Lawyer under Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Failure to comply with a court decision

When contacting a criminal lawyer, it is preferable to have an experienced specialist in a certain category of crimes, which would include Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Failure to comply with a court verdict, court decision or other judicial act. And this is true, you have already taken the necessary step. You have visited the website of a criminal lawyer competent in matters of defense under Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It is likely that you or your relative need protection under Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Failure to comply with a court decision means a criminal case has either been initiated, or the issue is being resolved. A lawyer provided by the investigator in accordance with Art. 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation worries you, you are looking for a replacement for him, this is not surprising, and you are doing absolutely the right thing. Follow your decision right now, and dial the phone number listed on the website, talk to a lawyer under Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Failure to comply with a court decision may be the best thing you can do to protect you or your loved one from criminal prosecution.

Non-execution of court decisions: main provisions

Judicial decisions are one of the forms of judicial decisions, which, when entering into legal force:

• is mandatory for all citizens and organizations, state authorities and local governments, public associations;
• is subject to unconditional execution throughout the Russian Federation.

Failure to comply with a judicial act manifests itself in certain forms:

• failure to take actions directly aimed at implementing the decision, for example, ignoring demands to pay compensation to the victim;
• carrying out actions aimed at preventing the implementation of the provisions of a judicial act, for example, prohibiting the head of the human resources department from reinstating an employee who was fired illegally.

The court decision must be executed:

• immediately as soon as the court decision has entered into legal force;
• immediately after the decision is made, if it concerns:
• payment of wages to the employee for 3 months;
• alimony payments;
• reinstatement to work;
• inclusion of a citizen of the Russian Federation in the list of voters or referendum participants.

In cases where voluntary execution of a court decision does not occur, compulsory enforcement systems are used. A person may be held accountable for violating the provisions of the law on enforcement proceedings.

The procedure for implementing resolutions

The decision must be executed:

1. Immediately after the act comes into force.
2. After the decision is made.

The last regulation applies in cases where the regulation concerns:

1. Reinstatement in the workplace.
2. Payment of salary to an employee for 3 months.
3. Including a citizen in the list of referendum participants or voters.

It is assumed that obligated entities comply with the court decision voluntarily. If this does not happen, coercive measures are applied. A fairly common sanction is the blocking of financial transactions on the debtor’s accounts. Frozen funds are sent for settlements with creditors.

Administrative liability for failure to comply with a court decision

Judicial acts in administrative cases are carried out after they enter into legal force, with the exception of cases of immediate execution, in the manner established by the Code of Administrative Proceedings of the Russian Federation. At the same time, administrative liability for violation of the requirements of the legislation on enforcement proceedings and for non-execution of a court decision is established by the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. This type of liability is provided for individuals, organizations and officials. As a rule, the penalty is expressed in the form of an administrative fine.

Failure to comply with a court decision entails a fine on individuals in the amount of 1,000 to 2,500 rubles; on officials

— from 10,000 to 20,000 rubles; for legal entities - from 35,000 to 100,000 rubles (clause 1 of article 17.14 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation) for the debtor in the case when:

• ignoring the demands of the bailiff;
• failure to provide information about dismissal from the last place of work;
• providing false information about property rights;
• failure to provide information about changing the address of residence, work or study, receiving pension payments or other income.

Imposition of a fine on individuals in the amount of 2,000 to 2,500 rubles; on officials

— from 15,000 to 20,000 rubles; for legal entities - from 50,000 to 100,000 rubles (clause 3 of article 17.14 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation) for persons who are not debtors in the case when:

• ignoring the demands of bailiffs;
• refusal to receive confiscated property;
• loss of executive documentation or its untimely dispatch;
• providing false information about the debtor's possession of property;
• failure to comply with the requirements of executive documents;

Clause 2 of Article 17.14 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation separately considers fines for credit institutions, and clause 2.1. the same article

— for legal entities issuing securities and professional market participants. Article 17.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation establishes the possibility of collecting a fine in a certain amount for failure to comply with the instructions of executive documents of a non-property nature from individuals and organizations, as well as officials. The amount of such a fine is determined taking into account the specific stage of enforcement proceedings.

