Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation Article 14.1 new edition. Carrying out business activities without registration or without permission - judicial practice

home / Love

1. Carrying out entrepreneurial activities without state registration as an individual entrepreneur or without state registration as a legal entity -

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred to two thousand rubles.

2. Carrying out business activities without a special permit (license), if such a permit (such license) is mandatory (mandatory), -

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of two thousand to two thousand five hundred rubles with or without confiscation of manufactured products, production tools and raw materials; for officials - from four thousand to five thousand rubles with or without confiscation of manufactured products, production tools and raw materials; for legal entities - from forty thousand to fifty thousand rubles with or without confiscation of manufactured products, production tools and raw materials.

3. Carrying out business activities in violation of the requirements and conditions provided for by a special permit (license) -
(as amended by Federal Law dated December 29, 2015 N 408-FZ)
entails a warning or the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of one thousand five hundred to two thousand rubles; for officials - from three thousand to four thousand rubles; for legal entities - from thirty thousand to forty thousand rubles.

(as amended by Federal Laws dated June 22, 2007 N 116-FZ, dated July 27, 2010 N 239-FZ)

4. Carrying out business activities in gross violation of the requirements and conditions provided for by a special permit (license) shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine on persons engaged in business activities without forming a legal entity in the amount of four thousand to eight thousand rubles or administrative suspension of activities for a period up to ninety days; for officials - from five thousand to ten thousand rubles; for legal entities - from one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand rubles or administrative suspension of activities for a period of up to ninety days. (Part 4 as amended by Federal Law of December 29, 2015 N 408-FZ) Note. Lost power. - Federal Law dated 06/08/2015 N 140-FZ.

Notes:

1. The concept of gross violation is established by the Government of the Russian Federation in relation to a specific licensed type of activity.

2. A person is released from administrative liability if it is revealed that he has committed actions (inaction) containing elements of an administrative offense provided for by this article or articles 15.1, 15.3 - 15.6, 15.11, 15.25 of this Code, provided that this person is a declarant or person , information about which is contained in a special declaration filed in accordance with the Federal Law “On the voluntary declaration by individuals of assets and accounts (deposits) in banks and on amendments to certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation”, and if such actions (inaction) are related to acquisition (formation of sources of acquisition), use or disposal of property and (or) controlled foreign companies and (or) carrying out currency transactions and (or) crediting funds to accounts (deposits), information about which is contained in a special declaration.

Commentary on Article 14.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

1. The object of the offense regulated by this article is public relations in the field of business activities, as well as relations in the field of state market policy.

The objective side covers both the actions and inactions of the guilty person. The passive part of the objective side, expressed through inaction, consists in the failure of a person carrying out entrepreneurial activities to take necessary and sufficient measures for timely state registration as an individual entrepreneur or registration of a legal entity created by him. Inaction can also be expressed in refusal to take actions necessary to obtain special permission to carry out certain types of activities. It is traditionally accepted to understand such permission as a license. However, at present it should be taken into account that in relation to some types of activities, licensing has been replaced by another form of control - membership in a self-regulatory organization. Moreover, such membership is mandatory and does not allow, in its absence, to carry out relevant types of activities, for example, a number of construction and finishing works, auditing activities, etc. In this regard, obtaining a special permit should be understood not only as the fact of obtaining (non-receiving) a license, but also as joining the corresponding self-regulatory organization.

The active part of the objective side of this offense is the implementation of business activities in violation of the terms of the special permit. It should be noted that the qualifying feature of this act is the severity of the violation committed, which is determined by the Government of the Russian Federation in relation to certain licensed types of activities. For example, by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated March 28, 2012 N 255 “On licensing activities for the neutralization and disposal of waste of I-IV hazard classes”, a gross violation of licensing requirements is recognized as the failure of the licensee to comply with the requirements for the availability of real estate, equipment necessary for carrying out this type of activity, as well as the absence of workers who will carry out the relevant type of activity, provided that these circumstances entail a threat of harm to the life and health of citizens, harm to animals, plants, the environment, cultural heritage sites, as well as human casualties and a number of other consequences.

