Defense of business in tax and bankruptcy matters

Following a field tax audit, an alleged tax deficiency was assessed against a company operating since 1999. The Moscow City Commercial Court and the Ninth Commercial Appellate Court confirmed the principal debt at RUB 16 million. Despite these binding judgments having prejudicial effect under Art. 90 of the CPCRF, the investigating authority initiated a criminal case under Clause "b", Part 2, Art. 199 of the CCRF. During the preliminary investigation, a forensic examination was conducted. Disregarding the commercial court rulings, the examination assessed the damages at RUB 52 million. This amount exceeded the threshold applicable at the time for classifying the offense as committed on an especially large scale. The case was subsequently transferred to the trial court with an indictment.

Initially, the procedural strategy focused on identifying material violations of criminal procedure law. The trial court granted a motion to return the criminal case to the prosecutor pursuant to Art. 237 of the CPCRF. After the case was refiled with the court, defense counsel monitored legislative initiatives aimed at changing the thresholds for criminal liability. During the judicial proceedings, the defense employed a strategy of postponing hearings on objective procedural grounds until the official publication and entry into force of amendments to the criminal legislation. These amendments increased the minimum damage threshold under Clause "b", Part 2, Art. 199 of the CCRF from RUB 45 million to RUB 100 million. Upon the amendments taking effect, a reasoned motion was filed to reclassify the charges.

The court agreed with the defense's legal position, reclassified the charges to Part 1, Art. 199 of the CCRF, and issued an order dismissing the criminal case. All previously imposed attachments on the client's property were lifted.

A criminal case was investigated against the client on charges of tax evasion (Para. "b", Part 2 of Art. 199 of the CCRF). The indictment was drafted with material procedural violations: it failed to specify the exact monetary amounts transferred to counterparties, as well as the deadlines and amounts of tax payments broken down by each tax period. The Khoroshevsky District Court of Moscow issued an order returning the criminal case to the prosecutor under Art. 237 of the CPCRF due to the indictment's non-compliance with Art. 220 of the CPCRF. The public prosecutor appealed this decision, arguing in the appellate submission that the defects in the charges could be cured during the trial by ordering a forensic examination.

A legal memorandum outlining objections to the prosecutor's arguments was prepared for the appellate court. The defense's legal position asserted that the lack of specific data regarding the scope, content, and nature of the charges deprived the client of the opportunity to mount an effective defense. Emphasis was placed on the fact that the timing of tax return filings and actual tax payments do not coincide due to the advance payment mechanisms for VAT and corporate income tax. Consequently, the investigating authority's attempt to shift the burden of establishing material circumstances of the crime onto a forensic expert was impermissible.

The Moscow City Court terminated the appellate proceedings. Faced with the well-founded legal position of the defense counsel, the prosecutor's representative withdrew the appellate submission prior to the hearing on the merits and filed a motion to terminate the proceedings. The trial court's order returning the criminal case to the prosecutor entered into legal force.

During tax control procedures, the inspectorate questioned the economic substance of the client's business transactions. Under interrogation, the director of a counterparty company disavowed their signatures on the agreements and primary accounting documents, while also denying any financial and economic activities. Relying on this testimony, the tax authority generated claims amounting to tens of millions of rubles and prepared materials for referral to law enforcement agencies to initiate criminal prosecution for a tax offense.

Defense counsel implemented a strategy of procedural preemption. Prior to the initiation of an inquiry based on the tax authority's materials, the defense independently petitioned the Investigative Committee of Russia to conduct a thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding the counterparty director's testimony. The legal position relied on identified procedural inconsistencies within the protocols, as well as the strict statutory differentiation between the legal status of explanations, interviews, and interrogations under the TCRF and the CPCRF. The actions and procedural decisions of the officials were systematically appealed by the defense pursuant to Art. 125 of the CPCRF.

Courts of two instances confirmed the absence of criminal elements regarding the discrepancy between the counterparty's signatures in the registration documents and the tax authority's protocols. The risk of criminal proceedings being initiated against the business beneficiaries was completely mitigated.

The client inherited the estate following the death of her spouse, a prominent entrepreneur and founder of a regional construction holding. The opposing party, seeking to increase its statutory share in the estate from 1/4 to 1/2, initiated litigation to invalidate the will. The situation was complicated by the plaintiff's coordinated actions: the initial lawsuit was filed using a false address to artificially manipulate jurisdiction. Concurrently, proceedings were initiated involving a supervisory authority that filed independent claims to annul the marriage between the testator and the client. Furthermore, an initial forensic examination conducted by a private expert institution reached an unfounded conclusion that the testator lacked the capacity to comprehend the meaning of his actions.

Defense counsel developed a strategy to prove the testator's full legal capacity during the relevant periods and to refute the opposing party's arguments. At the trial court (Central District Court of Volgograd), counsel secured the testimony of 14 witnesses who confirmed the testator's sound mind at the time the will was executed. A critical step involved filing a well-founded motion for a subsequent comprehensive psychological and psychiatric examination by a state medical institution. In light of the evidentiary base provided, the supervisory authority withdrew its claims to annul the marriage. The subsequent state examination scientifically confirmed the testator's capacity to direct his actions.

The trial court dismissed the opposing party's claims in their entirety. The Volgograd Regional Court and the Fourth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction upheld the decision. The client's rights to the estate were fully secured.

The client is a business owner specializing in the wholesale and retail trade of equipment. Ahead of large incoming payments for shipped goods, the company's remote banking system was blocked. An analysis of the Unified State Register of Legal Entities (USRLE) revealed an unauthorized change of the general director and an increase in the charter capital from RUB 12,000 to RUB 12 million. As a result of these illegal actions, a third party acquired a 98.92% share in the charter capital. All registration changes were executed remotely using an electronic digital signature (EDS) issued to an unauthorized person. A critical risk arose regarding potential asset stripping and the complete loss of corporate control.

To promptly block potential asset transfers, forms R34001 and R34002 were filed with the registering authority, declaring the information entered into the USRLE unreliable. Concurrently, an inquiry was initiated to identify the certifying center that issued the compromised EDS, which revealed the use of a forged notary form to process the registration documents. The key procedural objective was to regain control out of court, as litigation would have severely paralyzed business operations. A complaint was drafted and filed with the higher tax authority, the Regional Tax Service Directorate for the Moscow Region. Due to the absence of a legitimate executive, the legal position was submitted as a consolidated petition on behalf of the actual company members.

The Regional Tax Service Directorate for the Moscow Region granted the complaint and canceled the decision on the state registration of the changes. Within five business days, the historical data in the USRLE was fully restored. Corporate control was successfully returned to the client, and access to banking services was resumed. The collected evidence was subsequently forwarded to law enforcement agencies for further procedural assessment.