How to Avoid Prison in Tax Maneuvers: Ten Years Later

What Tax Maneuvers Mean in 2026

In this article, tax maneuvers do not mean cash-out schemes, transit operations, or under-the-table salaries. They refer to the ordinary, average activities of a normal company that buys or produces something, sells something, or provides services. And in the course of these activities, it optimizes taxes in one way or another.

In 2015, it was stated that any commercial enterprise, during tax maneuvers, optimizes and minimizes taxes to some degree. That was true. It remains true today. Budget appetites are growing, competition exerts pressure, and the contract price is determined not only by cost but also by the effective tax burden. Businesses continue to look for options.

What has changed. In 2015, the gray area was wide, and the boundary between "permissible optimization" and "criminally punishable evasion" was blurred. It was written then: "white operational algorithms this year become gray the next, gray ones become black, and the field of legitimacy itself is shrinking not by the day, but by the hour."

Over ten years, this field has shrunk to a state that was hard to imagine in 2015.

In 2017, Article 54.1 of the Russian Tax Code was introduced. Before that, "due diligence" worked—check the counterparty, get an extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities (EGRUL), sign the contract, have the acts—and one could defend oneself. Since 2017, the Federal Tax Service (FTS) has obtained a tool for mass and automated denial of deductions and expenses. ASK NDS-2, ASK NDS-3 (FTS automated VAT control system), VAT gaps, counterparty chains up to the seventh degree—the inspectorate sees all this in real time today. Buy "paper" VAT in the first quarter of 2025, and the system has already highlighted it to the inspector in April.

In 2024, Federal Law No. 79-FZ of April 6, 2024, came into force, raising the thresholds for large and particularly large sizes. This will be discussed separately below. Also in 2024, a business-splitting amnesty was introduced (Federal Law No. 176-FZ of July 12, 2024)—but this only underscores how massive criminal prosecution for tax maneuvers has become, if it was necessary to amnesty entire sectors of the economy.

The main shift is this. In 2015, tax criminal prosecution was a rare event for a specific owner. In 2025, it is a routine procedure into which every company with an average annual revenue above RUB 200-300 million and any signs of optimization falls. Not "might fall"—but falls, according to the logic of its size and sector.

Who Goes to Prison and Why. New Thresholds

In 2015, it was written: "when the amount of taxes or fees over a period of three consecutive financial years exceeds two million rubles, provided that the share of unpaid taxes exceeds 10% of the amounts due, the enterprise risks falling under the sanctions provided for by Article 199 of the RCC. If the amount is more than 10 million rubles for the same period—it is a particularly large size, up to six years in prison."

These figures have changed several times over ten years. Each time upward. This is considered the "liberalization of tax criminal prosecution." In practice, as will be seen in the statistics, liberalization has not affected the number of sentences in any way.

Current thresholds under Article 199 of the Russian Criminal Code (RCC) (since April 17, 2024, Federal Law No. 79-FZ of April 6, 2024).

• Large size: the amount of taxes, fees, and insurance premiums exceeding RUB 18,750,000 over a period of three consecutive financial years. Part 1 of Article 199 of the RCC. Penalty—up to two years in prison.

• Particularly large size: more than RUB 56,250,000 for the same period. Part 2 of Article 199 of the RCC. Penalty—up to five years in prison. A similar sanction applies for committing a crime by a group of persons by prior agreement (the classic scenario: director and chief accountant).

Source: Article 199 of the RCC as amended by Federal Law No. 79-FZ of April 6, 2024, consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_10699/.

Current thresholds for other tax offenses.

• Article 198 of the RCC (individuals and individual entrepreneurs). Large size—RUB 2,700,000 (up to 1 year in prison). Particularly large—RUB 13,500,000 (up to 3 years).

• Article 199.1 of the RCC (tax agent). Similar amounts as under Article 199—RUB 18.75 million and RUB 56.25 million.