2. The subjects of the acts under consideration are also specified in relation to the features of the objective side of each individual act. Thus, carrying out business activities without state registration indicates that the subject of this violation can only be a citizen of the Russian Federation who has reached 16 years of age. In most cases, we are talking about a subject who has reached the age of majority, since registration as an individual entrepreneur before reaching the specified age requires compliance with a special procedure. Carrying out business activities without special permission entails the responsibility of the person who carries out the specified activity, i.e. The subjects of this act can fully be citizens, as a rule, individual entrepreneurs, as well as legal entities and their managers, who in this case are considered as officials who have not ensured compliance with the requirements of the current legislation.

The subjective side can be expressed both in the intentional commission of the objective side of the acts in question, and through negligence.

Article 14.1. Carrying out business activities without state registration or without special permission (license)

1. Carrying out entrepreneurial activities without state registration as an individual entrepreneur or without state registration as a legal entity, except for the cases provided for in Part 2 of Article 14.17.1 of this Code -

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred to two thousand rubles.

2. Carrying out business activities without a special permit (license), if such a permit (such license) is mandatory (mandatory), -

3. Carrying out business activities in violation of the requirements and conditions provided for by a special permit (license) -

entails a warning or the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of one thousand five hundred to two thousand rubles; for officials - from three thousand to four thousand rubles; for legal entities - from thirty thousand to forty thousand rubles.

4. Carrying out business activities in gross violation of the requirements and conditions provided for by a special permit (license) -

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine on persons carrying out entrepreneurial activities without forming a legal entity in the amount of four thousand to eight thousand rubles or administrative suspension of activities for a period of up to ninety days; for officials - from five thousand to ten thousand rubles; for legal entities - from one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand rubles or administrative suspension of activities for a period of up to ninety days.

Note. Lost power. - Federal Law dated 06/08/2015 N 140-FZ.

Notes:

1. The concept of gross violation is established by the Government of the Russian Federation in relation to a specific licensed type of activity.

Case No. 4A - 377/2015

P O S T A N O V L E N I E

Deputy Chairman of the Ulyanovsk Regional Court Bolbina L.V., having considered the complaint of Kochergina E*** A***, defending the interests of Smolina L*** I***, against the decision of the magistrate of court district No. 5 of the Leninsky judicial district that entered into legal force Ulyanovsk dated July 6, 2015 and the decision of the judge of the Leninsky District Court of Ulyanovsk dated August 19, 2015 in the case against Smolina L*** I*** about an administrative offense under Part 1 of Art. 14.1 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation,

u st a n o v i l a:

By the decision of the magistrate of judicial district No. 5 of the Leninsky judicial district of Ulyanovsk dated July 6, 2015, Smolina L.I. brought to administrative responsibility under Part 1 of Art. 14.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and was subjected to administrative punishment in the form of a fine in the amount of 500 rubles.

Disagreeing with the said resolution, Smolina L.I. Through her lawyer, she appealed it to the district court.

By the decision of the judge of the Leninsky District Court of Ulyanovsk dated August 19, 2015, the decision of the magistrate was left unchanged.

In the complaint against the court decisions that have entered into legal force in the case of an administrative offense, E.A. Kochergina, defending the interests of L.I. Smolina, does not agree with the decision and the decision made on the complaint, asks them to cancel them, to terminate the proceedings in connection with with the absence of an administrative offense event.

In support of the complaint, he points out that the court did not give a proper legal assessment of the fact that the protocol on an administrative offense was drawn up by an unauthorized person in violation of the deadlines for drawing up the protocol.

Refers to the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility.

In addition, the complaint states that the rental of property owned by Smolina L.I. real estate does not indicate that the specified activity is entrepreneurial. Please take into account that Smolina L.I. personal income tax was paid in good faith.

