How to check a cash receipt for authenticity. Slippery slope
Cash and sales receipts are issued to the person who deposits money into the cash register on account of goods purchased or services provided. These documents confirm the fact of payment made and are a kind of agreement between the seller and the buyer. These papers can be used as reporting documentation to be presented to the employer. In the absence of proper documentation, many people resort to forging checks online using special programs. At the same time, it is important to choose a reliable and simple service with which you can generate payment documents and stamps identical to the originals.
Forgery of sales receipt
The sales receipt is filled out in the prescribed form and issued upon request of the payer. This document contains detailed information about the completed transaction, namely the name of the product or service, the cost of each item, and the total amount to be paid. To forge a check, just download the appropriate forms, print and fill them out. The document is valid if there are standard seals and signatures on the sales receipt. Forgery of the seal is possible using free programs, which are freely available on the Internet. The standard seal shape can be round, square, rectangular or triangular. A high-quality counterfeit of sales receipts with stamps can completely replace the original document.
The most common and in a simple way Forgery of a seal is considered to be the use of special constructors that form the desired cliche online. Next, the document with the forged seal is printed on a printer and filled out in accordance with current requirements. The layout is created online - a person simply selects the desired option and enters the necessary data (full name, individual entrepreneur, tax identification number, etc.). In this way, it is possible to falsify the certificate of completion of work and other documents that relate to the official regulation of the relationship between the buyer and the seller.
Counterfeiting checks with a QR code is one of the most popular services today. It is quite possible to generate such a document yourself using a special online program. The QR code reflects encrypted data about the completed transaction - the date and time of the payment made, the serial number of the fiscal documentation, the payment attribute, the settlement amount, the serial number of the fiscal device, the fiscal attribute of the check. This category of checks is considered one of the most serious, since the two-dimensional identifier can be checked using a special application or online services. The QR code on the replica check is identical to the original version and contains all the necessary details.
To forge checks, you can use the program on the website https://www.v-c.club. To do this, just go through a simple registration, after which the main menu will become available. Using this service, you can independently generate cash receipts and maintain your own database of payment documents. In addition, you will have access to databases of cash receipts in different countries and cities. This program is intended only for generating cash receipts with a QR code and standard stamps. To create a stamp, select one of the suggested templates and follow the further instructions. Fake stamp seal is not available for this service. Forgery of bank checks is also not supported by the program and is not carried out by employees of our organization.
In this article I will try to explain to you why to fake cash receipt became impossible. That is, you can create something similar to a cashier’s check, but it will not be difficult for anyone, much less a tax inspector, to determine whether a check is fake or not.
Control verification code - PDA
After the introduction of EKLZ into the cash register in 2005, all cash receipts changed. Now on every cash receipt it is printed PDA verification code. This code is generated by the EKLZ block using a closed cryptoprocessor, which is part of it. The code will be different on each new check. EKLZ collects the data entered by the cashier: check amount, check date, check time, check number, then it generates this data and issues a PDA code, which the cash register prints on the check.
No one has yet found out how the cryptographic processor encrypts the PDA. The production of EKLZ is supervised by the FSB.
How to check if a cash receipt is fake
IN Lately tax inspectors do not have to come to stores and do test purchases- they work using a different method: they check all cash receipts that come into their hands for compliance with the PDA code. For some time now, in every tax office There is a box with a hole into which anyone can throw a cash receipt for verification.
Anyone can check the authenticity of cash receipts on the tax office website,
ECLZ emulator
All fake cash receipts have a fake PDA code; they simply emulate it using a special device - the EKLZ emulator. There are several underground manufacturers of such gizmos, but none of them have been able to recreate the actual PDA code.
The most common way to falsify cash receipts
Most often, cash register receipts are forged even without a cash register. Of course, it is impossible to fake the PDA code in this way.