• Article 199.2 of the RCC (concealment of funds and property from recovery). Large size—RUB 2,250,000. Particularly large—RUB 9,000,000.

• Article 199.4 of the RCC (injury insurance premiums). Since April 17, 2024, the threshold of RUB 6 million has been effectively decriminalized—it is lower than the new threshold for main taxes, and the offense has lost its practical application.

What is the fundamental difference from 2015. Thresholds have grown almost tenfold (under Part 1—from 2 million to 18.75; under Part 2—from 10 million to 56.25). But the tax burden of an average company has grown exponentially over this time—due to the increase in VAT rates from 18% to 20% (planned up to 22% from 2026), the expansion of the base for insurance premiums, and the tightening of corporate income tax control through ASK NDS. That is, the formal increase in thresholds did not yield real decriminalization—companies simply began to cross the new bars earlier.

And one more change that was not anticipated in 2015. Since 2024, the requirement that "the share of unpaid taxes exceeds 10% of the amounts due" has disappeared from the conditions for prosecution under Article 199 of the RCC. Previously, one could defend oneself by arguing that the unpaid amount, although large, constituted less than ten percent of the total tax burden. Today, this argument does not work. The absolute amount is sufficient.

What Constitutes the Elements of a Crime. Unchanged

The elements of a crime under Article 199 of the RCC are what determine whether the actions of individuals constitute a criminal offense or merely warrant economic sanctions. All four elements remain the same as in 2015.

Object—the financial and economic system of the state in terms of tax payment relations. With a tax arrears amount of more than RUB 18.75 million over three years, the object is always present.

Objective side—tax evasion through the filing of a declaration with knowingly false information or failure to file a declaration within the established time frame.

Subjective side—direct intent. The person was aware of the public danger, foresaw the consequences, and desired their occurrence. Indirect intent is not encountered in practice, just as it was not in 2015.

Subject—special. The head, chief accountant, or other persons who actually made decisions. There is an interesting evolution here, which will be returned to below.

Each element will not be described in detail, as was done in 2015—the structure remains the same, and those interested can reread that article. What has changed is not the structure of the elements, but the threshold, the initiation procedure, and the consequences. More on this below.

Who Will Be Imprisoned: Director, Chief Accountant, or Owner

In 2015, it was noted that those held responsible are not the ones who formally signed documents (figureheads, nominal directors), but those who intentionally carried out activities to minimize tax payments. This is a clause from the Russian Supreme Court Plenum Resolution No. 64 of December 28, 2006.

In 2026, this position has not only been preserved—it has expanded and tightened.

What has been added.

First. Expansion of the circle of subjects through the institution of the controlling person of debtor (CPD). Today, under Article 61.10 of the Insolvency Law, a CPD is recognized as "any person who had the actual ability to determine the actions of the debtor." This wording from bankruptcy law has been creeping into the practice of initiating criminal cases for several years. If the FTS and the Investigative Committee (IC) consider that you actually managed the company, the formal status of "not listed in the EGRUL" will not save you. It is proven through messenger correspondence, email instructions, and payment flows.

Second. Lawyers and consultants. This was not mentioned in 2015—because it was a rarity then. Today, a trend features in the reviews of bankruptcy and criminal practice for 2024-2025: the issue of consultants' liability for intellectual complicity in building asset withdrawal and optimization schemes is acute. Next to the client in the dock is their lawyer or tax consultant who built that very scheme.

Third. The logic of the nominee has flipped. In 2015, the nominee was invulnerable to criminal charges—the real beneficiary answered. Today, by law, recovery can be made from the nominee, but the nominee is released from liability only on the condition that they point to the real controlling person and their actions. That is, the nominee now works not to hide the beneficiary, but to surrender them. This logic has completely changed the figurehead market.

Fourth. Paragraph 14 of the Plenum Resolution remains in effect. The actions of officials of state authorities and local self-government who intentionally assisted in evading taxes from an organization should be qualified as complicity in committing a crime. If they acted out of mercenary interest, then also under the relevant articles on crimes against the interests of public service. That is, the scenario of "resolving the issue through a familiar inspector" traps the scheme participants within the framework of several RCC articles at once.