The case of an administrative offense was submitted to the Ulyanovsk Regional Court, the legality of the decisions that entered into force in the case of an administrative offense was verified.

By virtue of the provisions of Part 1 of Art. 30.16 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation on a complaint, protest accepted for consideration, a resolution in a case of an administrative offense, decisions based on the results of consideration of complaints, protests are verified based on the arguments set out in the complaint, protest, and objections contained in the response to the complaint.

Having studied the materials of the administrative violation case and checked the arguments of the complaint, I come to the following.

According to Part 1 of Art. 14.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, carrying out business activities without state registration as an individual entrepreneur or without state registration as a legal entity entails the imposition of administrative punishment.

The objective side of this administrative offense is expressed in the implementation of economic activities that have the characteristics of entrepreneurial activity, without state registration as an individual entrepreneur or without state registration as a legal entity.

According to paragraph 1 of Art. 2 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, entrepreneurial activity is an independent activity carried out at one’s own risk, aimed at systematically obtaining profit from the use of property, sale of goods, performance of work or provision of services by persons registered in this capacity in the manner prescribed by law.

By virtue of Art. 23 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, when carrying out entrepreneurial activities, an individual has the obligation to register as an individual entrepreneur. At the same time, a citizen carrying out entrepreneurial activities without forming a legal entity in violation of the requirements of paragraph 1 of Art. 23 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, has no right to refer to the transactions concluded by him to the fact that he is not an entrepreneur.

Analysis of the above rules of law allows us to conclude that if the rental of non-residential premises meets the criteria of entrepreneurial activity and is carried out by a person who is not registered in the manner prescribed by law as an individual entrepreneur, then the actions of this person, if there is evidence confirming the systematic receipt of profit from engaging in the specified activity should be qualified under Part 1 of Art. 14.1 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

The case materials establish that Smolina L.I. not registered as an individual entrepreneur. At the same time, she is the owner of a non-residential one-story workshop building with a total area of *** sq.m., a land plot with permitted use as a production base with a total area of *** sq.m. and a two-story building with office premises located in it with a total area of *** sq.m., located at the address: U***.

From the lease agreements for non-residential premises it is clear that Smolina L.I. in 2011-2013, the specified real estate was leased to M*** LLC, and since 2013, also to IP S***.

At the same time, the specified real estate was initially acquired by L.I. Smolina. not for personal needs and not for personal use, but specifically for the rental of the specified property to contractors for the purpose of systematically obtaining profit from the specified activity, since the category belonging to Smolina L.I. real estate, namely a one-story workshop building with a total area of *** sq.m., a plot of land with permitted use as a production base with a total area of *** sq.m. and a two-story building with office premises with a total area of *** sq.m., excludes the possibility of using this real estate for personal needs.

In addition, the tenants of the specified property are IP S*** (son of Smolina L.I.) and LLC M***, in which S*** A.I. works in management positions. and S*** E.A. (husband and daughter of L.I. Smolina), and the only founder (actual owner) of M*** LLC is S*** (son). These circumstances indicate that the property being handed over to L.I. Smolina. The rental property is actually used to support the activities of the family business S***. In other words, Smolina L.I. is an actual participant in this family business.

Guilt of Smolina L.I. in the commission of an alleged offense under Part 1 of Art. 14.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, is confirmed by the evidence collected in the case, including: the protocol on an administrative offense dated June 16, 2015 (case sheets 3-4); an extract from the on-site tax audit report dated April 27, 2015 (case sheet 15-20); protocol of inspection of territories, premises, documents, objects dated January 30, 2015 (case sheet 41-43); lease agreements for non-residential premises (case sheet 44-47); testimony of witnesses S*** A.I. (wife of Smolina L.I.) and S*** V.A. and S*** E.A. (son and daughter of L.I. Smolina) (case sheets 21-25, 31-40) and other case materials.

