{"id":174,"date":"2015-10-08T14:40:09","date_gmt":"2015-10-08T12:40:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kmp.ua\/?p=174"},"modified":"2017-06-14T10:18:21","modified_gmt":"2017-06-14T08:18:21","slug":"decision-of-the-supreme-court-of-ukraine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kmp.ua\/en\/documents\/court-decisions\/decision-of-the-supreme-court-of-ukraine\/","title":{"rendered":"Resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine: peculiarities of treatment of official forgery which was committed for the purpose of tax evasion"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Within the topic &#8220;Tax Disputes and their alternative treatments as crime&#8221; we bring to your attention <span style=\"color: #b40637;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/21355250\" target=\"_blank\"><span style=\"color: #b40637;\">Resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine as of December 19, 2011<\/span><\/a><\/span>, in which the Court had concluded that such treatment circumstance of part 2 Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine as causing of &#8220;serious consequences&#8221; is fully covered by the offense &#8220;intentional tax evasion&#8221;, and, therefore, in cases where official forgery serves as the way of committing tax evasion, the actions of the person shall be treated subject to relevant part of Article 212 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and part 1 Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"\/images\/publications\/postanovaV.pdf\" class=\"mtli_attachment mtli_pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Download pdf-file of the Resolution in Ukrainian (3,57 Mb)<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; color: #b40637;\"><span style=\"margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;\">\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\">Resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine: peculiarities of treatment of official forgery which was committed for the purpose of tax evasion<\/h4>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: right;\"><span style=\"color: #808080;\"><em>Ocotober 8, 2015<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Within the topic &#8220;Tax Disputes and their alternative treatments as crime&#8221; we bring to your attention <span style=\"color: #b40637;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/21355250\" target=\"_blank\"><span style=\"color: #b40637;\">Resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine as of December 19, 2011<\/span><\/a><\/span>, in which the Court had concluded that such treatment circumstance of part 2 Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine as causing of &#8220;serious consequences&#8221; is fully covered by the offense &#8220;intentional tax evasion&#8221;, and, therefore, in cases where official forgery serves as the way of committing tax evasion, the actions of the person shall be treated subject to relevant part of Article 212 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and part 1 Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a href=\"images\/publications\/postanovaV.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"><span style=\"margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; color: #b40637;\"><span style=\"margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/kmp.ua\/images\/files\/znachok-pdfa.gif\" alt=\"http:\/\/www.km-partners.com\/images\/files\/znachok-pdfa.gif\" style=\"margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border-style: none; border-width: initial; color: #222222;\" \/><\/span><\/span><span style=\"margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; color: #b40637;\"><span style=\"margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;\">&nbsp;Download PDF-file of the Resolution in Ukrainian (3,57 Mb)<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; color: #b40637;\"><span style=\"margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[52],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-174","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-decisions"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kmp.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kmp.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kmp.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kmp.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kmp.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=174"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/kmp.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3123,"href":"https:\/\/kmp.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174\/revisions\/3123"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kmp.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kmp.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kmp.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}