The structure of offenses in 2025, according to generalized statistics of criminal cases from open sources of the Judicial Department and reviews of specialized publications:

• About 2/3 of cases—minor gravity (Part 1 of Article 199 of the RCC, up to 2 years).
• About 1/3—medium gravity (Part 2 of Article 199 of the RCC, up to 5 years).
• About 10%—under Article 199.2 of the RCC (concealment of property).
• About 5%—under Articles 198 and 199.1 of the RCC (individuals, individual entrepreneurs, tax agents).

Source: klerk.ru/buh/articles/569102/.

The small number of cases under Article 199.2 is explained by the fact that tax authorities do not conduct such audits on their own. A case for "concealment of property from recovery" is initiated only when there are recovered arrears, and the company continues to withdraw money or assets. And in 2025, just as in 2015, this scenario is typical: an audit arrives, assesses additional taxes, the company does not pay, opens a "double"—Company B, transfers contracts, personnel, and flows to it. The FTS sees this through ASK and the banking monitoring system. Next—Article 199.2 of the RCC.

Who Catches Whom and How. Return of the Case Initiation Procedure via the FTS

In 2015, the situation at that moment was described in detail: since 2014, the grounds for initiating a criminal case under Articles 198-199.2 of the RCC could be any materials, not just from the FTS. The police, operational sources, the Ministry of Internal Affairs through the Main Directorate for Economic Security and Anti-Corruption (GUEBiPK)—anyone could initiate. And initiation was massive. "The kites flew after their prey," it was written then.

What has changed since 2022. The legislator reversed this logic. Since 2022, the procedure for initiating criminal cases under Articles 198-199.2 of the RCC has returned to the one in effect in 2011-2014.

Today, this is enshrined in Paragraph 1.3 of Article 140 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code. The grounds for initiating a criminal case for tax offenses are solely an effective decision of the tax authority to hold the taxpayer liable, provided that:

• The decision has entered into force.
• The total amount of arrears is sufficient to initiate a criminal case (i.e., exceeds the large or particularly large size).

All materials and evidence on the basis of which the FTS issued its decision are sent by inspectors to the Investigative Committee. And only the IC initiates a criminal case based on the FTS materials.

Source: taxcoach.ru/taxbook/Ob_ugolovnoy_otvetstvennosti_za_nalogovye_prestupleniya, klerk.ru/buh/articles/569102/.

What this means in practice.

First. A criminal case cannot be initiated before the FTS decision enters into force. That is, even if a field tax audit (FTA) revealed arrears of 100 million and issued an act, until the decision passes the stage of entering into force (through objections, an appeal to the Regional Tax Office (UFNS), or the expiration of the appeal period), the IC has no grounds to initiate a case.

Second. This provides an additional window for pre-trial maneuvers at the stage of objections to the act and appeal to the UFNS. If at these stages it is possible to reduce the additional assessments below the threshold of RUB 18.75 million, a criminal case under Article 199 of the RCC cannot be initiated. This is a tool that, in practice, most owners and a significant portion of defense attorneys still do not consciously use.

Third. Statutes of limitations continue to run. The statute of limitations under Part 1 of Article 199 of the RCC (large size) is 2 years from the moment the crime was committed (which is the moment of actual non-payment of tax for the relevant period). Under Part 2 (particularly large size)—6 years. Considering that a field tax audit is conducted on average 1.5-2 years after the period it checks, and itself lasts 6-12 months including extensions, and then further months for objections, appeal, and entry into force—many criminal cases under Part 1 simply do not have time to be initiated; the statute of limitations expires.

For example. A taxpayer bought "paper" VAT in the first quarter of 2025. They did not pay the tax in the real amount by June 30, 2025. From this day, the two-year period for a large size began. If the FTS decision to hold liable enters into force after June 2027, a case can no longer be initiated. This is a typical situation for cases of minor gravity—such cases make up two-thirds of criminal cases under Article 199 of the RCC.

