THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: THE DECISION TO REFUSE TO INITIATE A CRIMINAL CASE DOES NOT FORM A PREJUDICE

The essence of the dispute was as follows. The debtor carried out activities for the disposal of solid household waste, for the purposes of which he was granted a land plot on the right of lease, part of the area of which was allocated specifically for the disposal of waste.

At the same time, the debtor did not use the site for its intended purpose, and the waste was placed on its entire area, and, in addition, the displacement of the body of the site was allowed, as a result of which waste was also placed on an adjacent land plot.

Based on this fact, the administration of the municipal district, which provided the debtor with a land plot, terminated the contract in court and recovered losses from the debtor, after which it initiated a bankruptcy case.

Considering the actions of the debtor's managers to allow him to be held liable for the above-mentioned damage to the environment and thus bring him to bankruptcy, the manager applied for bringing the head and two shareholders to subsidiary liability.

In addition, as a basis for bringing the designated persons to responsibility, the manager pointed to the fact of non-transfer of the debtor's documentation.

The courts of three instances refused to satisfy the application on the grounds that the documentation could not be transferred due to its seizure by law enforcement agencies, refusal to initiate criminal proceedings against the head, as well as the minority status of the shareholders being held accountable.

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, canceling judicial acts, indicated the following.

Firstly, the Supreme Court noted that the decision to refuse to initiate criminal proceedings against the defendant in a separate dispute cannot be a preliminary act, on the basis of which such a person cannot be held vicariously liable due to differences in the nature of criminal and civil liability.

Separately, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation pointed out that the head is charged with organizing the activities of the debtor's employees in such a way as not to violate the standards of reasonable and conscientious behavior, as well as monitoring the proper performance of their duties, in connection with which the head's reference to the fact that violations of environmental legislation due to the fault of employees to whom he delegated the relevant powers was rejected by the board.

Secondly, the highest court drew attention to the fact that the debtor compiled unreliable accounting documentation, based on which it is impossible to establish the real amount of income from waste disposal activities, which also indicates the dishonesty of controlling persons.

Rejecting the argument about the minority nature of the shareholders being held liable, the court also pointed out that the controlling persons violated the obligation established by the legislation on joint-stock companies to transfer data on shareholders to the registrar for the purpose of preserving the possibility of arbitrary maintenance and modification of this register.

Thus, the court pointed out that the lower instances did not fully investigate the factual circumstances of the case, and also incorrectly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law, which is why it canceled judicial acts, sending the case for a new hearing.