interested in.

Thus, officials of Rosfinmonitoring (its territorial bodies), authorized to draw up protocols on the case of AP under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, are the subjects of appeal.(Part 1.1 of Article 30.1, Article 30.10, parts 2, 3 of Article 30.12 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation; seventh paragraph of paragraph 33 of the RF Supreme Court of 24.03.2005 No. 5):

- the decision on the AP case that has not entered into legal force (to a higher court);

- the decision on the case of the AP that has entered into legal force (through an appeal to the prosecutor, who has the right to protest against such a decision).

The prosecutor under the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation has a special legal status, the uniqueness of which, in conjunction with the norms of Federal Law No. 2202-1 dated 17.01.1992 "On the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation", is expressed in granting him rights (in relation to the case of the Administrative Division under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation):

- initiate an AP case (Article 28.4 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation);

- participate in the consideration of the AP case, present evidence, file petitions, give opinions on issues arising during the consideration of the case (25.11 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation);

- to bring a protest against the decision on the AP case, regardless of participation in the case (25.11 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation);

- to carry out, within the limits of their competence, supervision of compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the enforcement of laws in force on the territory of the Russian Federation when authorized officials of Rosfinmonitoring (its territorial bodies) conduct proceedings in cases of criminal offenses (Article 24.6 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation);

- to verify the legality of the actions and decisions of competent officials when receiving, registering and resolving reports of crimes, to take prosecutorial response measures on the facts of detected violations, etc.;

- to approve indictments (acts or resolutions) in criminal cases, to support the state prosecution of them.

When considering cases of AP, no evidence has a pre-established force (Article 26.11 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

The circumstances relevant to the AP case under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, established by judicial acts and procedural documents, in the AP case are subject to evidentiary confirmation, since they will be subjected to judicial evaluation along with and in conjunction with all the circumstances of this case.

In the absence of a provision in the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation on the prejudice of judicial acts adopted in the framework of any type of legal proceedings (the principle of exemption from the need to re-prove circumstances that were previously established and fixed by the court in a decision, resolution, sentence, etc.), circumstances that were previously established and They are recorded, among other things, in a judicial act that has entered into legal force (regardless of the type of legal proceedings).

It seems that the indicated feature of the enforcement of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation is due to the systemic specifics, which are:

- in a multi-subject composition of administrative jurisdiction bodies (including, in addition to judges, numerous officials of federal executive authorities, local self-government bodies, etc.), in which recognizing the prejudicial significance of decisions or established facts from other types of legal proceedings for all these subjects would be procedurally incorrect, since each subject considering the case at its own stage, evaluates evidence within its competence (the court always has the last word);

- unlike the goals and objectives of administrative proceedings and other types of judicial proceedings, AP is an independent type of offense, and its qualification requires independent assessment of evidence within the framework of administrative proceedings.

Nevertheless, as already noted in this work, this does not prevent the use of materials of the criminal case and judicial acts on the criminal case (containing a description of the factual circumstances) as evidence in the case of the AP, their value in the administrative process lies not in their prejudicial force, but in the information they contain..

Since officials of Rosfinmonitoring (its territorial bodies) are not included in the list of subjects to whom a copy of the verdict is handed over (Article 312 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation) as well as other procedural documents in a criminal case), in order to properly identify and suppress an incident under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to organize interdepartmental interaction with the prosecutor's office, bodies carrying out operational search activities, investigative and other bodies that may have data indicating the existence of an event of a corresponding incident (including within the framework of the Instructions on the organization of information interaction in the field of countering the legalization (laundering) of funds or other property obtained by criminal means, approved by the joint order of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, Rosfinmonitoring, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, the FSB of Russia, the Federal Customs Service of Russia, the Investigative Committee of Russia dated 08/21/2018 No. 511/244/541/433/1313/80).

At the same time, it should be recognized that prosecutors potentially have the most comprehensive and effective tools for detecting and suppressing criminal offenses under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, collecting evidence and ensuring the inevitability of administrative responsibility of the perpetrators, since "criminal" prosecutors can already at the stage of checking primary sources in the form of criminal case materials according to the main (predicate) crime / legalization, pre-evaluate the available information for signs of the composition of the AP under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code and signal to the prosecutor-"general inspector" about the expediency of taking measures to monitor the situation and, upon identifying the grounds, resolve the issue of either independently initiating a case on the relevant AP or sending the available materials to Rosfinmonitoring (its territorial body).

Conclusions

Criminal assets, which form the basis of the shadow economy, damage the financial stability of the country, complicate the fight against crime, and support illegal activity. Countering the introduction of criminal capital into the legal economy is a task of exceptional importance, one of the necessary tools for solving which is, among other things, administrative responsibility under Article 15.27.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.

Emphasizing the specificity and multidimensional nature of this rule, we note that the methodology for classifying acts as "legalization" in the interests of the organization has yet to be developed by judicial practice, which, among other things, will also find answers to controversial issues.

However, there is no doubt that the implementation of the relevant legal mechanism requires special attention.:

- to establish, without exception, all signs of the composition of this AP, to record information about them and to provide evidence of their presence;

- to comply with procedural procedures, rules and deadlines in the proceedings on the AP case;

- to typologies and schemes of legalization, their study and adaptation of detection methods to new ways of committing offenses of the considered category;

- to ensure effective interagency cooperation, exchange of information in order to prove the event and signs of the composition of the AP;

- to assess the nature and scale of the act in order to achieve the goals of administrative punishment.

Since the fate of organizations convicted of criminal activity often ends in bankruptcy or liquidation, the prompt response of competent authorities to the facts of sentencing on the circumstances of predicate crimes and legalization (Articles 174, 174.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) with the participation of legal entities seems to be a necessary component of ensuring the inevitability of administrative responsibility for them.