According to article 160 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Case number 1

Accepted Vasileostrovskiy District Court of St. Petersburg

1. Vasileostrovskiy district court St. Petersburg as part of the presiding judge Leonova E.V.,
2. with the participation of the public prosecutor - senior assistant prosecutor of the Vasileostrovsky district of St. Petersburg Tokareva T.A., assistant prosecutor of the Vasileostrovsky district of St. Petersburg Prokofiev P.B.,
3. lawyer Kryukova E.I., who presented certificate No. XXX and warrant No. XXX,
4. defendant Kondratieva L.N.,
5. under the secretary Zasinets M.N.,
6. examined in open court session materials of the criminal case against
7. Kondratiev L.N., born XX.XX.XXXX, in ..., registered at: ..., previously not convicted, not detained, in accordance with Art. 91 Code of Criminal Procedure not delayed, accused of committing crimes under Art.Article. 160 part 1, 160 part 1, 160 part 3, 160 part 3, 160 part 3, 160 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

8. Installed:

9. XX.XX.XXXX years Kondratieva L.N. received from an employee of OOO "...", located at the address: ..., a form strict accountability- OSAGO policy of OJSC “...”, series BBB No. XXX, after which XX.XX.XXXX, while in St. Petersburg, she implemented the L.R.I. form entrusted to her, according to which she received from the latter as an insurance premium .. .rubles...kopecks. Subsequently, in order to steal money and conceal the crime, acting out of mercenary motives, she made corrections to the form of the above policy and the receipt of the insurance premium of series No. XXX, where she indicated the amount of the insurance premium received ... rubles ... kopecks. Subsequently, on XX.XX.XXXX, she handed over ... rubles ... kopecks to the cash desk of OOO "...", stealing by appropriation the difference in the amount actually received from L.R.I. and handed over to the employer's cash desk, equal to ... rubles ... kopecks, which caused OOO "..." property damage in the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks.
10. Blame Kondratieva L.N. in committing misappropriation, that is, stealing someone else's property entrusted to the guilty person, namely:
11. XX.XX.XXXX years Kondratieva L.N. received from an employee of LLC "...", located at the address: ..., a strict reporting form - an OSAGO policy of OJSC "..." series BBB No. XXX, after which XX.XX.XXXX, while in St. Petersburg, sold the form of V.D.Yu. entrusted to her, according to which she received from the latter as an insurance premium ... rubles ... kopecks. Subsequently, in order to steal money and conceal the crime, acting out of mercenary motives, she made corrections to the form of the above policy and the receipt of the insurance premium of series XXX No. XXX, where she indicated the amount of the insurance premium received ... rubles ... kopecks. Subsequently, on XX.XX.XXXX, she handed over ... rubles ... kopecks to the cashier of OOO "...", stealing by appropriating the difference in the amount actually received from V.D.Yu. and handed over to the employer’s cash desk, equal to ... a ruble ... a kopeck, which caused property damage to LLC “...” in the amount of ... a ruble ... a kopeck.
12. XX.XX.XXXX years Kondratiev L.N., according to employment contract No. XXX dated XX.XX.XXXX, being a materially responsible person, namely: the insurance manager of LLC "...", located at: ..., received from an employee said organization strict accountability form - OSAGO policy of OJSC IC "..." series BBB No. XXX, after which XX.XX.XXXX, having the intent to steal other people's property, using her official position, while in St. Petersburg, she sold the form M entrusted to her. I.F., according to which she received from the latter as an insurance premium ... rubles ... kopecks. Later, in order to steal money and conceal the crime, acting out of mercenary motives, she made corrections to the form of the above policy and the receipt of the insurance premium of series No. XXX, where she indicated the amount of the insurance premium received ... ruble ... kopecks. Subsequently, on XX.XX.XXXX, she handed over ... rubles ... kopecks to the cashier of OOO "...", stealing by appropriating the difference in the amount actually received from M.I.F. and handed over to the employer’s cash desk, equal to ... a ruble ... kopecks, which caused property damage to LLC “...” in the amount of ... a ruble ... kopecks.
13. Blame Kondratieva L.N. in committing misappropriation, that is, theft of another's property entrusted to the guilty person, committed by a person using his official position, namely:
14. XX.XX.XXXX, Kondratyeva L.N., according to the employment contract No. XXX dated XX.XX.XXXX, being a financially responsible person, namely: the insurance manager of LLC "...", located at: ... , received from an employee of the specified organization a form of strict accountability - an OSAGO policy of JSC "..." series BBB No. XXX, after which XX.XX.XXXX, having the intent to steal other people's property, using his official position, while in St. Petersburg, sold the S.A.K. form entrusted to her, according to which she received from the latter as an insurance premium ... rubles ... kopecks. Later, in order to steal money and conceal the crime, acting out of mercenary motives, she made corrections to the form of the above policy and the receipt of the insurance premium of series XXX No. XXX, where she indicated the amount of the insurance premium received ... ruble ... kopecks. Subsequently, on XX.XX.XXXX, she handed over to the cashier of OOO “...” ... rubles ... kopecks, stealing by appropriation the difference in the amount actually received from S.A.K. and handed over to the employer’s cash desk, equal to ... rubles ... kopecks, which caused property damage to LLC “...” in the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks.
15. Blame Kondratieva L.N. in committing misappropriation, that is, theft of another's property entrusted to the guilty person, committed by a person using his official position, namely:
16. XX.XX.XXXX, Kondratyeva L.N., according to the employment contract No. XXX dated XX.XX.XXXX, being a financially responsible person, namely: the insurance manager of LLC "...", located at: ... , received from an employee of the specified organization a form of strict accountability - an OSAGO policy of JSC "..." series BBB No. XXX, after which XX.XX.XXXX, having the intent to steal other people's property, using his official position, while in St. Petersburg, sold the form of Ch.S.G. entrusted to her, according to which she received from the latter as an insurance premium ... a ruble ... a penny. Later, in order to steal money and conceal the crime, acting out of mercenary motives, she made corrections to the form of the above policy and the receipt of the insurance premium of series XXX No. XXX, where she indicated the amount of the insurance premium received ... rubles ... kopecks. Subsequently, on XX.XX.XXXX, she handed over ... rubles ... kopecks to the cash desk of OOO "...", stealing by appropriation the difference in the amount actually received from Ch.S.G. and handed over to the employer’s cash desk, equal to ... rubles ... kopecks, which caused property damage to LLC “...” in the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks.
17. Blame Kondratieva L.N. in committing misappropriation, that is, theft of another's property entrusted to the guilty person, committed by a person using his official position, namely:
18. XX.XX.XXXX, Kondratyeva L.N., according to the employment contract No. XXX dated XX.XX.XXXX, being a financially responsible person, namely: the insurance manager of LLC "...", located at: ... , received from an employee of the specified organization a strict reporting form - a CASCO policy of JSC "..." No. XXX, after which, on the 20th.XX.XXXX, having the intent to steal other people's property, using her official position, being in St. Petersburg, she sold the entrusted to her form T.E.A., according to which she received from the latter as an insurance premium ... rubles ... kopecks. Later, in order to steal money and conceal the crime, acting out of mercenary motives, she made corrections to the form of the above policy and the receipt of the insurance premium of series XXX No. XXX, where she indicated the amount of the insurance premium received ... rubles ... kopecks, payment of which was supposed in 4 stages and transferred XX.XX.XXXX years to the cash desk of LLC "..." along with the above documents ... rubles, stealing by misappropriation cash in the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks, which caused property damage to LLC “...” in the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks.
19. At the hearing, the defendant L. N. Kondratyeva pleaded guilty and testified, from which it follows that she began working at LLC “...” from XX.XX.XXXX, then the employment contract was redone, according to this contract she was hired from XX.XX.XXXX, she was paid a salary of ... rubles, in this agreement her rights and obligations were also spelled out. In the duties of Kondratieva L.N. included obtaining forms of strict accountability, filling out policies, receiving funds from clients, handing them over to the cash desk of the company, and leaving in case of insurance claims. In some of the documents, which Kondratiev L.N. does not remember, it was registered that Kondratieva L.N. commission, also Director of the Society K.O.V. told employees that the amount of remuneration is from 10 to 15%, in connection with which, Kondratieva L.N. after the conclusion of insurance contracts, this amount was withheld, in forms and receipts by Kondratyeva L.N. corrections were made, due to the fact that she incorrectly calculated the amounts from the amount of the concluded contract Kondratiev L.N. deducted the amount of the commission, that the amounts received by her had to be surrendered in full, and the managers were deprived of the commission, she learned during the reconciliation. Their actions Kondratiev L.N. explained that she needed to live on something, she has one mother who does not help her financially, it was a shame to ask her relatives for help.
20. After the reconciliation of strict reporting forms began, a shortage of about ... rubles was revealed, which she compensated for XX.XX.XXXX.
21. Wine Kondratieva L.N. in the commission of crimes, in addition to his own confession, is confirmed by the totality of the evidence examined by the court:
22. - a report on / from the OEB and PC of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Vasileostrovsky district of St. Petersburg V.S.V. in the name of the chief of police of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation for the Vasileostrovsky district of St. Petersburg on permission to transfer the material of the KUSP to the SU of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation of the VO district for a decision in accordance with Art. 144-145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (ld XXX), from which it follows that during the verification of the material KUSP - XXX of XX.XX.XXXX on the application CEO OOO "..." K. O. V. actually possible illegal actions on the part of the former insurance manager Kondratieva L.N., it was established that in the performance of the duties of an insurance manager, part of the funds received from clients, Kondratieva L.N. appropriated itself, thus, in her actions are seen signs of a crime under Part 3 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the preliminary investigation of which is carried out by the investigating authorities;
23. - a statement by the General Director of LLC "..." K. O.V. to the authorities of the Ministry of Internal Affairs with a request to conduct an audit and take legal measures to bring L.N. Kondratyeva to justice. due to the fact that XX.XX.XXXX, the employer's commission during the period of verification of performance job duties Kondratieva L.N. revealed that the latter, during the period of exercising its powers until XX.XX.XXXX, received an insurance premium from clients under concluded insurance contracts in the total amount of ... a ruble, which it did not transfer to Insurance companies and spent it on my personal needs (ld XXX);
24. - certificate of state registration legal entity LLC "..." XX.XX.XXXX of the year (ld XXX),
25. - Order No. XXX dated XX.XX.XXXX on assuming the position of General Director K.O.V. since XX.XX.XXXX (ld XXX);
26. - a sublease agreement dated XX.XX.XXXX (ld XXX), according to which LLC “...” leases premises from LLC “...” at the address ..., with a lease term of ... months;
27. - agency agreement dated XX.XX.XXXX, concluded between OOO "..." and OOO "..." (case sheet XXX);
28. - agency agreement dated XX.XX.XXXX, concluded between JSC "..." and LLC "..." (case sheet XXX);
29. - contract of commission No. XXX dated XX.XX.XXXX, concluded between LLC "..." and SP I. E.P. (ld XXX);
30. - employment contract No. XXX dated XX.XX.XXXX, concluded on indefinite term between the employer LLC "..." and the employee Kondratieva L.N. on hiring the latter to work from XX.XX.XXXX in this organization as an insurance manager, according to which the employee's salary is ... rubles per month, which is accrued and paid in accordance with the number of days worked twice a month on the basis of the established salary, approved by the General Director, according to the company's staffing table (ld XXX);
31. - additional agreement No. XXX dated XX.XX.XXXX to the employment contract No. XXX dated XX.XX.XXXX (case sheet XXX), according to which compensation for harm is provided by L.N. Kondratyeva. in favor of “...” LLC, in case of loss of strict reporting forms; incorrect execution of insurance contracts, resulting in its cancellation or reduction/cancellation of the commission; shortage of funds received from the insured under the concluded insurance contracts; other violations of the provisions of the employment contract, the contract on liability, local regulations of LLC "..." and other legislative acts that caused the occurrence of material damage to LLC "...";
32. - by order to receive Kondratiev L.N. to work in LLC “...” from XX.XX.XXXX to the position of an insurance manager with a salary of ... rubles (l.d.XXX);
33. - Order No. XXX dated XX.XX.XXXX on the establishment of a commission to conduct an internal investigation into the fact of a shortage of funds in the cash desk of the organization, forgery of strict reporting forms and other possible violations of the insurance manager Kondratyeva L.N. (ld XXX);
34. - the conclusion of XX.XX.XXXX on the results of the work of the commission on the fact of shortage of inventory items (ld XXX), according to which in the work of Kondratieva L.N. facts of violation of the procedure for issuing insurance contracts, falsification of the amounts of insurance contracts, terms, underestimation of the cost of vehicles, resulting in a decrease in the amount of cash to be handed over to OOO “...” in the amount of ... ruble, as part of the work of the commission Explanations were received from Kondratieva L.N., in which she indicated that she underestimated the amount of insurance contracts in order to derive benefits and spent it on personal needs. In the course of further clarification of the circumstances, the following violations were found in the activities of Kondratyeva L.N.:
35. - policy L.R.I. BBB XXX was concluded for the amount of... rubles... kopecks, then the amount was changed to... rubles... kopecks;
36. - policy S.A.K. BBB XXX was concluded for the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks, then the amount was changed to ... rubles ... kopecks;
37. - Policy V.D.Yu. BBB XXX was entered into for the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks, then the amount was changed to ... rubles ... kopecks;
38. - policy Ch.S.G. ВВВ XXX was concluded for the amount of... ruble... kopecks, then the amount was changed to... rubles... kopecks;