Punishment

For failure to comply with a court decision by a legal entity, liability arises depending on the nature of the violation. In particular, if organizations fail to provide information about their location and income received, they are charged with a fine of 35-100 thousand rubles. This punishment is established by Art. 17.14, clause 1 of the Code of Administrative Violations. For entities that do not act as debtors in the case, penalties are also provided:

1. When ignoring the instructions of the bailiff.
2. Refusal to receive confiscated material assets.
3. Loss of executive documentation or untimely sending of it.
4. Providing false information about the availability of property from the debtor.

For these violations, organizations are charged with a fine of 50-100 thousand rubles.

The procedure for bringing to administrative responsibility

There are no strictly approved regulations that would regulate the voluntary execution of orders contained in the text of a court decision. As a rule, legal liability for persons for failure to comply with a court decision occurs in the period after the fact of their failure to comply with the instructions contained in enforcement proceedings is established. This happens in the following order:

1. The bailiff receives a writ of execution from the court or from the claimant, on the basis of which enforcement proceedings are initiated.
2. If the debtor fails to comply with the instructions of the enforcement documents, the bailiff sets a new deadline for the execution of the instructions for this person and issues a resolution to collect the enforcement fee. Thus, non-execution or improper execution of a court decision entails the imposition of property liability on the violator.
3. If the debtor fails to comply with the requirements of the writ of execution within the new period without good reason, the bailiff draws up a protocol on the administrative offense.

In addition to administrative liability, violation of the norms of enforcement proceedings provides for criminal liability or other types of liability regulated by current industry legislation. For example, Article 332 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation establishes punishment for citizens, legal entities and officials, state authorities and local self-government for an unfulfilled decision of an arbitration court in the form of a judicial fine.

What can a court fine be imposed in an arbitration court?

A judicial fine is a measure of legal liability, which is a sanction that is applied by an arbitration court on the grounds and in the manner established by the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in relation to persons who do not fulfill the duties assigned to them by law and (or) the legal requirements of the arbitration court.

As explained in the Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated September 25, 2014 No. 2093-O, the arbitration court, when considering the issue of imposing a judicial fine for failure to comply with a judicial act, must determine whether there are grounds for applying public law measures to the debtor aimed at coercing him to the proper performance of the duties assigned to him by a judicial act.

A judicial fine can be imposed both on citizens and officials, and on organizations.

However, Article 256.11 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation provides for privileges and immunities for foreign states in the course of judicial proceedings. In particular, when an arbitration court considers a case involving a foreign state, a court fine cannot be imposed on that foreign state.

Judicial fines imposed by an arbitration court on officials of state bodies, local governments and other bodies and organizations are collected from their personal funds.

Court fines are collected into the federal budget.

The size of court fines varies depending on the status of the person on whom it is imposed.

The Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation establishes a general rule according to which the amount of a court fine cannot exceed:

- for citizens - two thousand five hundred rubles,

- for officials - five thousand rubles,

— for the organization - one hundred thousand rubles.

However, there are exceptions to this rule:

- the amount of the judicial fine imposed by the arbitration court in the case provided for in Part 4 of Article 225.4 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is five thousand rubles.

- the amount of a judicial fine imposed by an arbitration court in the case provided for in Part 10 of Article 225.6 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, on citizens, is two thousand five hundred rubles, on persons performing the functions of a sole executive body or heading a collegial executive body of a legal entity - five thousand rubles.

- the amount of a judicial fine imposed by an arbitration court in the case provided for in parts 2 and 3 of Article 225.12 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, on citizens, is two thousand five hundred rubles, on persons performing the functions of a sole executive body or heading a collegial executive body of a legal entity - five thousand rubles , for organizations - ten thousand rubles.