Implementation of entrepreneurial activities by Smolina L.I. is confirmed by the totality of the above evidence, which fully and objectively reflects the event of an administrative offense.

Having assessed the evidence presented comprehensively, completely, objectively, in its entirety, in accordance with the requirements of Art. 26.11 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the magistrate came to a reasonable conclusion that Smolina L.I.’s guilt had been proven. in committing an administrative offense under Part 1 of Art. 14.1 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

Punishment of Smolina L.I. assigned in the minimum amount within the sanction of Part 1 of Art. 14.1 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

In accordance with clause 8, part 2, art. 28.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, protocols on administrative offenses provided for in Part 1 of Art. 14.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation has the right to constitute officials of bodies carrying out state registration of legal entities and individual entrepreneurs.

According to Art. 2 of Federal Law No. 129-FZ “On state registration of legal entities and individual entrepreneurs”, as well as the provisions of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 506 of September 30, 2004 “On approval of the Regulations on the Federal Tax Service” (as amended on April 3, 2015) “On approval of the Regulations on the Federal Tax Service,” the Federal Tax Service of Russia is a federal executive body that carries out state registration of legal entities, as well as individuals as individual entrepreneurs.

Order of the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation dated August 2, 2005 No. SAE-3-06/354@ approved the List of officials of the tax authorities of the Russian Federation authorized to draw up protocols on administrative offenses, which names the position of state tax inspector, with no additional requirements for that It is not stipulated that this official should have participated in the inspection.

Drawing up a protocol on an administrative offense outside the time limits established by Art. 28.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is not a significant drawback, since these terms are not preemptive.

When checking compliance with the statute of limitations for bringing administrative liability, it is necessary to take into account that, according to Part 1 of Article 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, a decision in a case of an administrative offense cannot be made after two months (in a case of an administrative offense considered by a judge - by within three months) from the date of commission of the administrative offense,

In accordance with Part 2 of Art. 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation in case of a continuing administrative offense, the terms provided for in Part 1 of Art. 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, begin to be calculated from the date of discovery of the administrative offense.

An offense under Part 1 of Art. 14.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is ongoing. The statute of limitations for holding someone accountable for this offense begins to run not from the moment this activity begins, but from the moment this illegal business activity is discovered.

From the case materials, it appears that this administrative offense was discovered during a lengthy inspection, based on the results of which a protocol on administrative offense dated June 16, 2015 was drawn up.

The decision in the case of an administrative offense was made by the magistrate on July 6, 2015, that is, within the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility.

No other arguments that could lead to the cancellation of court decisions that have entered into legal force and the termination of proceedings in the case are given in this complaint.

There are no grounds for canceling the decision of the magistrate and the decision of the district court judge when considering this complaint and checking the legality of the appealed court decisions.

In view of the above, the complaint cannot be satisfied.

Guided by articles 30.17 and 30.18 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation,

p o st a n o v i l a:

resolution of the magistrate of the judicial district No. 5 of the Leninsky judicial district of Ulyanovsk dated July 6, 2015 and the decision of the judge of the Leninsky district court of Ulyanovsk dated August 19, 2015 in the case against Smolina L*** I*** about the administrative offense provided for Part 1 Art. 14.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, left unchanged, and the complaint of Elena Anatolyevna Kochergina, who defends the interests of Smolina L*** I***, is not satisfied.

Vice-chairman

Ulyanovsk Regional Court L.V. Bolbina

Entrepreneurship in Russia- a fairly common phenomenon. Today there is a huge number of different enterprises; citizens become individual entrepreneurs or form legal entities. All this, of course, does not happen without control. The legislation establishes a number of requirements for persons running a business. The norms provide for and. Their type depends on the nature of the violations. Let's consider further, .

Sanctions

The first thing that may entail illegal business - administrative liability. The legislative system has a special Code that defines the types of offenses and sanctions. Various monetary penalties are established as punishments. Their magnitude depends on the nature of the violation. Thus, carrying out business activities without registration entails a penalty of 500-2000 rubles.