39. - policy T.E.A. in XX.XX.XXXX was concluded for the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks, with distortions in the terms of insurance and receipts for the delivery of XX.XX.XXXX, the amount was changed to ... rubles ... kopecks, damage to LLC “...” amounted to ... a ruble ... a penny, which, in the opinion of the commission, gives grounds for the loss of confidence in her by the employer, and the commission believes that it is possible to bring her to disciplinary liability in the form of dismissal under paragraph 7 part 1 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation;
40. - the testimony of the representative of the victim K. Oh.The. during the investigation (ld XXX), announced at the hearing, at the request of the public prosecutor according to Article. 281 Code of Criminal Procedure with the consent of the parties, from which it follows that K. Oh.The. has been the General Director of LLC "..." since XX.XX.XXXX, the organization provides individuals and legal entities insurance services on the basis of concluded agency agreements with insurers OJSC "...", OJSC "...", OJSC "...", OJSC "...". In order to fulfill the conditions stipulated in agency agreements, L.N. Kondratieva was hired as an insurance manager at LLC “...” under an employment contract, whose duties included preparing insurance documentation (including policies and receipts) and accepting funds from customers ( policyholders) as payment for insurance premiums. In accordance with the employment contract No. XXX (with annex) dated XX.XX.XXXX, L.N. Kondratiev it was necessary to timely hand over in full to the cash desk of the organization the funds received under the concluded insurance contracts and insurance documentation. On the basis of the said agreement, Kondratieva L.N. bears full financial responsibility for the strict reporting forms entrusted to it, issued by LLC "..." and for the safety of funds received from policyholders as insurance premiums.
41. XX.XX.XXXX, on the basis of order No. XXX of XX.XX.XXXX, an internal investigation was conducted in relation to the performance of labor duties by L.N. Kondratyeva, the results of which revealed that during the period of employment on XX.XX. XXXX year Kondratieva L.N. received against signature, according to the acts of acceptance and transfer of strict reporting forms, insurance contracts (CASCO, OSAGO policies), which were issued to her by the office - manager K.V.A. Copies of the implemented policies and receipts for the acceptance of the insurance premium, as well as the funds themselves received from the insurers, were returned to Kondratyeva L.N. to the office of “...” LLC at the address: ..., about which there are entries in the journal of the report on the submitted insurance policies. These documents and funds were accepted by the office - manager K.V.A. During the audit, several facts of shortage and misappropriation of L.N. Kondratyeva were revealed. funds received from insurers:
42. - XX.XX.XXXX years under the insurance policy of OSAGO JSC "..." series BBB No. XXX Kondratieva L.N. from client V.D.Yu. an insurance premium was received under an OSAGO insurance contract in the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks, by erasing and making changes to a copy of the specified form and receipt XXX, subject to accounting and return to the office of OOO "...", actually received from the client insurance the premium ... rubles ... kopecks was corrected for the amount ... rubles ... kopecks, in connection with which, Kondratyeva L.N. contributed to the employer's cash desk, according to the report on the issued insurance policy, the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks, thereby appropriating ... a ruble ... kopecks;
43. - XX.XX.XXXX years under the insurance policy of OSAGO JSC "..." series BBB No. XXX Kondratieva L.N. an insurance payment was received from C. A.K. in the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks, having made the erasure in the columns of the said policy and making corrections to the form of the policy and receipt XXX, the amount of the insurance payment was corrected by ... ruble ... kopecks, thereby Kondratyeva L.N. handed over to the employer's cashier ... a ruble ... kopecks, having appropriated ... rubles ... kopecks from the amount of the actual insurance payment made;
44. - XX.XX.XXXX, according to L.N. Kondratieva OSAGO policy of JSC "..." series BBB No. XXX from the client Ch. S.G. an insurance premium was received in the amount of ... ruble ... kopecks, correcting the information in the policy regarding the dates of registration of the insurance contract and the insurance premium, Kondratiev L.N. handed over to the employer's cash desk the specified form of the insurance contract and the receipt of series XXX No. XXX in the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks, visiting the office of the insurance agency Ch.S.G. presented the original OSAGO insurance policy of series BBB No. XXX and a receipt of series XXX No. XXX for the amount of payment made by the insured in the amount of ... ruble ... kopeck, in written explanations by Kondratiev L.N. confirmed that she corrected the information in the policy and appropriated the amount of the difference between the actual payment and that transferred to the employer's cash desk, thereby appropriating and spending ... rubles;
45. - XX.XX.XXXX Kondratieva L.N. issued a CASCO insurance policy of OJSC "..." No. XXX to the client T. E.A. and accepted from the latter an insurance premium in the amount of ... rubles, in a copy of the said policy transferred according to the report to the employer, as well as in a copy of the receipt of series XXX No. XXX, Kondratiev L.N. indicated the amount insurance premium equal to ... rubles, the payment of which was supposed to be in 4 stages and transferred to the office of LLC “...”, together with the above documents ... rubles, thereby appropriated funds in the amount of ... rubles;
46. - XX.XX.XXXX years Kondratieva L.N. an insurance premium was accepted in the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks from L.R.I. under the OSAGO insurance policy of the BBB series No. XXX (JSC "..."), when transferring the policy and receipt of the insurance premium No. XXX to the employer, Kondratieva L.N. corrected by erasing and writing the amount of the paid insurance premium in the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks, which she transferred to the employer's cash desk, assigning the difference from the paid insurance premium in the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks;
47. - XX.XX.XXXX years Kondratieva L.N. from client M.I.F. according to the issued OSAGO insurance policy of OJSC “...”, series BBB No. XXX, it was accepted ... rubles ... kopecks, correcting the information in the policy regarding the amount of the insurance premium by ... ruble ... kopecks, Kondratieva L.N. handed over to the employer's cash desk the specified amount, the contract form and receipt No. XXX with corrections, as a result of which she appropriated ... rubles ... kopecks; Thus, the official Ltd. «...» Kondratyeva L.N. funds were appropriated and spent under insurance contracts and thereby material damage was caused, subsequently all the above facts of theft of Kondratiev L.N. recognized and wrote confessional explanations for each of them, at present, the material damage of LLC "..." is fully compensated, any claims from the management of the organization to Kondratieva L.N. not available;
48. - testimony of witness K. The.A. during the investigation (ld XXX), announced at the hearing, at the request of the public prosecutor according to Article. 281 Code of Criminal Procedure with the consent of the parties, similar testimony K. Oh.The. in part assigned to Kondratiev L.N. obligations under the mining contract, the procedure for issuing and issuing strict reporting forms (policies and receipts), accepting funds from her under concluded insurance contracts, conducting an internal investigation in relation to the execution of L.N. their labor duties, about the violations revealed during the audit committed by Kondratieva LN;
49. - protocol of seizure of documents dated XX.XX.XXXX (case file XXX), during which the following were seized:
50. - statement of issuance of insurance policies,
51. - an act of acceptance of the transfer of strict reporting forms,
52. - a notebook for registration of issued policies,
53. - a journal of accounting for policies and insurance premiums,
54. - copies of insurance policies: BBB No. XXX, BBB No. XXX, No. XXX, BBB No. XXX, BBB No. XXX, BBB No. XXX,
55. - copies of receipts: No. XXX, No. XXX, series XXX No. XXX, No. XXX, No. XXX,
56. - a copy of the employment contract No. XXX dated XX.XX.XXXX,
57. - a copy of agreement No. XXX dated XX.XX.XXXX,
58. - a copy of the employment order dated XX.XX.XXXX,
59. - a copy of the order on the establishment of a commission to conduct an internal investigation,
60. - a copy of the conclusion on the results of the work of the commission on the fact of shortage of goods and materials dated XX.XX.XXXX,
61. - explanations of Kondratieva L.N. on... sheets,
62. - a protocol of inspection of the above documents seized during the seizure (case sheet XXX), a decision on recognizing and attaching them to the criminal case as material evidence (case sheet XXX), a decision on the return of material evidence: a statement of issuance of insurance policies, an act acceptance of the transfer of forms of strict accountability, a notebook for registering issued policies, a register for accounting for surrendered policies and insurance premiums on the XXX sheet (case sheet XXX), a receipt for their receipt (case sheet XXX);
63. - a copy of the notebook for accounting issued policies (ld XXX), according to which L.N. were received:
64. - XX.XX.XXXX, the form of the OSAGO policy of JSC "..." BBB No. XXX and a receipt of series XXX No. XXX, subsequently issued to V.D.Yu.;
65. - XX.XX.XXXX, the form of the OSAGO policy of OJSC IC "..." series BBB No. XXX and receipt No. XXX, subsequently issued on M.I.F.;
66. - XX.XX.XXXX, the form of the OMTPL policy of JSC "..." series BBB No. XXX and the receipt of series XXX No. XXX, subsequently issued in S.A.K.;
67. - a copy of the statement of accounting for issued policies (ld XXX), according to which Kondratyeva L.N. was received:
68. - XX.XX.XXXX, the form of the OSAGO policy of OJSC "..." VBB No. XXX, subsequently issued in L.R.I.;
69. - an act of acceptance and transfer of forms of strict reporting dated XX.XX.XXXX, dated XX.XX.XXXX (case sheet XXX), according to which Kondratiev L.N. were received:
70. - XX.XX.XXXX, the form of the OSAGO policy "..." of series BBB No. XXX and the receipt of series XXX No. XXX, subsequently issued on C.S.G.;
71. - XX.XX.XXXX, the form of the CASCO policy "..." No. XXX and the receipt of series XXX No. XXX, subsequently issued on T. E.A.;
72. - journal of the report on the surrendered policies (ld XXX), according to which Kondratiev L.N. funds were handed over to the employer XX.XX.XXXX of the year: according to S.A.K. - ... ruble ... kopecks; according to V.D.Yu. - ... rubles ... kopecks, according to Ch.S.G. - ... rubles ... kopecks; according to L.R.I. - ... rubles ... kopecks; XX.XX.XXXX year according to T.E.A. - ... rubles; XX.XX.XXXX year according to M.I.F. - ... ruble ... penny;
73. - explanatory Kondratieva L.N. (ld XXX) about her depositing in LLC “...” an amount in the amount of ... a ruble, which was taken by her and spent on personal needs;
74. And also her guilt is confirmed.
75. Based on the episode with L.R.I.:
76. - a report on the discovery of signs of a crime (ld XXX), according to which, during the investigation of criminal case No. XXX initiated XX.XX.XXXX, under Art. 160 h.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it was established that XX.XX.XXXX, under the OSAGO insurance policy VVV No. XXX Kondratiev L.N. from L.R.I. an insurance premium was received in the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks, by erasing and amending the specified form, the insurance premium actually received from the client was corrected by the amount ... rubles ... kopecks, in connection with which, Kondratyeva L. N. contributed to the employer's cash desk, according to the report on the issued insurance policy, the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks, thereby appropriating the difference from the paid insurance premium in the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks;
77. - explanatory letter dated XX.XX.XXXX by L.N. Kondratieva in the name of L. O. V. (case sheet XXX), according to which Kondratieva L.N. On XX.XX.XXXX, the policy of IC “...” BBB XXX was taken, receipt XXX, which was issued on XX.XX.XXXX to the client L.R.I., in the original policy of Kondratieva L.N. the amount is indicated ... rubles ... kopecks, and in the copy and receipt she corrected the amount by ... rubles ... kopecks, the difference in money was spent by her for her own needs;
78. - a copy of the receipt of the IC "..." No. XXX issued in the name of L.R.I. with the corrected amount ... rubles ... kopecks, a copy insurance policy OSAGO VVV No. XXX (case sheet XXX);
79. According to the episode with V.D.Yu.:
80. - the testimony of witness V.D.Yu. at the court session, from which it follows that in XX.XX.XXXX, a previously unfamiliar L.N. Kondratyeva called him on his cell phone, who offered to insure the car, since his OSAGO insurance was ending, and the conditions proposed by L.N. Kondratyeva, arranged for him, he agreed. In XX.XX.XXXX, they met with Kondratieva L.N. in the shopping center "...", located on ..., where Kondratieva L.N. an OSAGO insurance policy was issued to the insurance company OAO “...”, for which he gave her ... rubles, for the indicated amount she issued a receipt;
81. - a report on the discovery of signs of a crime (ld XXX), according to which, during the investigation of criminal case No. XXX initiated XX.XX.XXXX, under Art. 160 h.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it was established that XX.XX.XXXX, under the insurance policy of OSAGO VVV No. XXX (SK-JSC “...”) Kondratiev L.N. from V.D.Yu. an insurance premium was received in the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks, by erasing and amending the specified form and receipt XXX, the insurance premium actually received from the client was corrected by the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks, in connection with which, Kondratieva L.N. contributed to the employer's cash desk, according to the report on the issued insurance policy, the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks, thereby appropriating the difference from the paid insurance premium in the amount of ... ruble ... kopecks;
82. - explanatory letter dated XX.XX.XXXX by L.N. Kondratieva in the name of K.O.V. (case sheet XXX), according to which Kondratieva L.N. XX.XX.XXXX, the policy of the IC MSK BBB XXX was taken, the receipt XXX, XX.XX.XXXX of the year was issued to the client V.D.Yu., in the original policy of Kondratyeva L.N. the amount is indicated ... rubles ... kopecks, and in the copy and receipt she corrected the amount by ... rubles ... kopecks, the difference in money was spent by her on personal expenses;
83. - statement by V.D.Yu. on the conclusion of an agreement compulsory insurance civil liability of vehicle owners from XX.XX.XXXX years (ld XXX);
84. - an insurance policy in the name of V.D.Yu. with the amount of the insurance premium ... rubles ... kopecks, receipt XXX No. XXX with the corrected amount ... rubles ... kopecks (ld XXX);
85. According to the episode with M.I.F.:
86. - the testimony of witness M. AND.F. during the investigation (ld XXX), announced at the hearing, at the request of the public prosecutor according to Article. 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation with the consent of the parties, from which it follows that on XX.XX.XXXX of the year he received a phone call from a previously unfamiliar Kondratyeva L.N., who introduced herself as an employee of LLC “...” and offered to write out CASCO and OSAGO policies. On the same day, M.I.F. and Kondratieva L.N. met and Kondratieva L.N. issued 2 policies. For the issued OSAGO policy VVV XXX M.I.F. gave her ... rubles ... kopecks, in confirmation of which Kondratiev L.N. issued him a receipt for the said amount;