The grounds for imposing a court fine are:

— failure to comply with the requirements of the arbitration court to submit an expert’s opinion to the arbitration court within the prescribed period (Part 6 of Article 55 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation);

— failure to fulfill the obligation to provide evidence required by the court for unjustifiable reasons (part 9 of Article 66 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation);

— failure to notify the court of the impossibility of presenting evidence at all or within the prescribed period (Part 9 of Article 66 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation);

— repeated failure to comply with the requirements of the arbitration court to provide evidence (part 10 of Article 66 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation);

— failure to comply with a ruling on securing a claim by a person to whom the court has entrusted the obligation to carry out interim measures (Part 2 of Article 96 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation);

— contempt of the arbitration court (part 5 of article 119 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation);

— violation of order at a court hearing or disobedience to the lawful orders of the presiding officer (part 5 of article 154 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation);

- failure to appear at a court hearing of a person participating in a case, whose appearance in accordance with the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is recognized as mandatory by an arbitration court (part 4 of Article 156, part 3 of Article 194, part 3 of Article 200, part 4 of Article 205, part 3 of Article 210, part 3 Article 215 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation);

— failure to appear in court for unexcusable reasons at a court hearing of an expert, witness or interpreter (part 2 of Article 157 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation);

- failure to submit or untimely submission of explanations, objections and (or) arguments within the prescribed period by a body, organization, official who did not execute the judicial act within a reasonable time (part 3 of article 222.8 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation);

- failure by a person to fulfill the obligation to notify other participants of the initiation of proceedings in the case, the subject and the grounds of the claims submitted to the arbitration court and other circumstances of the dispute (Part 4 of Article 225.4 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation);

— failure by the person who applied to the arbitration court to secure the claim to fulfill the obligation to notify the persons participating in the case about the time and place of consideration of the application to secure the claim (Part 10 of Article 225.6 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation);

— abuse by a person who applied to the arbitration court in a case on the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of a group of persons, of his procedural rights (Part 3 of Article 225.12 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation);

- loss by the guilty person of the writ of execution handed over to him for execution, which was issued by the arbitration court (Article 331 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation);

— failure to comply with a judicial act of an arbitration court by government bodies, other organizations, officials and citizens (Part 1 of Article 332 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation);

- failure to perform the actions specified in the writ of execution by the person entrusted with the commission of these actions (Part 2 of Article 332 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

Separately, I would like to dwell on the basis for imposing a court fine as contempt of court.

The Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation gives the arbitration court the right to impose, at its discretion, a judicial fine on the persons participating in the case and other persons present in the courtroom for their disrespect for the arbitration court.

As explained in paragraph 19 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated June 13, 2017 No. 21 “On the use by courts of procedural coercive measures when considering administrative cases,” contempt of court is understood as the commission of actions (inaction) indicating a clear disregard for the rules of conduct established in court (for example , the use of indecent expressions in the text of a procedural document submitted to the court; repeated statements of the same petition not caused by a change in the circumstances of the case or other objective reasons, in respect of which a court ruling has already been made and announced).

At the same time, such actions (inaction), the responsibility for which is provided for by other norms of procedural legislation (for example, failure to provide evidence required by the court, failure of a duly notified person, whose appearance was recognized by the court as mandatory, to appear at a court hearing) should not be qualified as contempt of court. , as well as such actions (inaction) that entail criminal liability.

A court fine for contempt of court is imposed if the actions committed do not entail criminal liability.

