Administrative Liability of an Insolvency Practitioner for Acts Provided For in Parts 3 and 3.1 of Article 14.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

The article considers the problem of administrative responsibility of arbitration managers in the context of modern legislation of the Russian Federation. The main attention is paid to the analysis of the objective side of the corpus delicti of an administrative offense provided by parts 3 and 3.1 of article 14.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. The study is conditioned by the growing number of bankruptcy cases and the increasing number of administrative offenses related to illegal actions of arbitration managers. The purpose of the article is to analyze court practice and identify typical errors and problems in law enforcement. The empirical basis of the study were the decisions of arbitration courts posted in the program complex “Electronic Justice” for the period 2014-2025. Scientific novelty lies in the comprehensive analysis of judicial practice of application of the above norms, which was not previously the subject of a detailed study. The research methodology includes analysis of normative legal acts, study of judicial practice and comparative legal method. The article considers specific court decisions revealing trends and problems in law enforcement. Special attention is paid to the analysis of the objective side of administrative offenses, which allows to reveal the specifics of qualification of wrongful acts in bankruptcy. Practical significance of the research consists in the possibility of using its results to improve law enforcement practice and development of recommendations to improve the legislation in the field of administrative responsibility of arbitration managers. The analysis of judicial practice allows to identify typical errors and gaps in law enforcement, which contributes to improving the effectiveness of control over the activities of arbitration managers and reducing the number of offenses in this area. The article also considers the principles of fairness and legality in the distribution of the debtor's property, which are an integral part of the object of administrative offense. Violation of these principles by an insolvency practitioner, resulting in the infliction of major damage, forms the corpus delicti of this offense. Judicial practice consistently applies these principles in qualifying the actions of trustees. An analysis of court decisions suggests that courts do not always take due care in making decisions on disputes under consideration. For example, in some cases courts recognize the actions of managers as unlawful on the basis of formal features, while in other cases evidence of intent or recklessness is required. This indicates the need for further improvement of legislation and law enforcement practice in this area. 

1. Astanin G. V. Administrative Responsibility of Insolvency Officers in Legislations of the Russian Federation and Ukraine: Comparative Analysis. Administrative and Municipal Law. 2013;7:753-757. DOI: https://doi. org/10.7256/1999-2807.2013.7.9038 (In Russ.)

2. Vinnitskiy A. V. Administrative Responsibility of Bankruptcy Commissioners: Dynamics and Practice of Application of the New Provisions of the Administrative Offences Code of the Russian Federation. Administrative and Municipal Law. 2017;12:11-25. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7256/2454-0595.2017.12.24877 (In Russ.)

3. Makshanov V. L. Features of Bringing an Arbitration Manager to Administrative Responsibility. International Journal of Humanities and Natural Sciences. 2021;12-4:122-124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24412/2500-1000-2021- 12-4-122-124 (In Russ.)