Fourth. In parallel, the procedure for terminating a criminal case upon compensation for damage operates. Criminal cases under Articles 198 and 199 of the RCC are terminated upon full payment of arrears, fines, and penalties. This is Article 28.1 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code and Article 76.1 of the RCC. According to practice and the practice of other defense attorneys specializing in this category of cases:

• Compensation for damage before the initiation of a criminal case—about 95% release.
• Compensation after initiation, but before the case is sent to court—about 70%.
• After being sent to court—isolated cases of release only in the presence of serious mitigating circumstances.

Source: advokat-digin.ru/poleznoe/staty/st-199-ugolovnaya-otvetstvennost/.

These figures are the main thing an owner should know when they already have a tax audit act on their desk. Every month that a decision is postponed fundamentally reduces the chances of terminating the case without a sentence.

What Actual Sentencing Statistics Show

In 2015, these figures were not available—statistics on tax criminal cases were not kept systematically then, and one had to rely on individual cases from courts of general jurisdiction, which were listed in that article as examples.

Today the data is open. It is available on the websites of the FTS, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the Judicial Department of the Russian Supreme Court. The picture is as follows.

Ratio of field tax audits to criminal cases. In the first six months of 2024, the number of identified tax crimes exceeded the number of field tax audits. This is due to the specifics of initiating cases for tax offenses—several criminal cases can be initiated from one field tax audit (for example, separately against the director and the chief accountant, or for several episodes). Source: taxprof.pro/blog/optimizaciya_nalogov/5811/.

Structure of sentences. Of those cases that reach court:

• The vast majority—suspended prison sentences (about 80%).
• Fines as the main punishment—about 10%.
• Actual prison sentences—about 10%.

Actual sentences are generally received by defendants in cases under Part 2 of Article 199 of the RCC (particularly large size), often exceeding 100-200 million, usually in the presence of aggravating circumstances—repeat offenses, refusal to compensate for damage, additional offenses (fraud, money laundering).

Preventive measures. In 92% of cases, a written undertaking not to leave and to behave properly is applied. Remand in custody occurs in isolated cases, usually when fleeing abroad or seriously obstructing the investigation. Tax crimes under Article 199 of the RCC are classified as crimes of minor and medium gravity, so arrest is used extremely rarely. Source: advokat-digin.ru/poleznoe/staty/st-199-ugolovnaya-otvetstvennost/.

Generalized statistics of the practice of specialized defense attorneys. According to data from attorney Digin over the past three years (one of the segments of the specialized defense market under Article 199 of the RCC):

• Out of 47 clients who applied at the tax audit stage, criminal cases were initiated against only 4 people (8.5%). All of them fully paid off the debt, and the cases were terminated on non-rehabilitating grounds.
• Out of 23 clients who applied after the initiation of a criminal case, 18 received suspended sentences, 3 received fines, and 2 received actual prison sentences (in both cases there were aggravating circumstances and a particularly large size exceeding 200 million).

These figures are typical for specialized practice. They show the main point: early involvement of a defense attorney at the tax audit stage prevents a criminal case altogether in the vast majority of instances. Involvement at the stage of an initiated case reduces the risks of an actual sentence to single-digit percentages. Involvement at the stage of sending the case to court leaves opportunities only in the realm of qualification and mitigating circumstances.

What Happens After a Criminal Case: The Corridor to Subsidiary Liability

This is what was not described in 2015—because in 2015 this connection was not yet so clearly formalized. Today it dominates.

A criminal case under Article 199 of the RCC is not the finale. It is the midpoint of the chain:

Field tax audit (FTA) → act → decision → demand for payment → inability to pay → criminal case under Article 199 of the RCC → bankruptcy of the company → subsidiary liability of the CPD → personal bankruptcy of the executive.