Thus, in particular, the legislator established criminal liability for the following actions:

— contempt of court, expressed in insulting participants in the trial (Part 1 of Article 297 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation);

— contempt of court, expressed in insulting a judge or other person involved in the administration of justice (Part 2 of Article 297 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

As stated in the Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated May 29, 2014 No. 1170-O, the power of the court to impose a judicial fine for contempt of court is not subject to arbitrary implementation and cannot be exercised in order to limit the procedural rights of persons participating in the case, and contributes to the implementation of such tasks of legal proceedings in arbitration courts, such as the formation of a respectful attitude towards the law and the court. If a person participating in the case, on whom a court fine has been imposed, considers the court’s ruling on the imposition of a court fine to be illegal and unfounded, he has the right to appeal it in the prescribed manner (Part 6 of Article 120 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). Thus, determining the degree of respect of a participant in the process towards the court is within the competence of the court and is established if there are legal grounds for this (this legal position is reflected in the Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Far Eastern District dated 08.18.2017 in case No. A24-1918/2010, Resolution of the Administrative Court of the Moscow district dated February 16, 2017 in case No. A40-44820/2012).

In accordance with Article 2 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the objectives of legal proceedings in arbitration courts are, among other things: the formation of a respectful attitude towards the law and the court; promoting the formation and development of partnership business relations, the formation of customs and ethics of business transactions.

According to the legal position set out in the rulings of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated March 22, 2012 No. 559-O-O, dated May 29, 2014 No. 1170-O, determining the degree of respect of a participant in the process towards the court is within the competence of the court and is established if there are legal grounds. The imposition of a judicial fine for contempt of court also contributes to the implementation of such a task of legal proceedings in arbitration courts as the formation of a respectful attitude towards the law and the court. At the same time, the authority granted to the arbitration court to assess the actions of these persons, entailing the imposition of a judicial fine for contempt of court, follows from the principle of judicial management of the process (Part 3 of Article 9 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

For example, by a ruling of the Intellectual Rights Court dated September 13, 2017 in case No. A82-7654/2016, a court fine in the amount of 1,500 rubles was imposed on the representative of the defendant Sh.

The plaintiff in case No. A82-7654/2016 filed an application with the Intellectual Rights Court to impose a judicial fine on the defendant’s representative for contempt of the court, expressed in derogatory and disparaging language given in the appeal and cassation complaints.

The Intellectual Property Rights Court found that the cassation appeal contained disparaging and derogatory statements regarding the judges of the arbitration courts of the first and appellate instances, namely: “...on page 4 of the Decision there is simply a masterpiece of the court’s resourcefulness” (first paragraph of page 8); “The logic of the court... Nonsense!” (paragraph two of page 8); “The conclusions of the Arbitration Court of the Yaroslavl Region and 2 AAS, contained in the decision and resolution, are so ridiculous and illogical...” (paragraph seven of page 11); “... The courts shift what is not proven by the plaintiff onto what is not proven by the defendant... Kindergarten.” (first paragraph of page 12); “We read the resolution 2 of the AAS... Then the lies continue to grow” (paragraph five of page 12 - paragraph one of page 13); “The judges of the 2nd AAC no longer knew what to come up with, just to distort the Law of Russia” (first paragraph of page 14); “... And 2 AAS don’t care. 2 AAS has neither knowledge of the law nor arguments, except to refer to V.V. prohibited by Putin. changes in the APC of the letter to YOU..." (paragraph four of page 14); “In general, all the conclusions and arguments of 2 AAS are false, are not based on the circumstances of the Case, distort the meaning of the rules of law and contain inventions of the judges of 2 AAS” (first paragraph of page 15); “2 AAS in the end, in the resolution, descended to outright lies... There is nowhere further lies...” (paragraphs two - three of page 15); “And a masterpiece of ignorance of the Law of Russia and the complete lack of logic at the end of Resolution 2 of the AAS” (first paragraph of page 16).”

When analyzing this issue, the court was guided by the following provisions.

Contempt of court in written applications to the court can be expressed in the use of indecent, provocative expressions. Such actions of a person may be regarded as an abuse of the right to a trial (ruling of the European Court of Human Rights dated 04/06/2006 in the case of Chernitsyn v. the Russian Federation (complaint No. 5964/02).