87. - a report on the discovery of signs of a crime (ld XXX), according to which, during the investigation of criminal case No. XXX initiated XX.XX.XXXX, under Art. 160 h.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it was established that, according to L.N. OSAGO insurance policy VVV 0557572134 (SK-JSC “...”) by her from M.I.F. an insurance premium was received in the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks, on the basis of corrections in the policy of the amount of the insurance premium, an insurance premium in the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks was paid to the employer's cash desk, thereby assigning the difference from the paid insurance bonuses in the amount of ... ruble ... kopecks;
88. - explanatory letter dated XX.XX.XXXX by L.N. Kondratieva in the name of K.O.V. (case sheet XXX), according to which Kondratieva L.N. the policy of IC “...” BBB XXX was taken, which was issued to the client M.I.F., in the original policy of Kondratieva L.N. the amount was indicated ... rubles ... kopecks, and in the copy and receipt she corrected the amount by ... rubles ... kopecks, the difference in money was spent by her for her own needs;
89. - a copy of receipt No. XXX dated XX.XX.XXXX, JSC "..." for the corrected amount ... ruble ... kopeck in the name of M.I.F. (ld XXX);
90. - a copy of the insurance policy of IC “...” BBB XXX in the name of M.I.F. with the corrected amount ... ruble ... kopeck (ld XXX);
91. According to the episode with S.A.K.:
92. - a report on the discovery of signs of a crime (ld XXX), according to which, during the investigation of criminal case No. XXX initiated XX.XX.XXXX, under Art. 160 h.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it was established that XX.XX.XXXX, under the insurance policy of OSAGO VVV No. XXX (SK-JSC “...”) Kondratiev L.N. from S.A.K. an insurance payment was received in the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks, by erasing and amending the specified form and receipt XXX, the insurance premium actually received from the client was corrected by the amount ... ruble ... kopecks, in connection with which, Kondratieva L.N. contributed to the employer's cash desk, according to the report on the issued insurance policy, the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks, thereby assigning the difference from the paid insurance premium in the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks;
93. - explanatory letter dated XX.XX.XXXX by L.N. Kondratieva in the name of K.O.V. (case sheet XXX), according to which Kondratieva L.N. On XX.XX.XXXX, the policy of IC “...” BBB XXX was taken, receipt XXX, which was issued on XX.XX.XXXX to the client S.A.K., in the original policy of Kondratyeva L.N. the amount is indicated ... rubles ... kopecks, and in the copy and receipt she corrected the amount by ... ruble ... kopecks, the difference in money was spent by her for her own needs;
94. - a copy of the insurance policy of SK JSC "..." BBB XXX in the name of S. A.K. with the corrected amount of the insurance premium ... ruble ... kopecks and receipt XXX No. XXX (case sheet XXX);
95. According to the episode with C.S.G.:
96. - a report on the discovery of signs of a crime (ld XXX), according to which, during the investigation of criminal case No. XXX initiated XX.XX.XXXX, under Art. 160 h.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it was established that XX.XX.XXXX, under the insurance policy of OSAGO VVV No. XXX (SK-JSC “...”) Kondratiev L.N. from Ch.S.G. received an insurance premium in the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks, having corrected the information in the policy regarding the dates of execution of the insurance contract and the insurance premium, handed over to the employer's cash desk the specified contract form and receipt XXX in the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks, having visited the office of the insurance agency, Ch. S.G. presented the original insurance policy OSAGO ВВВ № XXX and receipt XXX for the amount of payment made by the insured in the amount of... ruble... kopecks, in connection with which, Kondratyeva L.N. contributed to the employer's cash desk, according to the report on the issued insurance policy, the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks, thereby appropriating the difference from the paid insurance premium in the amount of ... rubles ... kopecks;
97. - explanatory letter dated XX.XX.XXXX by L.N. Kondratieva in the name of K.O.V. (case sheet XXX), according to which Kondratieva L.N. On XX.XX.XXXX, the policy of IC “...” BBB XXX, receipt XXX, which was issued to the client Ch.S.G., was taken in the original policy of Kondratieva L.N. the amount is indicated ... rubles ... kopecks, but in the copy and receipt she corrected the amount by ... rubles ... kopecks, the difference in money was spent by her for her own needs;
98. - a copy of the insurance policy of SK-JSC “...” BBB XXX addressed to Ch.S.G. with the corrected amount of the insurance premium ... rubles ... kopecks (ld XXX);
99. From the episode with T.G.V.:
100. - explanatory letter dated XX.XX.XXXX by L.N. Kondratieva in the name of K.O.V. (case sheet XXX), according to which Kondratieva L.N. ATS policy XXX dated XX.XX.XXXX SK was taken ..., issued to the client T. E.A., in the original policy of L.N. Kondratieva. the amount is indicated ... rubles, and in the copy ... rubles, the difference in money was spent by her on own needs;
101. - a copy of receipt XXX No. XXX dated XX.XX.XXXX for the amount of ... rubles (ld XXX);
102. - a copy of the insurance contract vehicle(TC) Policy No. XXX from XX.XX.XXXX to XX.XX.XXXX in the name of T.E.A. for the amount of ... rubles (case sheet XXX);
103. - a copy of the vehicle insurance contract (TC) Policy No. XXX from XX.XX.XXXX to XX.XX.XXXX in the name of T.E.A. for the amount of ... rubles (ld XXX),
104. - the testimony of witness T. G.The. during the preliminary investigation, announced in accordance with Art. 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation at the request of the public prosecutor, with the consent of the parties (case sheet XXX), from which it follows that, under a general power of attorney, he drives a car “...”, belonging to his mother T. E.A., in order to insure the specified of a car, approximately XX.XX.XXXX, he found the details of the insurance broker LLC “...” on the Internet, called the indicated number, where he was connected to an employee of the organization L.N. .. XX.XX.XXXX in the evening, T.G.V. met with L.N. Kondratyeva, who issued an insurance contract in his mother’s name by issuing policy XXX of the insurance group “...”, the total insurance premium under the contract amounted to ... rubles, which were transferred to T. G.V. personally Kondratyeva L.N., in confirmation of which she issued a receipt XXX No. XXX for the indicated amount;
105. Having assessed the evidence collected in the case in their entirety, the court finds them objective, admissible and sufficient, collected in accordance with the requirements of the criminal procedure law, and considers it necessary to put them in the basis of a guilty verdict.
106. Court, taking into account the intent Kondratieva L.N. and the circumstances of the case established by the above evidence, qualifies the actions of the defendant:
107. - based on the episode with L.R.I. under Art. 160 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as appropriation, that is, theft of someone else's property entrusted to the guilty.
108. - according to the episode with V.D.Yu. under Art. 160 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as appropriation, that is, theft of someone else's property entrusted to the guilty.
109. - based on the episode with M.I.F. under Art. 160 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as appropriation, that is, theft of another's property entrusted to the guilty person, committed by a person using his official position.
110. - based on the episode with S.A.K. under Art. 160 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as appropriation, that is, theft of another's property entrusted to the guilty person, committed by a person using his official position.
111. - based on the episode with Ch.S.G. under Art. 160 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as appropriation, that is, theft of another's property entrusted to the guilty person, committed by a person using his official position.
112. - based on the episode with T.E.A. under Art. 160 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as appropriation, that is, theft of another's property entrusted to the guilty person, committed by a person using his official position.
113. In accordance with paragraph 24 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 27, 2007 No. 51 “On judicial practice in cases of fraud, misappropriation and embezzlement”.
114. Persons using their official position in committing fraud, embezzlement or embezzlement (Part 3 of Article 159, Part 3 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) should be understood as officials who have the characteristics provided for in Note 1 to Article 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, state or municipal employees, who are not officials, as well as other persons who meet the requirements provided for in Note 1 to Article 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (for example, a person who uses his official powers to commit theft of another's property, including organizational and administrative or administrative and economic duties in commercial organization).
115. As follows from the case file, Kondratyeva L.N. by virtue of her employment relationship with LLC “...”, while working as an insurance manager in a commercial organization, she had administrative and economic duties, by virtue of which she had the authority to manage and dispose of property and funds, as well as to perform other actions: decision-making on the amount of insurance premiums, monitoring the movement of material assets, determining the procedure for their storage, etc.
116. When sentencing the court, according to Article. 6, 60 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, takes into account the nature and degree public danger of the crime committed, information about the identity of the defendant Kondratyeva L.N., circumstances mitigating the punishment, the impact of the punishment imposed on her correction and on the living conditions of her family.
117. The Court considers that Kondratiev L.N. committed 2 crimes small gravity and 4 serious crimes, no previous convictions, first time involved in criminal liability, is not registered in narcological and neuropsychiatric dispensaries, is a citizen of the Russian Federation, has registration and permanent residence on the territory of the Russian Federation, repented of her deed, admitting her guilt in committing crimes in full, there are no data negatively characterizing her in the case, during the investigation in voluntary compensated for the damage caused by it to the organization, in connection with which, LLC «...» represented by K. Oh.The. there are no material claims against it, the above circumstances in their totality are recognized by the court as circumstances mitigating punishment in accordance with Art. 61 h.1 p. "k", h. 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in connection with which, according to the court, there are grounds for concluding that it is possible to correct her without isolation from society and sentencing her using Art. 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on probation, taking into account the number and severity of the crimes committed, and believes that there are no grounds for imposing an additional type of punishment.
118. In order to contribute to the correction of the convict and to monitor her correction and behavior during the period of probation and on the basis of Part 5 of Art. 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court considers it necessary to impose on Kondratiev L.N. a number of additional responsibilities.
119. At the same time, according to the court, taking into account the property status of the defendant, and the lack of information about her permanent legal place of work or other source of income, there are no grounds for appointing Kondratieva L.N. the minimum punishment provided for by the sanction h. 1 Article. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in the form of a fine.
120. Based on the aforesaid and guided by Article. Art. 307 - 309 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation,
121. sentenced
122. Recognize Kondratiev L.N. guilty of crimes:
123. - based on the episode with L.R.I. under Art. 160 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
124. - according to the episode with V.D.Yu. under Art. 160 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
125. - based on the episode with M.I.F. under Art. 160 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
126. - based on the episode with S.A.K. under Art. 160 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
127. - based on the episode with Ch.S.G. under Art. 160 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
128. - based on the episode with T.A.E. under Art. 160 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
129. and assign her a punishment:
130. - based on the episode with L.R.I. under Art. 160 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - 1 year imprisonment,
131. - according to the episode with V.D.Yu. under Art. 160 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - 1 year in prison,
132. - based on the episode with M.I.F. under Art. 160 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - 1 year 6 months in prison, without a fine, without restrictions on freedom,
133. - based on the episode with S.A.K. under Art. 160 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - 1 year 6 months in prison, without a fine, without restriction of freedom,
134. - based on the episode with Ch.S.G. under Art. 160 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - 1 year 6 months in prison, without a fine, without restriction of freedom,
135. - based on the episode with T.A.E. under Art. 160 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - 1 year 6 months in prison, without a fine, without restriction of freedom.
136. In accordance with Art. 69 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the totality of crimes, by partial addition of punishments, finally determine her to serve a sentence of 2 years in prison, without a fine, without restriction of freedom.
137. In accordance with Art. 73 h.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to consider the sentence imposed suspended with a probationary period of 2 years.
138. In accordance with Part 5 of Art. 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to impose on the conditionally convicted Kondratiev L.N. the obligation not to change the permanent place of residence without notifying the specialized state body that carries out the correction of the convict, to appear monthly at the set time for registration with this specialized body.
139. Preventive measure Kondratyeva L.N. - recognizance not to leave and proper behavior - cancel.
140. Material evidence: a statement of issuance of insurance policies, an act of acceptance of the transfer of forms of strict accountability, a notebook for registering issued policies, a register for registering policies and insurance premiums, stored on the basis of the investigator's decision on the recognition and attachment to the criminal case of material evidence dated XX.XX.XXXX ( ld XXX), the order of return (ld XXX), receipt of receipt (ld XXX) from the victim K. O.V., to leave the latter at her further disposal.
141. The judgment may be appealed to cassation to the St. Petersburg City Court within 10 days from the date of its announcement.
142. If a complaint is filed, the convicted person has the right to petition for her participation, as well as for the participation of a lawyer, in the consideration of the criminal case by the court. cassation instance.
143. presiding

