1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling to close the criminal proceedings against PERSON_6, who was convicted of tax evasion and document forgery.<\/p>\n
2. The appellate court closed the criminal proceedings, justifying its decision on the grounds that the prosecution had not proven PERSON_6’s guilt in committing the crimes, and the conclusions of the court of first instance were not supported by proper evidence. The appellate court noted that the expert’s opinion was conditional because the defendant’s expenses were not taken into account, and the obligation to register as a VAT payer arises from net income, not gross income. Additionally, the appellate court took into account the decisions of the administrative court, which \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0437\u043d\u0430\u043b\u0438 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0442\u0438\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0438\u043c\u0438 \u043f\u043e\u0434\u0430\u0442\u043a\u043e\u0432\u0456 \u043f\u043e\u0432\u0456\u0434\u043e\u043c\u043b\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044f-\u0440\u0456\u0448\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044f, and the tax office’s letter stating that PERSON_6 had no arrears, which, in the court’s opinion, indicated a lack of intent to evade taxes. The Supreme Court disagreed with this approach, indicating that the decisions of administrative courts do not have preclusive effect in criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the appellate court due to significant violations of the criminal procedure law.<\/p>\n