No license

For some types of activities, it is mandatory to obtain a permit. This document is issued by authorized regulatory authorities. Fine for illegal business of individuals in this case it will be 2-2.5 thousand rubles. In this case, products, production tools, and raw materials may be confiscated. For officials illegal entrepreneurship Code of Administrative Offenses provides for a monetary penalty of 4 to 5 thousand rubles. An additional penalty may be confiscation of goods, means of production or materials. Similar sanctions have been established for organizations. The difference is that the monetary penalty for them has been increased. The fine can be 40-50 thousand rubles.

Violation of requirements

Upon receipt of a license, the subject undertakes to comply with the conditions established in it. Violation of these requirements is recognized as illegal business. The Code of Administrative Offenses in this case provides for monetary penalties in relation to:

Citizens - 500-2000 rub.
Officials - 3-4 thousand rubles.
Organizations - 30-40 thousand rubles.

If an economic entity has committed a gross violation of the requirements, the sanctions are toughened. For such illegal business, the Code of Administrative Offenses establishes monetary penalties for:

Citizens - 4-8 thousand rubles.
Employees - 5-10 thousand rubles.
Organizations - 100-200 t.r.

In this case, the work of an enterprise or individual entrepreneur may be suspended for a period of up to three months. These sanctions are established in Art. 14.1 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

Notes

The concept of “gross violation” used in Art. 14.1 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, is determined by the Government in relation to the specific licensed type of work. The Code provides for the possibility of exempting business entities from punishment. This is allowed when the facts provided for in Art. 14.1, as well as 15.3-15.6, 15.1, 15.25, 15.11, if they are declarants or information about them is present in a special declaration provided in the manner established by Federal Law No. 140. In this case, the relevant violations must be related to the acquisition (formation of sources for purchase), disposal, use of property by controlled foreign companies, transactions with currency, crediting funds to an account, information about which is contained in the specified document.

Art. 14.1 part 1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation: clarifications

The object of the violation is the relationships that arise when doing business. Regulation of interactions that are established between entrepreneurs or carried out with their participation is carried out on the basis of civil legislation. This takes into account the fact that business is an area associated with constant risks. Entrepreneurship is an independent activity focused on the systematic extraction of income from the use of property, sales of products, provision of services or performance of work. Business entities must comply with the requirements established for them by law. The first one is state registration of an individual entrepreneur or organizations. It is a specific procedure, the order of which is strictly regulated.

Registration

State registration of an individual entrepreneur or organization - an act of the authorized executive body. It is carried out by entering into special registers information on the creation, liquidation, reorganization of business entities, acquisition of individual entrepreneur status, termination of work by citizens, as well as other information provided for by Federal Law No. 129. Registration was until recently the responsibility of the Ministry of Duties and Taxes. The corresponding regulation is present in the government decree of 2002. According to the Presidential Decree of 2004, after the approval and entry into force of the relevant Federal Law, the ministry was transformed into the Federal Tax Service. Thus, in order to avoid punishment under Art. 14.1 part 1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the subject is obliged to contact the territorial division of the tax service. Requirements for the preparation of documentation used for registration are approved by the Government Resolution of 2002.

Part 3 art. 14.1 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation: commentary

As Article 49 of the Civil Code indicates, in order to carry out certain types of work, the subject must obtain a special permit - a license. The need for this, however, does not negate the obligation to undergo state registration. The basic rules for licensing are established by Federal Law No. 128. The provisions of the Law are specified in other regulations. For example, lists of types of services for which a license is required are enshrined in the Federal Law “On Education”.

Objective part of violations

Judicial practice in cases of illegal entrepreneurship allows us to highlight the following aspects:

Lack of documents evidencing registration.
Carrying out work/producing products without a license, if it is required.
Failure to comply with the conditions set out in the permit.
Gross violation of license requirements.