Sverdlovsky District Court of Belgorod consisting of:

Presiding Judge Solntseva *.*.,

under secretaries Demchenko *.*., Mishin *.*.,

with the participation of: the public prosecutor - Assistant Prosecutor of Belgorod Viryutin *.*.,

the defendant Kostenko *.*., his defense counsel - lawyer Milevsky *.*., who submitted warrant No. 003350 dated 01.11.2010,

having examined in open court a criminal case on charges

Kostenko NP, accused of committing crimes under Part 3 of Art. 160, part 3 of Art. 160, part 3 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,

Installed:

The bodies of the preliminary investigation accused Kostenko of committing 11.02.2008. by order No. * 17.03.2008 by order No.*, 09.12.2008 under warrant No. * assignments, that is, theft of someone else's property entrusted to the guilty person, committed using his official position.

Crimes as stated in indictment and stated by the public prosecutor, were committed under such circumstances.

On the afternoon of February 11, 2008, Kostenko *.*., while at the place of work at the address Belgorod, st. Volchanskaya, d. *, acting as the design director of OOO G., being a materially responsible person, having intent to steal the money entrusted to him and for a selfish purpose, using his official position, acting deliberately, with the aim of embezzlement by misappropriation of entrusted him money, received from the cash desk for expenditure cash warrant No* dated 11.02.2008 cash in the amount of 30,015 rubles belonging to G. LLC, thus committing their theft. However, the documents confirming the performance of any work for LLC "G." Kostenko did not present, in fact, did not perform any work for the Society, and the funds received by him from the cash desk of the Society in the amount of 30,015 rubles, using his official position, which gives him the right to dispose of the property and funds of the Society, for the purpose of illegal profit, stole by misappropriation, spent for personal needs and disposed of the stolen goods at his own discretion, thereby causing LLC "G." property damage for the specified amount.

On the afternoon of March 17, 2008, Kostenko *.*., while at the place of work at the address Belgorod, st. Volchanskaya, d. *, acting as the design director of OOO G., being a materially responsible person, having intent to steal the money entrusted to him and for a selfish purpose, using his official position, acting deliberately, with the aim of embezzlement by misappropriation of entrusted him money, received from the cashier on account cash warrant No. * dated 17.03.2008. cash in the amount of 20,025 rubles belonging to G. LLC, thus committing their theft. However, the documents confirming the performance of any work for LLC "G." Kostenko did not present, in fact did not perform any work for the Society, and the funds received by him from the cash desk of the Society in the amount of 20,025 rubles, using his official position, which gives him the right to dispose of the property and funds of the Society, for the purpose of illegal profit, stole by misappropriation, spent for personal needs and disposed of the stolen goods at his own discretion, thereby causing LLC "G." property damage for the specified amount.

On the afternoon of December 9, 2008, Kostenko *.*., while at his place of work at the address Belgorod, st. Volchanskaya, d. *, acting as the design director of OOO G., being a materially responsible person, having intent to steal the money entrusted to him and for a selfish purpose, using his official position, acting deliberately, with the aim of embezzlement by misappropriation of entrusted him money, received from the cashier on account cash order No. * dated 09.12.2008. cash in the amount of 40,020 rubles belonging to G. LLC, thus committing their theft. However, the documents confirming the performance of any work for LLC "G." Kostenko did not present, in fact, did not perform any work for the Society, and the funds received by him from the cash desk of the Society in the amount of 40,020 rubles, using his official position, which gives him the right to dispose of the property and funds of the Society, for the purpose of illegal profit, stole by misappropriation, spent for personal needs and disposed of the stolen goods at his own discretion, thereby causing LLC "G." property damage for the specified amount.

