RESOLUTION OF THE PLENUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN

of March 15, 1996 No. 9

About court practice on cases on crimes and other offenses in the field of trade

Development in the country of the civilized market relations is seriously interfered by abuses, antitrust violations, the facts of requisitions and racketing, and also other illegal actions assumed in the field of trade that causes serious damage to national economy, interests and the rights of citizens.

There is no unity in understanding of separate regulations of the criminal and administrative right about responsibility for abuses of regulations of trade, the antitrust law. In investigative practice, the facts of the wrong application of the specified laws are widespread in activities of tax authorities.

In court practice cases of purpose of unreasonably mild pinishments to the racketeers and other persons interfering open entry of goods on the market, to representatives of administration of the markets which are engaged in requisitions, plunders and other abuses, the wrong qualification of crimes are allowed. Often the reasons and conditions promoting trade abuses of regulations are not established, legal procedures on this category of cases are not given to wide publicity.

For the purpose of strengthening of legality, the correct and uniform application of the legislation, ensuring protection of the rights and interests of citizens the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan decides:

1. Draw the attention of courts, investigating and tax authorities to need of the most strict respect for the principle of inevitability of responsibility for offenses in the field of trade, meaning their increased public danger to society.

Provide application of stiff punishments to racketeers, employees of administration of the markets, the malls which are engaged in plunders, requisitions from the citizens abusing the official position, to the dealers who are violating rules of trade, artificially maintaining excess prices, the producers of products driving out of the markets.

2. Explain to courts that actions of person which bring or can lead to restriction of the competition in the goods markets it is necessary to regard as violation of the law of the Republic of Uzbekistan of January 6, 2012 "About the competition" and to qualify under article 178 of the Code about the administrative responsibility. Treat such actions:

non-presentation or untimely representation to antimonopoly authority and bodies for consumer protection of information or submission of obviously false information to them;

evasion from execution, untimely or improper execution of instructions of antimonopoly authority about the termination of violations, about recovery of initial provision, about elimination of violations of the rights of consumers;

evasion by the manufacturer from execution, untimely or improper execution of instructions of the state bodies exercising control of safety and goods quality (works, services);

violation of anti-monopoly requirements in case of merge, joining of business entities and transactions for share acquisition (shares) and other property rights;

making of coordinated actions and the conclusion of transactions which bring or can lead to competition restriction, and also abuse of dominant position in the goods or financial market, and violation of anti-monopoly requirements to the competitive (tender) or exchange biddings is equal;

damnification to consumers the goods (work, service) which are not meeting the requirements of the regulating documentation and also failure to provide to information users or provision of obviously false information on goods (works, services);

acceptance for realization and sales of goods expired, and also goods without specifying of date of issue and expiration date for which the legislation provides obligatory specifying of date of issue and expiration date.

3. Any hindrance to open entry of goods on the market, replacement from it of producers, requirements about artificial maintenance of excess prices and other actions integrated to violence or with threat of violence, damage or destruction of property concerning the owner of goods, administration of the markets or other persons pursuing the aim of receipt of any property benefit it is necessary to qualify as racketing (racket) under article 165 of the Criminal code. The racketing can be expressed in the requirement about provision of property benefit or making of actions of property nature for the benefit of the racketeer (goods assignment at cut price or uncompensated, violent taking of goods, etc.). For criminal prosecution for racketing it is not required that the perpetrator realized violence threat, the requirement suffices.

4. Implementation of business activity without state registration with receipt of the uncontrollable income in the considerable size attracts the administrative responsibility on part two of article 176 of the Code about the administrative responsibility, the same offense made with receipt of the uncontrollable income in the large size attracts the administrative responsibility on part three of article 176 of the Code about the administrative responsibility. The same actions made in especially large size attract criminal liability under article 188 of the Criminal code.

Under the specified article of the Criminal code also actions of persons rendering assistance in acquisition or sales of goods or other objects for legal entities and citizens, the conclusion of transactions between the parties and other intermediary actions performed with evasion from registration shall be qualified.

In case of determination of the size of the uncontrollable income gained as a result of illegal business activity (sales of products, works, services) needs to proceed from revenue amount taking into account deduction of the costs connected with implementation of these activities.

5. Explain that according to the current legislation on occupation separate types of activity special permission (license) is required. Lack of such permission attracts responsibility under Articles 165, 176-3 Codes about the administrative responsibility. If occupation is integrated by such activities to income acquisition in especially large size, actions of the guilty person are subject to qualification on part five of article 190 of the Criminal code or on the Items "and", "b" of part six of article 190 of the Criminal code.

In cases of implementation by person of business activity which occupation according to the current legislation requires special permission (license) without state registration with receipt of the uncontrollable income in especially large size, its actions should be qualified under article 188 of the Criminal code and additional qualification under article 190 of the Criminal code it is not required.

Disclaimer! This text was translated by AI translator and is not a valid juridical document. No warranty. No claim. More info