Forgery of cash receipts occurs using a fax machine that prints on thermal paper. The fax machine prints cash receipts and then cuts the paper to fit right size. Why on thermal paper? Yes, because all modern cash registers print on thermal tape. Read more about this fake method in the section
Counterfeiting of cash register receipts is a fairly common occurrence, because, despite its small size, the receipt is important document accounting and confirmation of cash payment for goods or services. For this reason, the issue of checking a cash receipt for authenticity is currently very relevant.
Cash receipt
When receiving cash for a purchase, the seller is obliged to issue a receipt. This obligation follows from paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Federal Law of May 22, 2003 N 54-FZ “On the Application of CCP”.
The so-called electronic secure control tape (hereinafter referred to as EKLZ) is built into the cash register. This is a device that registers all operations performed on the cash register.
To verify the authenticity of a cash receipt, a cryptographic verification code (CPC) is provided.
Establishing the fact that the CPC value is incorrect or the lack of information about the issued check for the EKLZ of cash register equipment is a sign of counterfeit cash register receipt and a circumstance entailing liability under Part 2 of Article 14.5 and Part 1 of Article 15.1 of the Code Russian Federation on administrative offenses (Letter of the Tax Service of Russia dated June 5, 2013 No. AC-4-2/10250).
How to check a cash receipt for authenticity
Any person has the opportunity to verify the authenticity of a check. To do this, you need to use a special Internet resource www.kpkcheck.ru.
The specified resource contains Information system checking the value of the PDA, which serves to check its values.
Any device connected to the Internet (for example, a smartphone, telephone, laptop, etc.) is suitable for testing.
On the “Express check” tab, you need to fill out an application and send a cash receipt for verification, indicating the appropriate indicator values (including PDA). The corresponding result will be sent to the user specified email.
If the system check result is unsatisfactory, this means that the check is not genuine. The value “False” will appear in the corresponding field of the “Check Result” form.
For such an “express check”, user registration on the site is not required.
The “User Guide” tab contains a detailed algorithm of user actions for filling out an application, examples of filling out forms and verification results.
No. 224385 Albert Rostov-on-Don
Hello. The situation is the following: I am owed by an organization, which in turn is owed by another organization (municipal institution). On the proposal to make a debt assignment - so that mun...
Hello. The situation is the following: I am owed by an organization, which in turn is owed by another organization (municipal institution). On the proposal to make an assignment of debt - to the municipality. the institution owes money directly to me, my debtor agrees, subject to the consent of the municipalities. institution (although the debtor’s consent is not required by law). Nobody will give me such consent, and cession is the only way to repay the debt. The question is: what are the dangers of forging a municipal letter? institutions on non-objection to the assignment of debt.
Hello, please help me in this situation. A year ago at my ex-husband property was seized due to alimony debts. Six months later, his wife provided the bailiffs and then the court with sales receipts for the seized property. Apparently she is the owner. After talking with entrepreneurs, we found out that the sales receipts do not correspond to reality and the property is registered in the name of the ex-husband. Can I submit an application to the prosecutor's office for the purpose of conducting an inspection?
I am accused of producing and selling counterfeit payment documents under Article 187 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. According to the prosecution, such payment documents are cash and sales receipts, hotel invoices received during the “Test Purchase” operational procedure. Moreover, the indictment contains only a reference to the minutes of the meeting of the state interdepartmental commission on cash registers dated December 19, 2002. supposedly from this protocol it follows that cash and sales receipts, hotel bills are payment documents.
But in reality, there is simply nothing of the kind in this protocol; it is fiction (please check). It turns out that these documents are not the subject of a crime.
Question: is there a specific list of payment documents and do they actually include cash and sales receipts and hotel bills? Moreover, it was not established at all on what equipment the received documents were produced, but as indicated in the indictment. In conclusion, cash receipts must be made on a cash register machine. Is there a crime? and what to do?