After questioning Kostenko, who pleaded not guilty, the witnesses, examining other evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, the court found that Kostenko's guilt was committed on 11.02.2008. by order No. *, 17.03.2008 by order No.*, 09.12.2008 under warrant No.* of assignments using his official position, did not find its confirmation.

To prove the guilt of Kostenko misappropriating funds using his official position, the prosecution presented the same evidence below for each of the three episodes.

General Director of LLC "G." On April 22, 2009, L. applied to the Internal Affairs Directorate of Belgorod with a statement to conduct an investigation into the fact of misappropriation of funds by the former design director Kostenko *.*. and members of his family (vol. 1 ld 3).

During judicial investigation witness L. testified that from February to October 2009 he was the general director of G. LLC. Previously, actual and legal management of the Company and financial and economic activities were carried out by Kostenko *.*., who was authorized to do so general power of attorney, orders of the General Director, an agreement on full individual liability. Due to the fact that he and the founders of OOO G. there were suspicions regarding Kostenko, an audit of the financial and economic activities of OOO G. was appointed. for 2008. According to the results of the audit, a number of financial violations were revealed on the part of Kostenko: according to an oral order, the chief accountant M. gave him money on account cash warrants. The funds were issued unreasonably, there were no documents confirming the grounds for the extradition. Accounting documentation was not properly formatted. The basis for the issuance of funds in the expenditure cash warrant was indicated “under a work contract”, but there were no contracts, no work was performed. Funds were issued knowingly unreasonable. When asked about the purpose of issuing funds, as well as about the shortage, Kostenko said that everything would be formalized later. However, reporting documents were not provided, resulting in a shortage. The decision was made to contact law enforcement. In order to return the stolen funds, together with the founders, it was decided to rewrite the expenditure cash warrants issued for other persons for 2008 in the name of Kostenko, to which the latter agreed. I could not explain where the original cash receipts had gone.

Witness M. explained in court that she was the chief accountant and cashier of LLC G., and carried out accounting and tax reporting. Until February 2009, the management of the Company and financial and economic activities were carried out by Kostenko. The orders and instructions of Kostenko, by virtue of labor relations, were binding on her. In February 2009, the General Director of OOO G. L. was appointed. She confirmed that she had drawn up the debit cash warrants dated 2007-2008 attached to the materials of the criminal case in 2009, and in fact Kostenko did not receive money from these warrants.

During the trial in order h.4 Article. 271 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, at the request of the prosecution, witness L., a co-founder of G. LLC, was interrogated, who testified that since 2006 Kostenko had held the position of director of G. LLC. In 2009, there were suspicions about misappropriation of funds by Kostenko, and since February 2009, L. was appointed to this position, on whose initiative an audit was carried out, which revealed a shortage of funds. Cost cash warrants dated 2007-2008, Kostenko signed in 2009 after he admitted the fact of causing damage to the organization, revealed by the audit. The decision to formalize the damage caused by compiling accounting documents "backdating" was made after the initiation of a criminal case in order to return the money.

The representative of the victim V., the general director of G. LLC, told the court that after the dismissal former director for design LLC "G." Kostenko, a shortage of funds was revealed. Kostenko was empowered to dispose of the property of the enterprise, including cash, so the chief accountant M. gave him money from the cash desk. Kostenko did not provide documents confirming the performance of work. It is known that cash receipts for 2008 were issued in 2009. The Company is currently in the process of bankruptcy. Most of the LLC's debt to government bodies- tax service and pension fund.

The testimonies of these witnesses, both individually and in their totality, do not give grounds for concluding that Kostenko was involved in the commission of the crimes he is charged with. This evidence only indicates that the accounting documentation in LLC "G." conducted inappropriately. Expenditure cash orders for 2008 under Nos. *, *, * issued in the name of Kostenko in 2009. By the verdict of the Sverdlovsky District Court of the city of Belgorod dated May 27, 2010, expenditure cash warrants for 2008 under No. *, *, * in the name of Kostenko *.*., cash books for 2007-2008. recognized as inadmissible evidence. The sentence in this part entered into legal effect. Therefore, the indication of the public prosecutor in substantiating Kostenko's guilt on this evidence is illegal, contrary to the requirements of Part 1 of Art. 75 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

In the order of Part 1 of Art. 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the public prosecutor read out the testimony of witness V., which is not related to the episodes incriminated by Kostenko, according to which she is aware of the conduct in OOO G. in 2009 audit. She could not explain anything about the circumstances of the revealed violations (vol. 2, sheet file 57).

During the seizure on January 14, 2010 in OOO G. expenditure cash orders, cash documents of the Company, accounting registers (vol. 3 ld 106-109) were withdrawn.

Withdrawal on August 12, 2009 in OOO G. seized documents confirming the official position of Kostenko *.*. to G. LLC: order to transfer Kostenko *.*. for the position of design director, application for transfer, order to provide Kostenko *.*. the right to sign financial and economic documents, an agreement on full individual liability, job description of the design director, an employment contract without a number dated February 6, 2007 (vol. 2 pp. 62-65).

From the official response to the request of the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation for the city of Belgorod dated 10.09.2009. it follows that Kostenko is listed in the reporting documents as the head of G. LLC, has the right to bank signature and order financial means(Vol. 4 pp. D. 132).

According to the protocol of examination of documents dated February 22, 2010, expenditure cash warrants, documents confirming the official position of Kostenko *.* were examined. to G. LLC: order to transfer Kostenko *.*. for the position of design director, application for transfer, order to provide Kostenko *.*. the right to sign financial and economic documents, an agreement on full individual liability, job description of the design director, an employment contract without a number dated 02/06/2007. According to an employment contract no. dated 02/06/2007, additional agreement to the employment contract No. * dated February 6, 2007, order No. * dated February 6, 2007 Kostenko *.*. was appointed to the position of director of design in the management apparatus of LLC "G.". According to job description design director, approved by the general director of LLC "G." L., Kostenko *.*. by virtue of his position, he is obliged to manage the production, economic and financial and economic activities of the enterprise, bearing full responsibility for the consequences of decisions made, to preserve and effectively use the property of the enterprise, as well as the financial and economic results of its activities. Takes measures to provide the enterprise with qualified personnel, rational use and development of their professional knowledge and experience. Responsible for causing material damage to the Company. In accordance with the agreement on full individual liability dated February 6, 2007, Kostenko *.*. assumed full financial responsibility for the shortage of property entrusted to him by the Company, as well as damage incurred by the Company as a result of compensation for damage to other persons. Within the powers granted by the general power of attorney dated February 6, 2007, Kostenko *.*. has the right to represent the interests of LLC "G." and enter into agreements with all organizations and individuals, dispose of the property and funds of LLC "G.". do everything necessary actions in order to protect the entrusted material values. To exercise the above powers, by order No. * dated February 6, 2007, the General Director of OOO G. L., Kostenko *.*. granted the right to sign all civil law contracts and financial and economic documents (vol. 3 pp. 214-217);

In the course of the judicial investigation, material evidence was examined: documents confirming Kostenko's official position *.*. to G. LLC: order to transfer Kostenko *.*. for the position of design director, application for transfer, order to provide Kostenko *.*. the right to sign financial and business documents.

These evidence, both individually and in their totality, confirm that from 2006 to February 2008, Kostenko served as the general director of G. LLC, which is not disputed by the defense. They do not provide grounds for concluding that Kostenko is guilty of the crimes he is accused of.

As evidence of Kostenko's guilt *.*. the prosecution provided the court with the conclusions of handwriting and accounting expertise. The court cannot base their conclusions on the basis of the Sentence, and recognize the conclusions of the accounting expertise as reliable, since they were drawn on the basis of and according to physical evidence which are declared invalid.

At the court session, Kostenko *.*., denying his guilt in the alleged crimes, explained that from 2006 to 2008 he worked as the director of G. LLC. When fulfilling orders for design, in addition to the employees of the Company, part of the necessary work was performed by involved specialists. Contracts for the performance of work were not concluded with a number of specialists, since they were civil servants, the work was carried out unscheduled in a shortened time frame. He involved his wife and son in the design, for which they were paid cash reward. The fact that the audit in 2009 revealed the absence of the signatures of the recipients of funds in a number of cash orders was explained by the improper performance of the duties of the accountant M. After the audit in 2009, which revealed violations in financial activities and accounting of the enterprise, it was concluded that LLC "G." shortages. The founders blamed him for this. According to L.'s statement, a criminal case was initiated. He was very worried about this, as he understood the weight of the social position of the founders of the Society. In the course of a conversation with L., in order to avoid a scandal, he agreed to sign the expenditure cash warrants for 2008 in 2009 and perform a number of design work. For this, Lagutin promised to stop the criminal case, but he did not fulfill the promise. In fact, he did not receive money under the specified cash receipts.

Interrogated as a witness Kostenko *.*. - the wife of the defendant, explained to the court that she was an architect by education. For LLC "G." performed a number of works related to the verification of projects, the correctness of their financial calculations. For the work performed at the cash desk of the Society, she was paid money. When and how much he does not remember.

Within the meaning of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, embezzlement in the form of appropriation means the gratuitous withdrawal by a person using his official position of funds out of selfish interest, causing damage to the owner.

The prosecution did not provide evidence that Kostenko received money from cash receipts, free of charge, out of selfish interest. Moreover, it was established that for the crimes alleged by Kostenko, the expenditure cash warrants for 2008 were signed by him in 2009 and he did not receive money for them. This circumstance at the hearing was confirmed by the representative of the victim and witnesses. In accordance with Art. 240 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, in litigation All evidence in a criminal case is subject to direct examination. The initial cash warrants for 2008 were not presented by the prosecution and were not reviewed during the judicial investigation.

Having examined the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, the court concludes that Kostenko's guilt in committing crimes under Part 3 of Art. 160, part 3 of Art. 160, part 3 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

bodies preliminary investigation and the public prosecutor did not provide indisputable evidence obtained in accordance with the requirements of the law, confirming the commission of Kostenko's incriminated acts.

On the basis of the above circumstances, the court had irremovable doubts that Kostenko had committed the acts incriminated to him, therefore, the statement of the investigation and the public prosecutor that the defendant committed on 11.02.2008. by order No. *, 17.03.2008 by order No.*, 09.12.2008 under warrant №* assignments using his official position, the court considers unproven.

According to Part 3 of Art. 49 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Art. 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, irremovable doubts about the guilt of a person are interpreted in favor of the accused, a guilty verdict cannot be based on assumptions.

The conclusions about the guilt of Kostenko, given in the indictment and presented by the public prosecutor at the hearing, are of a conjectural nature, in connection with which an acquittal should be issued in the case.