In 2024, the FTS initiated 24% of all corporate bankruptcies. That is, every fourth bankruptcy of a legal entity today begins with a field tax audit. And 52% of applications for subsidiary liability are satisfied (61% in the first half of 2025). The average subsidiary liability check is RUB 88-97 million per controlling person.

A criminal trial runs in parallel. Some defendants receive suspended sentences. Some receive fines. Some receive actual sentences. All receive personal subsidiary liability, which, unlike ordinary debts, is not discharged through personal bankruptcy (the general rule under Paragraph 6 of Article 213.28 of the Insolvency Law, with a reversal for certain categories through Paragraph 58 of the Supreme Court Review of June 18, 2025—but not for defendants under Article 199 of the RCC).

And here is the key point. Subsidiary liability for defendants under Article 199 of the RCC is not subject to discharge today. In the Rasoyan case, A63-1714/2020 (Arbitrazh Court of Stavropol Krai, July 2025), it was possible to discharge RUB 703 million of subsidiary liability to the FTS—but only because the decision to hold liable contained no conclusions about intent. If there is a sentence under Part 2 of Article 199 of the RCC, intent is established there. The door to discharge is closed.

Source: pravorub.ru/articles/105541.html.

This means that avoiding a criminal case under Article 199 of the RCC today is necessary not out of fear of a suspended sentence, but from the understanding that a sentence under Article 199 of the RCC is a ticket to lifelong subsidiary liability for tens or hundreds of millions of rubles. With no chance of discharge.

In 2015, this connection was only forming. Today it is standard.

How to Avoid It. Ten Years Later

In 2015, seven recommendations were given. It is generally correct to reread them—most are relevant today. Added here are those that were not visible or were secondary in 2015.

First. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. And this truth is stronger than ten years ago. In 2015, one could keep the RCC and the Russian Criminal Procedure Code in the library. In 2026, the Russian Tax Code (Parts 1 and 2), the Insolvency Law (especially Chapter III.2), Article 54.1 of the Russian Tax Code, and the main reviews of the Russian Supreme Court over the last five years must be added to them. The volume of changes is such that updating one's understanding once a year is not enough. Once a quarter is required.

Second. The chief accountant and financial director are no longer "technical personnel." In 2015, it was written to chief accountants: various premiums and bonuses for minimization can flow into criminal charges. In 2026, subsidiary liability was added to this. The average subsidiary liability check for a chief accountant in the first half of 2024 was RUB 93 million. This is no longer "a premium turned into a problem." This is "a premium turned into personal bankruptcy for life."

Third. The traffic rules analogy from 2015 has changed. It was written then: cross on red—a fine, drive drunk—loss of license, hit someone while drunk—prison. In 2025, all this has compressed. Any crossing on red today can end in prison, because the car already automatically fines you and simultaneously sends data to the prevention system, and if you have three crossings in a month, you are already a suspicious road user. It is the same with taxes. Submitting a "slightly loaded" declaration in 2026 is already driving drunk. Any gray algorithms have become red.

Fourth. "Resolving" it has become not more difficult, but impossible. In 2015, it was written: "Resolving" has become more expensive, "resolving" has become more difficult. Today, the wording must be harsher—it cannot be "resolved." Not because administrative resources have run out, but because the system is automated. ASK NDS-3 sees gaps automatically, the inspector can no longer "fail to notice"—reports go to the upper level, and questions will be asked of them. The "Ivan Ivanovich" from 2015 is a former inspector who has retired, or a new one who has a monitor with a control system in their office.

Fifth. A real new tool has appeared—tax reconstruction. It did not exist in 2015. Today it does, based on the FTS letter No. BV-4-7/3060@ of March 10, 2021, and the Russian Supreme Court ruling No. 309-ES20-23981 of May 19, 2021. If your 'technical' counterparty covered a real transaction with a real supplier, and you can disclose this supplier at the stage of the act or objections, then the tax is recalculated based on the real economy, and not by a complete denial of deductions and expenses. This can reduce additional assessments manifold, and with them the risk of crossing the criminal threshold. This tool was analyzed in detail in the long-form article on field tax audits.