Specific qualifications

When assessing the actions of an entity that is not registered with the Federal Tax Service as an entrepreneur, it should be taken into account that they do not constitute a violation if the fact is proven that the number of products, their assortment, the volume of work performed, services provided and other circumstances do not indicate that that the activity is aimed at systematically generating income. The corresponding explanation is present in the plenary resolution of the Supreme Court of 2006. Information received from persons who paid for services, products, work, receipts for accepting funds or statements from the account of the entity charged with responsibility can be used as evidence confirming the fact of doing business. At the same time, it should follow from the specified documents and information that the amounts were received for the sale of goods, advertising, display of samples, purchase of materials, conclusion of agreements, etc. When considering violations, it should also be taken into account that the presence of profit does not affect qualifications. This is due to the fact that generating income is the goal of entrepreneurship, and not its obligatory result.

Set of articles

In some cases, when qualifying the actions of a business entity, signs of violations provided for by other norms of the Code are discovered. In such situations, all the articles under which the offense falls are applied in their entirety. For example, if illegal entrepreneurship is accompanied by storage, transportation, or purchase of unlabeled products for subsequent sale, additional sanctions will be imposed under Art. 15.12 (part 2). If, among other things, the entity sells goods the sale of which is restricted or prohibited, Article 14.2 of the Code also applies. If an economic entity conducting illegal business activities violates sanitary standards or provides products, services, or work of inadequate quality, additional sanctions will be imposed on it under Art. 14.4. If the regulations governing the sale of certain types of products are not observed, Article 14.15 additionally applies.

Licensing specifics

When assessing the actions of an economic entity within the framework of part two of Art. 14.1, it is necessary to take into account a number of nuances. First of all, you need to take into account that licensing is an event related to the issuance of a permit, re-issuance and cancellation, confirmation of its availability, suspension, renewal, termination of its validity or the activity of a person violating the established requirements. In addition, the procedures include control by authorized bodies over business entities. It involves checking compliance with the requirements stipulated by the license, maintaining registers, and providing interested parties with the necessary information in the prescribed manner. The list of structures whose competence includes these activities is determined by the Government. It approves the Regulations on licensing of certain types of work and services. If signs of violations provided for in part two of Art. 14.1, it is necessary to be guided by the provisions of the Civil Code. In particular, Article 49 of the Code (clause 1, paragraph 3) is important. As the norm indicates, the right to conduct activities, the implementation of which requires obtaining a license, arises at the time of issuance of such a permit or within the period specified in it, and terminates upon expiration of the validity period, cancellation or suspension of the document, unless otherwise provided by law.

Example

The Licensing Chamber appealed to the arbitration court with a statement to bring the port organization to administrative responsibility for the procurement, processing and sale of scrap ferrous metal without a license. The control body drew up a corresponding protocol during the inspection. As the legislation indicates, the obligation to obtain a license for the procurement, collection, storage, processing and sale of scrap is provided for enterprises conducting such activities as their main activity and which includes cutting, pressing, grinding, extraction, briquetting, cutting, remelting. The number of operations should also include the sale/transfer of raw materials free of charge or for a fee. For the port, this activity was not the main one and was not carried out as such. The organization carried out loading and unloading in accordance with the contract for the provision of services. Provided by the agreement, the provision of sites for storage of raw materials to the business entity implied the accumulation of the required cargo for subsequent loading onto a ship and transportation outside the country. Based on this, the placement of scrap on the port territory must be considered as an element of the main type of activity for which a license was obtained.