Kostenko has the right to rehabilitation, as well as to compensation for property damage and moral damage in the manner prescribed by Art. 135-136 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Guided by Art. 302-306, 309 and 310 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, court

Sentenced:

Kostenko *.*. on charges against him

in the commission of a crime, under Part.3 Article. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (episode dated February 11, 2008, according to order No. 45) JUSTIFY on the basis of paragraph 3 of part 2 of Art. 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation due to the absence of corpus delicti in his actions.

in the commission of a crime, under Part.3 Article. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (episode dated March 17, 2008, by order No. 83) EXCUSE on the basis of paragraph 3 of part 2 of Art. 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation due to the absence of corpus delicti in his actions.

in the commission of a crime, under Part.3 Article. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (episode dated 09.12.2008 by order No. 362) EXCUSE on the basis of paragraph 3 of part 2 of Art. 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation due to the absence of corpus delicti in his actions.

Recognize as Kostenko *.*. the right to rehabilitation and to go to court with a claim for compensation for property damage and moral damage.

On the basis of Part 2 of Art. 306 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, civil action LLC "G." leave without consideration.

Material evidence to store in a criminal case.

The verdict can be appealed in cassation to the Belgorod regional court within 10 days from the date of its announcement.

Assistant referee *.*. Abramov

Agreed:

presiding judge Solntseva *.*.

1-177/2011

Sentence:

RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND M E N E M

Sovetsky District Court of Ufa consisting of:

Presiding Judge Golubeva *.*.,

with the participation of the public prosecutor Kiseleva *.*.,

defendant *.*. X.,

lawyer Polyakova *.*., who submitted the warrant ..., certificate ...,

under Secretary Sergeeva *.*.,

having examined in open court the materials of the criminal case against

accused of committing a crime under part 3 of article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,

Installed:

In the period of time from "date" to "date", *.*. H., working, on the basis of an employment contract from "date", as a seller ... at ... at the address: ..., and, on the basis of an agreement concluded with her on full individual liability from "date", materially responsible the person, in accordance with the duties assigned to her, was supposed to sell electrical goods, and the funds received from the sale should be handed over to the cashier ... However, *.*. Kh., contrary to the duties assigned to her, deliberately, out of selfish motives, did not hand over the proceeds from the sale of goods to the cashier, but stole them by appropriation. As a result of their criminal acts, aimed at appropriation of funds, *.*. X. for the indicated period of time, the total amount of money entrusted to her ... did not enter into the cash desk, but stole them by misappropriation, and used it at her own discretion, spending it on her personal needs, caused ... material damage for total cost...

At the hearing, the defendant M did not admit to committing a crime, she showed that on the “date” she got a job in ... a seller. *.*. N. in the same market there is a second department, the seller from it could go to her department in her absence, since she had the keys. I took *.* the proceeds from the point of sale almost daily. N. or his wife *.*. S. “date” she and her young daughter were admitted to the hospital, she called L. and said that she could not work for two weeks. A few days later, *.* called her on her cell phone. S. and reported that they had taken an inventory and identified a shortage. Under pressure *.*. N., she recognized the shortage for the entire amount, but she did not take this money. Having worked for IP *.*. N. for about one week, she borrowed from him ... because she needed the money for the treatment of her mother. Salary for the period of her work at ... from "date" to "date" amounted to .... These funds of IP *.*. N. were withheld to pay off her debt to him.

The guilt of the defendant *.*. Kh. was proven to have committed a crime by all the evidence collected in the case:

Victim's testimony *.*. N., who testified in court that he is engaged ... at the address ..., he rents two outlets ... and ... and one warehouse. "date" he hired as a salesperson, at a point of sale..., *.*. X. In her official duties included the receipt of goods at the point of sale, laying it out on the windows and further sale. "Date" at the point of sale ... an inventory was carried out, all inventory items in the department were transferred to M. under the report. He or his wife usually took the proceeds from the outlet *.*. C. Revenue is taken as follows: at the end of the working day, a report is taken from the cash register, after which it is compared with the entries in the notebook, in which the name of the goods sold per day is recorded daily. The information in the report and the amount of goods sold recorded in the notebook must match the funds in cash register. After he, or his wife, took the proceeds from the outlet, then a corresponding inscription was made in the accounting book indicating the amount of money withdrawn from the cash desk of the outlet. " the date " *.*. H. did not show up for work. His wife *.*. S. called *.*. H., who explained that her daughter had fallen ill and would be in the hospital for about 10 days. He found a new seller - *.*. I. and together with the warehouse manager *.*. S., manager *.*. M. they carried out an inventory at the point of sale .... During the audit, it was established that M. had made a shortage of inventory items for ..., an audit report was drawn up dated “date”. With revision certificate *.*. H. was acquainted and agreed, which she signed in the audit report. Regarding the admitted *.*. H. shortage, she explained that she had some problems and needed money, so she took money from the cash desk of the outlet. *.*. H. promised to return the money she had taken and “date” wrote him a receipt in which she undertook to return the money. However, to date, M. has not compensated for the damage. No wage arrears at... *.*. N. before *.*. X never existed. *.*. H., having worked for him for about one week, asked for a loan... explaining that she needed this money to pay for her mother's treatment. He loaned her the money. When the proceeds are withdrawn, a part of the funds intended for payment wages, for the period of work *.*. X. from "date" to "date" in the amount of... was withheld to pay off the debt *.*. H. in front of him. *.*. H. was notified of this and agreed with this Decision. Regarding the seller from the second point of sale *.*. R. explained that she did not have the keys to the department, all the movement of goods through retail outlets was carried out in the presence of M. with the execution of invoices, everything was taken into account. *.*. R. did not allow shortages, like other sellers working for him;

Witness testimony *.*. S., who testified in court that he worked ... as a manager of a warehouse located on ... at the address: ....... *.*. N. is engaged in the trade of electrical goods and rents two outlets on the market ... and ..., as well as a warehouse for storing goods. His job responsibilities include the receipt of goods at the warehouse, the release of goods from the warehouse to retail outlets ... *.*. I., accounting for goods stored in a warehouse. In "date". *.*. N. hired for the position of sales consultant *.*. H., who worked at a retail outlet ... in the construction market. Sometimes inventory items are moved between outlets in order to evenly distribute the assortment of goods to both outlets. "date" he learned from *.*. N., that *.*. H. did not go to work, referring to the fact that her daughter was ill. After that, at the point of sale ... where *.* worked. H., by a commission consisting of: him, the manager ... the new seller *.*. I. and... *.*. N. inventory was carried out. In the course of the audit, a shortage of inventory items was established for the amount .... After establishing the amount of the shortage, an audit report was drawn up from “date”, which was signed by: manager ...., seller *.*. I. and... *.*. N. Subsequently *.*. H. was acquainted with the act of audit and agreed, which she signed in the act of audit;

Witness testimony *.*. R., who testified in court that she worked as a sales assistant in... *.*. P. at a point of sale... located on... at the address....... *.*. N. is engaged in the trade of electrical goods and for this purpose he rents for ... two outlets ... and ..., as well as a warehouse for storing goods. Her responsibilities include receiving goods at the point of sale, displaying them on display windows and retailing them. At the beginning of "date"... *.*. N. hired for the position of sales consultant *.*. H., who worked at a retail outlet ... in the construction market. U... *.*. N. on ... two outlets and both occupy the sale of electrical goods, sometimes between outlets there is a movement of inventory items. This is done in order to evenly distribute the assortment of goods available to ... *.*. N., at both outlets. "date" from the outlet... where she works, according to the transfer invoice... to the outlet... where she worked *.*. X., inventory items were moved for a total amount .... In the waybill for the transfer ... from “date” she and *.*. H. signed, confirming with their signatures the movement of inventory items. Since she has been working for IP *.* for a long time. N., then they developed a trusting relationship, sometimes she was instructed to take the proceeds from *.*. X. Revenue is taken as follows: at the end of the working day, a report is taken from the cash register installed at the outlet, after which it is compared with the entries in the accounting book, in which the name of the goods sold per day is recorded daily. The report and the amount of the goods sold, recorded in the notebook, must match the cash in the cash register. After that, she took the proceeds from the outlet, about which a corresponding inscription was made in the accounting book indicating the amount of money withdrawn from the cash desk of the outlet. Part of the proceeds usually remained at the point of sale so that the next business day there would be cash for change. Approximately in "date" from *.*. N. she learned that *.*. H. did not go to work, referring to the fact that her daughter was ill. At the point of sale... where *.* worked. X., on commission, an inventory of inventory items was carried out, during which it was established that there was a shortage in the amount ...

Witness testimony *.*. V., who testified in court that during the “date” period he worked as a sales assistant in ... *.*. N. at a retail outlet... located on... at:....... L. is engaged in the trade of electrical goods and for this purpose rents two outlets... and..., as well as a warehouse to store goods. His job responsibilities included: receiving goods at a point of sale, displaying them on display windows and retailing them. In "date" he reported... *.*. N. is about to retire. They are *.*. N. agreed that he would work for a while until a new salesman was found to take his place. A few days later *.*. N. found a new seller, *.*. X. In "date". at the point of sale ... an inventory was carried out, as a result of which he handed over all inventory items *.* located at the point of sale .... X. for the total amount...

The announced testimony of the witness *.*. M., who testified during the investigation that...

The announced testimony of the witness *.*. I., who during the investigation showed... P.M. and IP *.*. H. Subsequently *.*. Kh. was familiarized with the act of audit and agreed, about which she signed in the act of audit (case sheet 218-220);

Witness *.*. M. -..., testified in court that *.*. H. was registered with the UII, in connection with a suspended sentence under three court verdicts. During the period of serving the sentence, *.*. X. committed violations: she did not pay damages in the amount ... to the victim under the Court's verdict on "date", did not appear for registration on "date", in connection with which she was issued a warning. According to the service bailiffs, *.*. X. is in arrears in payment material damage based writ of execution in favor of 6 people for a total amount of more than ..., for which he does not make payments.

Case materials:

withdrawal protocol...

examination protocol, according to which they were examined said documents(case file 194-202);

Decision on recognition and inclusion in a criminal case,...

Arguments of the defendant *.*. Kh. about the absence of her guilt in committing a crime, the court cannot be taken into account, since they are refuted by the evidence collected in the case: the testimony of the victim and witnesses, which do not contain any conflicting information, and are consistent with other materials of the criminal case.

Non-acknowledgement of guilt by *.*. H., the court regards as a desire to escape responsibility for the crime she committed.

However, during the preliminary investigation *.*. Kh. in her testimony pointed out the crime committed, gave detailed testimony about the circumstances of the crime.