The court found that “the representative of the applicant of the cassation appeal, Sh., presented the arguments of the cassation appeal, using formulations of a pejorative nature in relation to the courts of the first and appellate instances, without showing the dignity, politeness, and tolerance befitting a representative of a person participating in the case, thereby creating a potential conflict situation, capable of damaging the reputation of judges or the authority of the judiciary of the Russian Federation. The chosen representative Sh. is not just impolite or without due tolerance, but the derogatory and dismissive style of presenting arguments in the cassation appeal does not contribute to the formation of a respectful attitude towards the law and the court; does not allow the proper implementation of the tasks of legal proceedings in arbitration courts, in particular the promotion of the formation and development of partnership business relations, the formation of customs and ethics of business. This style of document preparation, in its essence, is aimed at belittling the honor and dignity of both the persons participating in the case, other participants in the process, and the judges administering justice.”

As explained in the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 04.04.2017 No. 698-O, all participants in the process, including representatives of the parties, are obliged to show respect for the court as a judicial authority exercising justice on behalf of the state, and to respond appropriately to the comments of the presiding officer , thereby excluding situations that destabilize the process and create obstacles to the correct and timely resolution of the case.

Generally accepted standards of conduct for a legal representative in court suggest that the representative must comply with the norms of the relevant procedural legislation, show respect for the court and the persons participating in the case (paragraphs 2 and 6 of the International Code of Ethics for Lawyers (adopted in 1956); paragraphs 4.3 and 5.1.2 Charter of Fundamental Principles of European Lawyers (adopted on November 25, 2006 in Brussels) and the Code of Conduct for Lawyers in the European Community (adopted on October 28, 1988 by the Council of Bars and Law Communities of the European Union); Article 12 of the Code of Professional Ethics for Lawyers (adopted by the First All-Russian Congress of Lawyers January 31, 2003) etc.).

The court came to the conclusion that the representative of the defendant Sh. violated these standards in this case, which is the basis for imposing a court fine on this person.

Thus, in relation to the rules of conduct in litigation, the legislator has established generally binding norms, for violation of which liability is provided in the form of a judicial fine.

Author of the material: Zhurid Olga

Criminal liability for failure to comply with a court decision

In case of failure to comply with a court decision, a punishment provided for by criminal law may be imposed. According to Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the following may be held liable:

• employees of commercial and other organizations;
• civil servants and employees of government agencies;
• representatives of government structures;
• employees of municipal institutions.

Important! Not every failure to comply with a court decision for these persons can be regarded as a criminal offense, since when qualifying this act, an important factor is the establishment of its malicious nature.

Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for the following penalties:

• fine - a maximum amount of 200,000 rubles or corresponding to the amount of the offender’s salary or other income for a period of up to 18 months;
• inability to hold a specific position or carry out a certain type of activity for up to 5 years;
• compulsory work - up to 480 hours;
• forced labor - up to 2 years;
• arrest - up to 6 months;
• imprisonment for up to 2 years.

In addition to the above, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for liability for failure to comply with a court decision in the form of malicious evasion of a parent from paying alimony for children under the age of majority or evasion of payments by able-bodied children to their parents.

Individuals or the head of a company obliged by a court decision to repay their accounts payable, in case of malicious failure to comply with this court decision, may be punished with a fine, forced or compulsory labor, arrest or imprisonment

- Article 177 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Additionally

In paragraph 2 of Art. 17.14 of the code separately considers the fines provided for credit institutions. Monetary penalties are also provided for in cases related to the issue of securities, as well as the actions of professional participants in financial markets (clause 2.1, the same article). Failure to comply with a court decision is also punishable under Art. 17.15. A fine is provided for ignoring the instructions contained in the IL. The amount of recovery is determined depending on the specific stage of enforcement proceedings.