Sixth. A business-splitting amnesty has appeared. Federal Law No. 176-FZ of July 12, 2024. If your business is artificially fragmented into several legal entities on special regimes, and the total revenue exceeds the simplified taxation system (USN) limits, and the tax authority sees signs of artificial business fragmentation—you have a window to voluntarily consolidate, pay tax under the general system, and avoid additional assessments for the past and criminal prosecution. This window is limited in time and conditions. But it is a new tool that did not exist in 2015.

Seventh. Prevention works in a four-year logic. In 2015, it was written "the miser pays twice." Today this has turned into "the miser turns into a defendant." Any gray zone existing today will be qualified as a violation in two or three years. Any decision on business structure made today must be resilient to rules that have not yet been adopted but logically follow from the system's trajectory.

Eighth. And the main thing that did not exist in 2015. Involve a specialized defense attorney at the tax audit stage, no later. Not "when the investigator comes." Not "when summoned for interrogation." Not "when the case is initiated." At the stage of the audit act—it is late. At the stage of the decision—it is almost late. At the stage of case initiation—it is late for most maneuvers.

In practice (and in the practice of all specialized defense attorneys in this category whose statistics have been seen), early involvement at the audit stage means in 92% of cases that there will be no criminal case at all. Late involvement, conversely, multiplies the risk of an actual sentence.

This is the main lesson of ten years. Ten years ago, the article "How to Avoid Prison in Tax Maneuvers" could be read after receiving the audit act, and there was still time to do something. Today, after the initiation of a case, it is almost impossible to do anything. The game is won at the stage of "the act is not yet written, the audit is ongoing."

One More Change Not Mentioned in 2015

In 2015, the conclusion was the word "Be vigilant!" and the article was posted. That was reasonable for the time. Today this is not enough, because vigilance is a passive position. And the game requires an active one.

For a business owner in 2026, working "the old way" means voluntarily walking into the corridor of "audit → act → decision → criminal case → bankruptcy → subsidiary liability → personal bankruptcy." This corridor is not situational; it is systemic. It is built into the logic of the FTS, the IC, and insolvency legislation.

There is only one way out of it: redefine one's picture of tax reality. What was "optimization" in 2015 is a criminal offense today. What was a "risk" in 2015 is an inevitability today. What was "attorney work" in 2015 is preventive navigation today.

We live in a post-legal state. Tax law here is the most vividly formalized layer. And the most automated. And the most repressive.

Understanding its new logic is a condition for business survival in 2025-2026. Not "survival in the sense of passing one audit," but the survival of the owner as a legal and financial subject—with assets, with freedom, with the ability to continue the business.

FAQ

What are the current thresholds under Article 199 of the RCC for large and particularly large sizes?

Since April 17, 2024 (Federal Law No. 79-FZ of April 6, 2024), a large size under Article 199 of the RCC is an amount of taxes, fees, and insurance premiums exceeding RUB 18,750,000 over a period of three consecutive financial years. A particularly large size is more than RUB 56,250,000 for the same period.

What is the penalty under Article 199 of the RCC?

Under Part 1 of Article 199 of the RCC (large size)—up to two years in prison. Under Part 2 (particularly large size or commission of a crime by a group of persons by prior agreement, for example, the director and chief accountant jointly)—up to five years in prison. In practice, the vast majority of sentences are suspended sentences or fines. Actual prison sentences are received by about 10% of convicts, mainly under Part 2 for amounts exceeding 100-200 million and in the presence of aggravating circumstances.

How is a criminal case for tax crimes initiated now?

Since 2022, the initiation procedure has returned to the one in effect in 2011-2014. Under Paragraph 1.3 of Article 140 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code, the grounds for initiating a criminal case under Articles 198-199.2 of the RCC are solely an effective decision of the tax authority to hold the taxpayer liable. All materials from the FTS are sent to the Investigative Committee, and the IC initiates a case based on them.