So from the testimony of *.*. X. in the course of the investigation it is seen that after she got a job in ... *.*. N., an inventory was carried out at the outlet, during which the seller of the outlet *.*. V. handed over to her inventory items in the amount of ..., after which she set to work. During the period of work at the point of sale ... she, almost every day, took goods from the warehouse. In total, for the period of work, she accepted goods from the warehouse for a total amount .... The proceeds from the outlet, almost daily, took *.*. N. or his wife *.*. C. Usually *.*. N. and his wife *.*. S. took only a part of the proceeds, and left a part at the cash desk for change. The proceeds received from the sale of goods during the period of its operation at ... *.*. S. was .... In the course of work at the outlet, it turned out that some goods at the outlet were defective. The defective goods were written off, about which a corresponding invoice was drawn up. During the period of her work, goods were written off for the total amount of marriage .... U ... *.*. N. on ... and both are engaged in the sale of electrical goods, sometimes inventory items are moved between outlets in order to evenly distribute the range of goods available from ... *.*. N., at both outlets. Thus, both outlets have the same amount of goods. " date " from the point of sale... where the seller *.* worked. R., according to the waybill for the transfer ... to the outlet ... where she worked, inventory items were moved for a total amount .... In the waybill for the transfer ... from the "date" she and *. *. R. signed, confirming with their signatures the movement of inventory items. One day *.*. N. withdrew from the cash desk of the outlet ... cash in the amount .... Since this withdrawal took place during the day, and not in the evening, when the proceeds were taken, this withdrawal of funds was issued in the form of a receipt for the cash receipt order "date" . "date" she didn't show up for work, her daughter was rushed to the hospital... along with her. She phoned *.*. S. and told her that she would not be able to go to work for 14 days. *.*. S. told her that they couldn't keep the outlet closed that long and would have to hire a new salesperson. A few days later, *.* called her on her cell phone. S. and reported that an inventory was carried out at the outlet ... as a result of which it was found that there was a shortage in size at the outlet .... This shortage was made due to the fact that she was working at the outlet. ..... *.*. N. from "date" to "date", she periodically appropriated from the cash desk of the outlet ... cash. She appropriated funds in small amounts from about .... In total, for the period from “date” to “date”, she was withdrawn from the cash desk of the outlet ... and appropriated funds for a total amount .... In order to *.*. N. and *.*. S. did not find out that she was embezzling money, after the sale of the goods she did not punch the check on the cash register and did not make an entry in the notebook for the sold goods, thus, she did not invest the money received from the sale of the goods in the cash desk of the outlet. ..... *.*. N. and later appropriated them. He fully admits his guilt in committing this crime and repents. Having worked for... *.*. N. for about one week, she borrowed money from him in the amount of ..., since she needed them for the treatment of her mother. Salary for the period of her work at ... *.*. N. from "date" to "date" amounted to .... These funds ... *.*. N. were withheld to pay off her debt to him. She was notified that her salary was withheld from her and agreed with this Decision (case file 230-233).

Subsequently *.*. Kh. changed her testimony, began to indicate that she did not commit the theft of funds. Thus it is changed in court testimony of the defendant *.*. Kh., the court cannot reliably take into account, since they contradict her own testimony during the preliminary investigation, as well as the materials of the criminal case and the actual circumstances of the case.

The testimonies given were given by *.*. X. in compliance with the requirements of the Law, in the presence of a lawyer, with an explanation of her rights, Art. 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, her signatures are everywhere. Doubt the reliability of the indicated testimony *.*. Kh., during the preliminary investigation, the court has no grounds.

Witness testimony *.*. T. that in that period of time when *.*. X. was in the hospital, the outlet ... was open, and there was a salesman ... who had the keys to the store, the court cannot take into account as reliable.

The said testimony was given *.*. T. for the purpose of helping *.*. H. hut of responsibility for the crime committed by her. *.*. T. is a relative of *.*. H., therefore, a person interested in the consideration of this case.

In addition, indications *.*. T. contradict all the collected evidence, including the testimony of the victim *.*. N., witness *.*. R. and others, who do not contain any contradictions and according to which, ... worked in a store ..., did not have keys to the store .... These testimonies are consistent with the materials of the case, as well as with the testimony of *.*. H., during the investigation.

Thus, all the evidence collected in the case of the guilt of the defendant *.*. H. has been fully proven in the commission of the crime.

At the court session, the public prosecutor requested that qualifying signs be excluded from the charge: the use of one's official position and the infliction of significant damage to a citizen, and the actions of *.* be reclassified. H. from Art. 160 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to Article 160 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, indicating that *.*. X. did not have any organizational and administrative functions, and therefore could not use her official position, and since the victim is individual entrepreneur, has several outlets, then the damage in total ... is not significant for him.

In connection with the conclusion of the public prosecutor, the actions of *.*. X. should qualify Part 1 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as appropriation - that is, theft of someone else's property entrusted to the guilty.

In determining the punishment, the court takes into account the deed and the identity of the defendant *.*. H., which is positively characterized by the place of residence. The mitigating factor is the presence of young children. In the same time, *.*. H. previously convicted, committed a crime during the period of probation on three court verdicts.

Considering the above circumstances, the court considers it necessary to appoint *.*. X. punishment in the form of real imprisonment.

In accordance with Art. 74 part 4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in case of committing by a conditionally convicted person within probationary period intentional crime of minor gravity, the question of the abolition or preservation of a conditional sentence is decided by the court.

Given that *.*. Kh. committed a crime during the period of probation under three court verdicts, during the period of probation she did not properly fulfill the duties assigned to her: she failed to appear for registration, in connection with which she was issued a warning, did not fulfill her obligations to compensate for damage, the court considers necessary, in accordance with Art. 74 part 4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, cancel probation by Sentences:... from "date" and from "date",... from "date" and designate *.*. X. punishment in the form of real imprisonment, with the application of the rules of Art. 70 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Guided by Art. Art. 296-299, 307-309 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, court

Sentenced:

On the basis of Article 74, part 4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, conditional sentences under Sentences: ... from "date", ...... from "date", ... from "date" - cancel.

In accordance with Article 70 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, on the basis of the totality of the Sentences, to partially add to the imposed punishment unserved sentences by Sentences: ... from "date", ... from "date", ... from "date", and finally designate *.*. X. punishment in the form of 4 years and 2 months in prison to be served in a colony-settlement.

Measure of restraint convicted *.*. X. do not change, leave the detention, the term of punishment is calculated from the "date" Set off *.*. X. in the term of punishment the time of detention from "date" to "date".

The judgment may be appealed to Supreme Court Republic of Bashkortostan within 10 days. Explain to the convicted woman her right to petition for participation in the consideration of the criminal case by the court of cassation within 10 days.

Referee: Golubeva *.*.

Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Assignment or embezzlement" provides for criminal liability for various forms of theft of property entrusted to the guilty. These types of crimes are common both in the state and in private sphere and their number is only growing year by year.

This article discusses the differences between misappropriation and embezzlement, the qualification of illegal actions and criminal liability for their commission.

Definitions of misappropriation and waste

Assignment and embezzlement are 2 different forms of theft of entrusted property. With this term, the legislator defines property that the guilty person could dispose of, manage, etc. under an agreement or special assignment from a state or public organization.

Appropriation means the use by a person of the property entrusted to him in his favor without the consent of the owner. Waste is the illegal actions of a citizen who has spent the property entrusted to him or transferred it to third parties without the permission of the owner.

Common types of this kind of crimes are the embezzlement of a pension for the loss of a breadwinner or guardianship contributions, maternity capital.

In both cases - both in case of embezzlement and appropriation - the court must establish the mercenary intent of the perpetrator.

Corpus delicti

The object of appropriation and waste corresponds to the object of theft, these are property relations. However, only the property that was entrusted to the guilty person can be the subject of a crime. In this case, we are talking about property in respect of which the offender has certain powers.

They are based on: civil law contracts(storage, transportation, rent); official or labor Relations; special powers. If a person did not have the authority to own property, it was transferred under the protection or supervision of a random person, then the property is not recognized as entrusted.

Secret theft in this case is qualified under Article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Thus, the essential difference between appropriation and theft lies in the fact that the offender does not seize property from the owner, but acquires rights to it. legal grounds. Assignment and embezzlement of property are crimes that are carried out in two ways.

The first way is to make certain action(for example, when the perpetrator uses property that has been transferred to him for safekeeping).

The second is inaction (for example, when the person to whom the property was entrusted declares to the rightful owner that it burned down in a fire). The corpus delicti in case of misappropriation or embezzlement is material. The appropriation is considered completed from the moment when the rights to own the entrusted property were transferred to the guilty person and he began to take actions to enrich the property in his favor.

Waste is considered completed from the moment of illegal spending of the entrusted property. The subject of these crimes is a citizen who has the following characteristics: reaching the age of majority; financially responsible person; a citizen to whom the stolen property was entrusted by the owner on the basis of a document.

In the event that a group of persons participated in the misappropriation or embezzlement, only those citizens who have the characteristics special subjects. They are criminally liable under articles 33 and 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as organizers, instigators or accomplices.

Order prepaid gift cards

In court, it must be proved that the subject of misappropriation or embezzlement had direct intent and a mercenary purpose. Direct intent is aimed at causing property damage to the victim. This is facilitated by the realization of a selfish goal, which is characterized by the intention to use someone else's property for personal purposes, deriving financial benefits from this.

The difference between embezzlement and embezzlement

The main difference between misappropriation and embezzlement is that in the first case, a person illegally owns, and in the second case, he turns the property entrusted to him in his favor by spending, consuming, alienating. Each case of embezzlement and embezzlement is investigated for the direction of intent. This takes into account the specific circumstances of the case, including the fact that the citizen has a real opportunity to return the property to the owner and attempts to hide their actions by forgery or in another way.

Many lawyers consider embezzlement the next step in the appropriation of entrusted property. They explain that in order to start converting property in your favor, you must first decide that it will not be returned to the owner. On the other hand, in judicial practice such an approach to a crime is not applied, otherwise the same theft would have 2 ending points: the end of appropriation and the end of embezzlement.

Both types of theft of the entrusted property are characterized by its being with the perpetrator at the time of the end of the crime. At the end of the appropriation, the perpetrator has the opportunity to dispose of someone else's property, and at the end of the embezzlement, he realizes this opportunity in practice. There is no time interval between legal possession and illegal expenditure of property, during which the perpetrator exercises illegal possession of it.

Distinguishing misappropriation and embezzlement from fraud

According to the PPEP on Fraud, Embezzlement and Embezzlement, in the case of fraud, there is a breach of the victim's trust. It is expressed in the use for selfish purposes of trust relationships established with the owner of property or a person authorized to transfer this property to other persons.

Trust is determined by various circumstances - for example, the official position of the perpetrator or family relations with the victim.

The qualification of theft under article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is carried out if there were legally fixed relations between the owner and the person to whom he entrusted his property. Thus, the main difference between fraud and misappropriation and embezzlement is that in the first case the subject of the crime is in legal relations with the owner of the property, which are based on trust, and in the second - no.

CASH LOAN

Qualification

According to the version of the criminal code in force for 2018, the infliction of significant property damage to the victim becomes a qualifying sign in the event of misappropriation or embezzlement. His minimum size- 2500 rubles.

To establish the presence of a qualifying feature, the court must determine the real value of the embezzled or wasted property, as well as the property status of the victim, which is measured in: availability of sources of income; the amount of income; frequency of receipt of income; the presence of dependents; the total income of all family members.