Malicious failure to comply with a court decision

It is worth immediately noting that the current Russian legislation in its content does not have a clear definition of such a term as “maliciousness”, however, already established judicial practice makes it possible to establish malicious failure to comply with a court decision in the presence of the following factors, such as:

• according to the cassation ruling of the Magadan Regional Court dated February 15, 2012: “The person deliberately did not take real actions or prevented the implementation of real actions within the established period for the execution of the judicial act”;
• according to the appeal ruling of the Rostov Regional Court dated September 23, 2015: “The street during this period had all the necessary conditions and there were no visible obstacles to complying with the court’s orders”;
• according to the appeal ruling of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug-Yugra court dated October 23, 2012: “The person was repeatedly notified in writing of possible criminal liability or brought to justice under Art. 17.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation"

Important! Despite the existence of specific judicial practice, in each specific case the court independently assesses the presence of signs of malice, taking into account all existing circumstances, therefore, the above list of factors is very general in nature.

In addition, we note that malice is a mandatory part of the objective side of the crime provided for in Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. So, if an employee by his actions prevented the execution of a court decision, but his actions do not show signs of malice, then the employer can apply only one type of disciplinary liability to him.

Bindingness of court decisions for legal entities

Any court decision (decree, ruling) is binding for everyone - both for the participants in the process who are directly affected by it, and for other citizens and organizations that may have to face this decision.

As a rule, court decisions that must be executed by legal entities are made in the framework of civil proceedings or arbitration. At the same time, the “lion’s share” of judicial acts not executed by organizations are final decisions that directly affect legal entities that are defendants or third parties in the process. Such judicial acts can be decisions, court rulings, court orders, as well as writs of execution issued by courts, including decisions of arbitration courts.

Execution of a judicial act is its complete, correct and timely execution. Anything that does not meet these criteria is considered a failure. For example, it is impossible to comply with court orders only in some desirable part, and ignore the rest. Will result in punishment and missing the deadline. Under certain circumstances, liability of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the Arbitration Procedure Code or the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation may arise in case of violation of the procedure for the execution of a judicial act, as well as in the creation of obstacles to its execution.

Important point

Despite the fairly extensive judicial practice, in each individual case the authorized body independently analyzes the materials and identifies signs of maliciousness. In this case, all circumstances that existed at the time the decision was made and it came into force are taken into account. Accordingly, the above list of features is quite general in nature. The liability provided for by a legal entity for failure to comply with an arbitration court decision carries certain negative consequences. However, their volume will depend on the nature of actions/inactions, the presence/absence of intent and malice in them. The entity in whose favor the ruling was made has the right to file a claim for failure to comply with the court decision.

Punishment under the Criminal Code

When performing their functions, authorized bodies are always guided by the law. In this regard, they know what to do if obligated entities fail to comply with a court decision. In accordance with Art. 315 of the Criminal Code provides for criminal punishment:

1. For employees of commercial and other enterprises.
2. Civil servants and employees of government institutions.
3. Representatives of government agencies.
4. Employees of municipal institutions.

It should be noted that not in every case, failure to comply with a decision can be considered a criminal offense. When qualifying actions, one of the key factors is the malicious nature of the violation. According to Art. 315 of the Criminal Code provides for the following types of punishment:

1. Monetary recovery. Its maximum amount is 200 thousand rubles. or equal to the amount of income for 18 months.
2. A ban on holding specific positions and conducting certain activities for 5 years.
3. Forced labor for up to 2 years.
4. Arrest for up to six months.
5. Up to 2 years in prison.
6. Mandatory work lasting up to 480 hours.

Punishment under the Criminal Code is provided exclusively for citizens. This means that if a subject has committed criminal acts on behalf of an organization, then he will be held accountable, and not the company as a whole. An individual or the head of an enterprise who is obliged to repay a debt to a creditor, if they maliciously evade this, may be punished with a fine, compulsory/forced labor, imprisonment or arrest. These types of liability are established by Art. 177 of the Criminal Code.