Is it possible to avoid criminal liability by paying off the arrears?

Yes. Criminal cases under Articles 198 and 199 of the RCC are terminated upon full payment of arrears, penalties, and fines. According to the practice of specialized defense attorneys: compensation before the initiation of a criminal case—about 95% release; compensation after initiation, but before the case is sent to court—about 70%; after being sent to court—isolated cases.

What is the statute of limitations under Article 199 of the RCC?

Under Part 1 of Article 199 of the RCC (large size), the statute of limitations is 2 years from the end of the tax period in which the tax was to be paid. Under Part 2 (particularly large size)—6 years. Considering the timing of a field tax audit and the entry into force of the decision, many cases under Part 1 simply do not have time to be initiated—the statute of limitations expires.

Who is actually prosecuted under Article 199 of the RCC—the director or the chief accountant?

According to the clarifications of the Russian Supreme Court Plenum Resolution No. 64 of December 28, 2006—persons who actually made decisions. This includes the head of the organization, the chief accountant, other persons entrusted with the duties of keeping records and submitting reports, as well as actual beneficiaries. Since 2024-2025, the circle has expanded: financial directors, lawyers and tax consultants, shadow managers, and actual controlling persons without formal status are held liable. Nominee directors are held liable but are released from liability provided they point to the real beneficiary.

What is the business-splitting amnesty?

This is a mechanism introduced by Federal Law No. 176-FZ of July 12, 2024, allowing companies divided into several legal entities to apply special tax regimes (USN, PSN) to voluntarily consolidate and pay taxes under the general taxation system, avoiding additional assessments for past periods and criminal prosecution. The window is limited in terms and conditions and requires professional support.

What happens after a criminal case under Article 199 of the RCC?

In a typical scenario—bankruptcy of the company, an application to hold controlling persons to subsidiary liability, personal bankruptcy of the executive and owner. Subsidiary liability for defendants in criminal cases under Article 199 of the RCC is not discharged through personal bankruptcy—the sentence establishes intent, and Paragraph 58 of the Supreme Court Review of June 18, 2025, allows discharge only in the absence of intent or gross negligence.

When should a defense attorney be involved in tax cases?

At the tax audit stage—optimally. At the audit act stage—critically important. At the decision stage—late for most maneuvers. At the stage of an initiated criminal case—only tactical opportunities regarding qualification and mitigating circumstances remain. According to specialized practice statistics, early involvement at the audit stage prevents a criminal case in 92% of instances.

Conclusion

Ten years ago, the article concluded with the words "Be vigilant!" In 2026, this is not enough.

Over ten years, tax criminal prosecution has turned from a rare event into a routine procedure. Thresholds have grown, but in reality, this yielded not decriminalization, but a shift of tax criminal cases into the medium-sized business segment. The initiation procedure was first simplified, then returned to its previous state—and this created a window for pre-trial maneuvers, which most owners still do not use. New defense tools have appeared—tax reconstruction, business-splitting amnesty. And the chain "criminal case → bankruptcy → subsidiary liability → personal bankruptcy" has appeared, which did not exist in such a form in 2015.

The main thing that did not exist ten years ago. A tax criminal case today is not the finale. It is the midpoint of the owner's lifelong financial history. A suspended sentence does not release from subsidiary liability, and subsidiary liability for defendants under Article 199 of the RCC is not discharged through personal bankruptcy. That is, avoiding a case is necessary not out of fear of a sentence, but from the understanding that a sentence closes the door to a normal life for decades to come.

It is possible to defend oneself in this environment. At the tax audit stage—in 92% of cases. At the act stage—in most cases. At the decision stage—partially. At the stage of an initiated case—fragmentarily. After the sentence—almost not at all.