The court listens to the opinion of the victim himself about the significance of the damage caused to him, but also takes into account the materials of the case, which serve as confirmation of the value of the stolen property and demonstrate the property status of the victim. Several thefts of property, the total value of which is more than 250,000 rubles, qualify as theft on a large scale.

In case of misappropriation and embezzlement of property with a total value of 1,000,000 rubles or more, theft on an especially large scale is recorded. In both cases, all facts of theft must be committed by a single method under circumstances that indicate the presence of mercenary intent on the part of the perpetrator.

Actions of accomplices

If a group of persons took part in the misappropriation or embezzlement, the court must establish the roles of each of them.

Incitement is proven when a person persuaded another person to commit a criminal act by bribery, threat, persuasion or other means.

Aiding consists in facilitating the implementation of illegal actions with the help of instructions, advice, providing any data, tools or means to commit a crime, or in removing obstacles. An accomplice is also recognized as a citizen who promised in advance to hide the identity of the performer and traces of illegal actions, or was going to acquire and sell the stolen property.

Arbitrariness

Separately, the law specifies such a concept as arbitrariness. This is the seizure and (or) conversion in one's favor or in favor of other persons of another's property by a citizen who sought to exercise his actual or alleged right to this property. An example of arbitrariness is the appropriation by a citizen of the property entrusted to him in order to pay the debts of the owner of the property.

From the point of view of the law, arbitrariness is not theft. The perpetrator in this case is held liable under Article 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Ways to defend in court

A person suspected of misappropriation or embezzlement of entrusted property has several options for defense in court:

contesting the value of property (if not money was stolen);

reconciliation with the victim and a petition to dismiss the criminal case (when charged under Parts 1 and 2 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation);

proof of the fact of the actions of the perpetrator with the knowledge of the owner of the property;

reclassification of a crime (when charged under Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation);

full or partial compensation for damage to the victim;

collection of characteristics on the guilty.

A responsibility

For misappropriation or embezzlement of budgetary funds, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for several types of punishments:

a fine of 120,000 rubles or in the amount of the convict's income for a one-year period;

up to 24 hours of compulsory work;

up to six months of corrective labor;

up to 2 years of restriction of freedom;

up to 2 years of forced labor;

up to 2 years in prison.

Group Punishment

If it is proved that a group of persons by prior agreement participated in the misappropriation or embezzlement, and the victim suffered significant property damage, this is considered an aggravating circumstance. For participants criminal group provided the following types punishments:

a fine of up to 300,000 rubles or in the amount of the convict's income for a two-year period;

up to 360 hours of compulsory work;

up to the 1st year of correctional labor;

up to 1 year of restriction of freedom;

up to 5 years in prison.

If property was stolen on an especially large scale, the maximum term of imprisonment increases to 10 years, and maximum amount the fine increases to 1,000,000 rubles or to the amount of the convict's income for a period of up to 3 years.

Malpractice

Malpractice is another aggravating circumstance. In case of misappropriation or embezzlement of property on a large scale, the court may impose the following types of punishments on the convict:

a fine from 100,000 to 150,000 rubles or in the amount of income for a period of one to three years;

deprivation of the right to hold a number of positions or engage in certain activities for up to 5 years;

up to 5 years of forced labor;

up to 1.5 years of restriction of freedom;

up to 6 years in prison.

Property is the economic basis for the existence of society. It largely determines the political, legal, moral, ideological and other types of relations between people. Therefore, such types of crimes as misappropriation and embezzlement are contrary to public interest and subject to criminal prosecution.

Those convicted under Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are punished with large fines and real terms of imprisonment.

At the same time, participation in a crime by a group of persons by prior agreement and theft on a large and especially large scale are aggravating circumstances that significantly increase criminal liability.

Free Criminal Lawyers
Recently, more and more people are resorting to the services of a lawyer. If you need free and high quality legal consultation in order to resolve family, housing, labor, administrative, criminal procedure, and other issues, we are ready to guarantee good legal advice.

1. Assignment or embezzlement, that is, the theft of someone else's property entrusted to the guilty person, -

shall be punishable by a fine in the amount up to 120 thousand roubles, or in the amount of the wage or salary, or any other income of the convicted person for a period up to one year, or compulsory work for a term of up to two hundred and forty hours, or by corrective labor for a term of up to six months, or by restraint of liberty for a term of up to two years, or forced labor for up to two years, or imprisonment for the same term.

2. The same acts committed by a group of persons by prior agreement, as well as causing significant damage to a citizen, -

shall be punishable by a fine in the amount up to 300 thousand roubles, or in the amount of the wage or salary, or any other income of the convicted person for a period up to two years, or by compulsory labor for a term of up to 360 hours, or by corrective labor for a term of up to one year, or by compulsory labor for a term of up to five years. with restriction of freedom for a term of up to one year or without it, or imprisonment for a term of up to five years with restriction of freedom for a term of up to one year or without it.

3. The same acts committed by a person using his official position, as well as on a large scale, -

shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of 100 thousand to 500 thousand roubles, or in the amount of the wage or salary, or any other income of the convicted person for a period of one to three years, or by deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to five years, or by forced labor for a term of up to five years with restriction of liberty for a term of up to one and a half years or without it, or imprisonment for a term of up to six years with a fine in the amount of up to ten thousand rubles or in the amount of the wage or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to one month or without it and with restriction of freedom for a period of up to one and a half years or without it.

4. The deeds provided for by the first, second or third parts of this article, committed by an organized group or on a particularly large scale, -

shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to ten years, with or without a fine in the amount of up to one million rubles, or in the amount of the wage or salary, or any other income of the convicted person for a period of up to three years.

Commentary on Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

1. Assignment or embezzlement - forms of taking possession of other people's property, which are characterized by all the main signs of theft (see).

2. Assignment and embezzlement are ways of taking possession of other people's property. They are characterized by the fact that the stolen property is in the lawful possession of the perpetrator by virtue of his official or official position, an agreement (for example, on full liability) or other special assignment, which is a legal basis for the perpetrator to exercise the powers to dispose, manage, deliver, use or custody of other people's property.

The fact that the stolen property is in the lawful possession of the perpetrator should be distinguished from his access to such property due to the work performed or other circumstances. Theft of another's property under such circumstances is qualified as theft.

3. Assignment - gratuitous unlawful conversion of property entrusted to a person in one's favor, committed for selfish purposes and against the will of the owner.

Assignment is considered a completed crime from the moment when the legal possession of the property entrusted to a person became illegal and this person began to take actions aimed at converting the said property in his favor. For example, from the moment when a person hides the possession of entrusted property by forgery, or from the moment of failure to fulfill the obligation of a person to deposit funds entrusted to this person to the bank account of the owner.

4. Waste - illegal spending by a person of the funds entrusted to him for personal purposes, as well as any other forms of illegal direct consumption by a person of the property entrusted to him for his own purposes, as a result of which other people's funds in the literal sense of the word are spent, and other property is spent, consumed . Such consumption can also be carried out by transferring someone else's property to other persons.

Theft by embezzlement is considered completed from the moment of illegal consumption (expenditure) or alienation by the perpetrator of the property entrusted to him.

If the guilty person simultaneously squandered one part of the property entrusted to him (money, other currency values), and appropriated the other part (for example, fuel and lubricants), then the totality of crimes committed by him does not form.

5. The object of appropriation or waste coincides with the generic object of theft, this public relations, emerging in the sphere of distribution and redistribution of material wealth.

6. objective side misappropriation or embezzlement consists in taking possession of another's property by means of its direct expenditure.

If, simultaneously with the appropriation of one property, it is replaced by less valuable property, the damage is determined depending on the value of the property actually seized.

7. Subject - any capable person who has reached the age of 16.

8. Subjective side - direct, as a rule, specified intent. By squandering or appropriating someone else's property, the perpetrator realizes the unlawful, gratuitous nature of his actions. The direction of intent to steal in each specific case is evidenced by the lack of a real opportunity for him to return the property to the owner in a timely manner, the perpetrator's attempts to hide his actions.

On the other hand, actions do not form a corpus delicti, although they formally testify to the misappropriation, embezzlement of property entrusted to a person, in cases where it turns the money and property of the owner for a while, intending to return it by a certain accounting period.

At the same time, partial or even full compensation of damage to the victim in itself cannot indicate that the person has no intent to misappropriate or waste the property entrusted to him.

It is necessary to distinguish from embezzlement by misappropriation or embezzlement cases when a person, seizing someone else's property and (or) turning it in favor of other persons, acts in order to exercise his actual or alleged right to this property (for example, if a person appropriated the property entrusted to him in order to ensure debt obligation not performed by the owner of the property). If there are grounds provided for, the perpetrator may be held criminally liable for arbitrariness.

9. Qualified types of misappropriation or embezzlement are regulated by part 2 - 4 of the commented article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. According to part 2, these are: commission by a group of persons by prior agreement; causing significant damage to the citizen.

10. Misappropriation or embezzlement committed by a group of persons by prior agreement - an act committed by two or more persons who agreed in advance to commit a crime together (for more details, see the commentary to Article 158).

11. Assignment or embezzlement causing significant damage to a citizen. The significance of the damage caused by these types of theft to a citizen is evidenced by the importance, materiality of the consequences of the crime, both for the victim himself and for his family (for more details, see the comments to Article 158).

12. Special qualified species misappropriation or embezzlement (part 3 of the commented article 160 of the Criminal Code) is a crime committed by a person using his official position, as well as on a large scale.

13. Persons who use their official position, who have committed misappropriation or embezzlement, should be understood as officials with the characteristics provided for, state or municipal employees who are not officials, as well as other persons who meet the requirements provided for (for details, see comment. to article 159).

The actions of organizers, instigators and accomplices of fraud, embezzlement or embezzlement, knowingly committed by a person using his official position, are qualified under the relevant part and under.

14. Assignment or embezzlement committed on a large scale. According to these, the seizure of other people's property in the amount of more than 250 thousand rubles is recognized. (for more details, see the commentary to Art. 158).

15. The next level of special qualification of appropriation or embezzlement is the taking of another's property: by an organized group; on an especially large scale (part 4 of the commented article).

16. Theft by misappropriation or embezzlement committed by an organized group. An organized group is a stable group of people who have previously united to commit one or more crimes. An organized group is distinguished by the presence of an organizer (leader) in its composition, the stability of the composition of the group members, the distribution of roles between them in preparing for a crime and directly committing it (for more details, see comments to part 3 of article 35, article 158).

17. Assignment or embezzlement on an especially large scale. The issue of the presence in the actions of the perpetrators of a qualifying sign of the commission of this crime on an especially large scale is resolved in accordance with paragraph 4 of note. to Art. 158 of the Criminal Code (for details, see the comments to this article).

18. For questions judicial practice in cases of crimes provided for by the commented article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation clarified in Resolution No. 51 of December 27, 2007.