Good afternoon
Two years ago, equipment was purchased from a store. Now is the time warranty repair, but it turned out that the manufacturer’s warranty card for the equipment was not filled out. I have a sales receipt with the seller's signature, but without a sales receipt and a stamp on the sales receipt. The sales receipt indicates the organization and its TIN. Does the seller have the right to refuse to issue me a manufacturer's warranty card? If not, what articles of the law should we rely on?
We drew up a contract for the sale and purchase of a car without the owner, accordingly with the consent of the owner, through a traffic cop friend. And now I have certain disagreements with him, he says he will sue me for forging a signature. What does this mean for me. Thank you.
Case No. 10-4/2013
SENTENCE
IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Tomsk District Court of the Tomsk Region, consisting of:
presiding judge Chach N.V.,
under the secretaries of FYU, BEA, Rau,
with the participation of the state prosecutor -
Assistant Prosecutor of Tomsk Transport
prosecutor's office CNA,
defendant Butskikh,
defender - lawyer AIV, who presented certificate No. dated DD.MM.YYYY and warrant No. dated DD.MM.YYYY,
examined in open court on appeal a criminal case in relation to:
u st a n o v i l:
Butskikh used a deliberately forged document.
The crime was committed under the following circumstances.
Butskikh, working as a pilot of aircraft No. "Tomsk Avia Airlines", located at the address: , left DD.MM.YYYY from on a business trip to and was on a business trip, according to travel certificate No. from DD.MM.YYYY, during the period from DD.MM.YYYY. DD.MM.YYYY in the daytime, being near the Uyut hotel, located at the address: , he (Butskikh), illegally, intentionally, with the aim of extracting useful property document, purchased from an unidentified person invoices - receipts, namely: invoice No. from DD.MM.YYYY, invoice No. from DD.MM.YYYY, invoice No. from DD.MM.YYYY, confirming the fact of residence at the Uyut Hotel, located at the above address. However, Butskikh did not live in this hotel, but lived in an apartment located at the address: , for 40,000 rubles, and did not enter into a rental agreement for residential premises. Upon arrival in DD.MM.YYYY Butskikh, illegally, deliberately, in order to extract the useful properties of the document and personal gain, expressed in the write-off of funds previously issued to him for accommodation, provided to the accounting department of Tomsk Avia Airlines LLC, located at : , advance report No. from DD.MM.YYYY, to which he attached false invoices No. from DD.MM.YYYY, No. from DD.MM.YYYY and No. from DD.MM.YYYY, confirming the fact of staying at the hotel " Comfort" in, as well as control and cash receipts of the hotel "Comfort" for a total amount of 40,000 rubles, although in reality Butskikh did not live in this hotel.
At the court hearing, Butskikh did not admit guilt. According to the submitted written testimony, it follows that in the period from January 28 to DD.MM.YYYY he was sent on a business trip to, as an employee of Tomsk Avia Airlines LLC, in order to improve the pilot’s qualifications. Before his business trip, he bank card were listed cash for expenses on a business trip, including 40,000 rubles for living expenses. Having arrived, he did not find a hotel room costing 2,000 rubles per day that would suit his location to the Tolmachevo airport, where the training was conducted. His friend ZS recommended contacting Novitsky. Having called NVA, he met with him at his apartment at the address: , which he liked due to its condition and location. When discussing the issue of documents confirming payment for accommodation, NVA. He said that you can sign a residential lease agreement or provide documents from the hotel. He explained that Novitsky’s wife, T, who according to the documents is the owner of the apartment, entered into an agreement with the hotel, according to which living in the apartment is comparable to living in a hotel and the documents issued for living in an apartment from the hotel are legal. I knew that for an advance report to the accounting department of Tomsk Avia Airlines LLC, documents from the hotel with a cash receipt from KKM for an amount of no more than 2000 rubles per day were required to confirm expenses for accommodation on a business trip. Is it possible to provide other expense documents he does not know, since he was not introduced to the procedure for providing documents on expenses on a business trip. He asked Novitsky to provide him with documents confirming expenses for hotel accommodation with a cash receipt, since he had no doubt that they were genuine. He handed over the money to Novitsky against receipt, and the documents for staying at the UYUT hotel were brought to him by the NVA. and his wife T, who said that these documents were issued by the hotel on the basis of an agreement concluded between her and the hotel and they were issued legally. He had no reason not to believe what was said.