Important point

When considering the actions of an economic entity within the framework of part three of Art. 14.1 of the Code, it is necessary to take into account the provisions of Federal Law No. 128. In particular, we are talking about article 2 of the normative act. As its provisions indicate, entrepreneurship in violation of the requirements established by a license (permit) should be understood as the performance of certain work by a person who has the specified document, but does not fulfill the conditions established by the legislation governing this area. For the correct application of the rules, the Supreme Court in plenary Resolution No. 18 (dated October 24, 2008) provided some clarifications. In particular, it was indicated that in situations where administrative liability for illegal entrepreneurship, in addition to the article of the Code discussed above, is also provided for by its other provisions, the actions of an economic entity must be qualified according to a special norm. An example would be the provision of health care services. Engagement in private pharmaceutical or medical practice by a person who has not received a license is punishable under Art. 6.2 of the Code (part one). If the requirements of the permit are violated as part of the performance of certain types of work in the field of industrial safety of hazardous production facilities, it falls under the provisions of Article 9.1 (Part 1).

Conclusion

Citizens, organizations or employees can be held administratively liable for illegal entrepreneurship. The subjective side of the violation is expressed in the form of intentional guilt and negligence. According to experts, the legislation establishes well-founded and feasible requirements for persons wishing to conduct business activities. The regulations cover in sufficient detail and clearly all the features of certain procedures. Control over the implementation of legislative requirements is entrusted to executive structures. First of all, among them is the Federal Tax Service. The Tax Service is authorized to carry out state registration of business entities, as well as all changes that occur with the enterprise in the course of its operation. In addition, the competence of the Federal Tax Service includes on-site control. As part of such inspections, the tax service works closely with law enforcement agencies. For some subjects, it may seem that the established penalties are not so great for illegal entrepreneurship. In Russia, meanwhile, criminal penalties are also provided for systematic failure to comply with regulations. Currently, special attention is paid to ensuring the protection of consumer rights. Control authorities strictly suppress any actions that could cause harm to citizens. The developed standards, norms and rules are mandatory for all business entities, especially those involved in the production of consumer products. There is no doubt that following the letter of the law and strict compliance with requirements ensures a good reputation for the enterprise. A company or entrepreneur who cares about the safety of its potential consumers strives to improve, rather than worsen, the quality of its work, services, and consumer properties of products. This allows him not only to maintain his reputation, but also to successfully compete in the market.

1. Carrying out business activities without state registration as an individual entrepreneur or without state registration as a legal entity - entails the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred to two thousand rubles. 2. Carrying out business activities without a special permit (license), if such a permit (such license) is mandatory (mandatory), - entails the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of two thousand to two thousand five hundred rubles with confiscation of manufactured products, production tools and raw materials. or without it; for officials - from four thousand to five thousand rubles with or without confiscation of manufactured products, production tools and raw materials; for legal entities - from forty thousand to fifty thousand rubles with or without confiscation of manufactured products, production tools and raw materials. 3. Carrying out business activities in violation of the conditions provided for by a special permit (license) - entails a warning or the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of one thousand five hundred to two thousand rubles; for officials - from three thousand to four thousand rubles; for legal entities - from thirty thousand to forty thousand rubles. 4. Carrying out business activities in gross violation of the conditions provided for by a special permit (license) - entails the imposition of an administrative fine on persons engaged in business activities without forming a legal entity in the amount of four thousand to five thousand rubles or administrative suspension of activities for a period of up to ninety days; for officials - from four thousand to five thousand rubles; for legal entities - from forty thousand to fifty thousand rubles or administrative suspension of activities for a period of up to ninety days. Note. Lost power. Notes: 1. The concept of gross violation is established by the Government of the Russian Federation in relation to a specific licensed type of activity. 2. A person is released from administrative liability if it is revealed that he has committed actions (inaction) containing elements of an administrative offense provided for by this article or articles 15.1, 15.3 - 15.6, 15.11, 15.25 of this Code, provided that this person is a declarant or person , information about which is contained in a special declaration filed in accordance with the Federal Law “On the voluntary declaration by individuals of assets and accounts (deposits) in banks and on amendments to certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation”, and if such actions (inaction) are related to acquisition (formation of sources of acquisition), use or disposal of property and (or) controlled foreign companies and (or) carrying out currency transactions and (or) crediting funds to accounts (deposits), information about which is contained in a special declaration.