The subject matter of this dispute is the lawfulness of the conviction of the head of an enterprise for failure to comply with and obstructing the enforcement of a court decision on the recovery of wage arrears, as well as determining the correct procedural order for releasing a person from punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
****: In this decision, the Court departed from the previous positions of the Supreme Court, clarifying that in the event of the expiration of the statute of limitations, the court must first impose a specific punishment on the person in accordance with the general rules, and only then release them from serving it, as the law clearly distinguishes between conviction “without the imposition of punishment” and “with release from punishment”. The court also rejected the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the failure to explain to the accused her right to be released from liability, pointing out that the defense independently chooses its strategy and in this case deliberately insisted on refuting the charges on the merits. With regard to the classification of the offense, the panel of judges agreed that the actions of the convicted person, such as the failure to submit an income declaration and the opening of a new bank account in circumvention of the attachment, are fully covered by the concept of “obstructing the enforcement of a court decision”. At the same time, the court noted that the passive conduct of the debtor regarding the non-payment of funds in itself cannot be considered willful “non-compliance” with a court decision within the meaning of the criminal law. The court emphasized that criminal law is a measure of last resort (ultima ratio) and cannot substitute for civil enforcement mechanisms; therefore, the criminalization of a debtor’s actions requires an exceptionally narrow interpretation. Despite the lack of substantiation of the courts’ findings specifically regarding the “non-compliance” with the decision, the overall classification of the convicted person’s actions under Part 2 of Article 382 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine remained correct, as the fact of obstructing the enforcement proceedings was fully proven.
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts finding the woman guilty and releasing her from the imposed punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, dismissing the cassation appeals of both the defense and the prosecution.
