LAWYERS. TAX CONSULTANTS.
2020 year - 21 years delivering top-class legal services
The Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has answered the question on usage in criminal proceedings of individual provisions of art. 4 of the Federal Law No. 140-ФЗ On Voluntary Declaration by Individuals of Assets and Bank Accounts (Deposits) and on Amending Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation of June 08, 2015 (hereafter referred to as Law No. 140-ФЗ).
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has clarified that the tax return filed voluntarily by an applicant as part of capital amnesty cannot serve as a proof of crime as provisions of the Law No 140-ФЗ directly prohibits such usage. In particular, part 3-4 of art. 4 of Law No. 140-ФЗ states that it is not allowed to use the fact of filing a tax return or the documents (information) enclosed with it against the applicant or nominee owner of the property, in case of committing any criminal offense by them, as a basis for initiating criminal proceedings or as an evidence in such proceedings.
At this, part 6 of art. 4 of Law No. 140-ФЗ attribute the information contained in the tax return and documents or information enclosed with it to information constituting tax secret which is protected in accordance with the provisions of the tax legislation. “Mode of storage of such information and documents and access to them are provided solely by the tax authorities. Other governmental or non-governmental authorities and organizations are not allowed to have access to such information and documents”, is noted in the reply. Consequently, such information and documents cannot be received on the basis of the court ruling.
However the Court allows the information contained in the tax return and documents or information enclosed with it to be included in the case files as evidences if the applicant themselves initiate their inclusion. However, in any case, submission of such information and documents to be included in the case files as evidences is a right rather than an obligation of an applicant. Should the latter wish to exercise this right, he/she cannot be denied such exercise.