{"id":5723,"date":"2025-02-23T09:16:46","date_gmt":"2025-02-23T07:16:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-690-443-14-k-dated-12-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-23T09:16:46","modified_gmt":"2025-02-23T07:16:46","slug":"case-no-690-443-14-k-dated-12-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-690-443-14-k-dated-12-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 690\/443\/14-k dated 12\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Recovery of Damages from a Private Entrepreneur Caused to the State as a Result of Tax Evasion in the Amount of 2,418,353 Hryvnias.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. By the criminal court&#8217;s verdict, PERSON_1 was found guilty of tax evasion, which is a crime with a material composition.<br \/>\n2. The amount of unpaid taxes is a mandatory qualifying feature of the crime and does not require additional proof in civil proceedings.<br \/>\n3. The previous decision of the appellate court regarding the unproven damage is erroneous, as the criminal court&#8217;s verdict has already established the fact of tax non-payment.<\/p>\n<p>Note: The court deviates from previous practice regarding the interpretation of evidence in cases of tax damage recovery.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: To satisfy the prosecutor&#8217;s claim and recover from PERSON_1 in favor of the state 2,418,353 Hryvnias in damages.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125264983\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Recovery of Damages from a Private Entrepreneur Caused to the State as a Result of Tax Evasion in the Amount of 2,418,353 Hryvnias. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. By the criminal court&#8217;s verdict, PERSON_1 was found guilty of tax evasion, which is a crime with a material composition. 2. The amount&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5723","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5723","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5723"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5723\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5723"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5723"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5723"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}