The game is won early. Involve a specialized defense attorney at the tax audit stage, no later. Use pre-trial maneuvers—objections, appeal to the UFNS, tax reconstruction. Do not "abandon" a company with debts. Do not work with dubious counterparties. Do not delay filing for bankruptcy if signs of insolvency are already present.

A detailed framework of the transformation of the legal environment is in the "Algorithm of Complexity" manifesto on fishchuk.su and in the System Synthesis Research Institute project isslab.ru. The "Kautilya" Telegram channel is a laboratory of formulations and current observations. A detailed analysis of the Rasoyan case with the discharge of 703 million in subsidiary liability is on Pravorub: pravorub.ru/articles/105541.html.

Ten years ago, the article ended with the word "vigilant." Today—with the word "work." Preventively. With a defense attorney. With an understanding of the chain. And with the understanding that in a post-legal state, one must prepare for a criminal case years before it is initiated, not days.

Next—work.

---

Sources (all verified on May 4, 2026)

1. https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_10699/a53c2c91548ccb4f65ea933d514845a09be77ed5/ — Article 199 of the RCC in the current edition
2. https://russiantaxandcustoms.com/news/nalogovoe-administrirovanie-i-spory/uvelicheny-porogi-ushcherba-po-nalogovym-i-nekotorym-drugim-prestupleniyam/ — analysis of Federal Law No. 79-FZ of April 6, 2024
3. https://buh.ru/articles/zakon-o-dekriminalizatsii-nalogovykh-prestupleniy-kak-nado-ne-platit-nalogi-chtoby-vas-nakazali-po-u.html — 2024 changes
4. https://www.klerk.ru/buh/articles/569102/ — tax crimes 2025, statistics
5. https://taxprof.pro/blog/optimizaciya_nalogov/5811/ugolovnaya_otvetstvennost_za_n/ — statistics and initiation procedure
6. https://advokat-digin.ru/poleznoe/staty/st-199-ugolovnaya-otvetstvennost/ — specialized defense practice statistics
7. https://www.taxcoach.ru/taxbook/Ob_ugolovnoy_otvetstvennosti_za_nalogovye_prestupleniya — initiation procedure since 2022
8. https://ruconst.com/articles/24119/ — general practice
9. https://www.advgazeta.ru/novosti/vs-rasshiril-granitsy-nalogovoy-rekonstruktsii — Supreme Court ruling on "Spetshimprom"
10. https://pravorub.ru/articles/105541.html — author's publication on the Rasoyan case (discharge of subsidiary liability)
11. https://www.klerk.ru/buh/articles/427814/ — 2015 author's article to which the remake is made

Regulatory legal acts:

• Federal Law No. 79-FZ of April 6, 2024 (increase in thresholds for tax crimes, effective from April 17, 2024)
• Federal Law No. 78-FZ of March 18, 2023 (mitigation of criminal liability, effective from March 29, 2023)
• Federal Law No. 176-FZ of July 12, 2024 (business-splitting amnesty)
• Article 199 of the RCC
• Article 198 of the RCC
• Article 199.1 of the RCC
• Article 199.2 of the RCC
• Article 199.4 of the RCC
• Paragraph 1.3 of Article 140 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code (procedure for initiating cases for tax offenses)
• Article 28.1 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code (termination of criminal prosecution upon compensation for damage)
• Article 76.1 of the RCC (release from criminal liability upon compensation for damage)
• Russian Supreme Court Plenum Resolution No. 64 of December 28, 2006, "On the Practice of Application by Courts of Criminal Legislation on Liability for Tax Crimes"
• FTS Letter No. BV-4-7/3060@ of March 10, 2021 (tax reconstruction)
• Russian Supreme Court Ruling No. 309-ES20-23981 of May 19, 2021 (JSC "Spetshimprom" case)
• Russian Supreme Court Review of Judicial Practice in Personal Bankruptcy Cases of June 18, 2025 (Paragraph 58)
• Case No. A63-1714/2020, Arbitrazh Court of Stavropol Krai, July 2025 (discharge of 703 million in subsidiary liability)