After giving an explanation on the present case, in which he confirmed that he lived at the UYUT hotel, he tried to call N, since he did not understand why they asked him for an explanation, but he could not. When the investigator called him to testify as a witness, he realized that, in fact, a criminal case had been opened against him, which was confirmed by the defense attorney when concluding the agreement. During interrogation as a witness, he explained about his stay in the NVA apartment, for which there was a receipt, and he purchased documents for his stay at the UYUT hotel, as he attached them to the advance report. He believed that he would tell the truth, because he thought that the hotel employees would confirm the fact that he was living there. He did not say that the documents were handed over by the NVA, because he believed that no one would confirm this.
Defender? after I called NVA., I recommended him to write a statement about voluntary refusal from previously given testimony on the circumstances of the acquisition of receipts and checks confirming the fact of his residence at the UYUT hotel in the period from DD.MM.YYYY. The defense lawyer also recommended using the Article of the Russian Federation.
He did not commit a crime, so he does not plead guilty.
Answering questions from the participants in the trial, the defendant testified that he did not actually live at the Uyut Hotel. During interrogation as a suspect and a witness, he indicated that no documents were drawn up regarding the rental of an apartment from the NVA, since he assumed that it was a question of an apartment rental agreement. Initially, he did not tell me about the presence of a receipt for the NVA to receive funds from him in the amount of 40,000 rubles, since they did not ask about this. In addition, the defendant explained that, indicating during interrogation as a witness that he had purchased in the daytime near the Uyut Hotel from a previously unknown man, 45-50 years old, strong build, average height, receipts and checks confirming his stay at the hotel “COMFORT” for a total amount of 40,000 rubles, told a lie, inventing both the person and his description of appearance.
During the preliminary investigation, Butskikh explained as a suspect that from DD.MM.YYYY to DD.MM.YYYY he was on a business trip to. Before your trip to salary card As an advance payment for travel expenses, he was given the amount of 49,800 rubles. Upon arrival, there was no opportunity to check into a hotel. He called an acquaintance ZS, who gave the phone number of his friend (B), who rents out an apartment. After meeting with V, we agreed to rent an apartment (he doesn’t remember the address) from DD.MM.YYYY to DD.MM.YYYY, for 40,000 rubles. No documents were drawn up regarding renting the apartment. Butskikh renounced his testimony, given earlier during interrogation as a witness, regarding the circumstances of the acquisition of receipts and checks confirming his stay at the Uyut Hotel in the period from DD.MM.YYYY to DD.MM.YYYY.
He refused to give further testimony, referring to the recommendations of the defense lawyer (case file 170-173 volume no.).
The defendant confirmed the examined testimony at the court hearing.
The court bases the verdict on the testimony of Butskikh, given by him during the preliminary investigation as a suspect, to the extent that it is consistent with the evidence examined, since there were no violations of the norms of criminal procedure law during his interrogation, he was interrogated in the presence of a defense lawyer, the norms of the article of the Russian Federation, according to which he could not testify against himself, were explained to him.
The court is critical of Butskikh's testimony at the trial and regards it as a way of defending against the charges, an attempt to avoid criminal liability for what he did.
Witness NVA presented written testimony at the court hearing, according to which at the end of DD.MM.YYYY ZS approached him and asked if he could rent out an apartment for a month to his friend, who would be on a business trip to. He (NVA) replied that his wife NTI was dealing with all issues regarding the apartment. After some time, an acquaintance of Z called, they met with him, since N was unable to go. They met at a rented apartment, where the man introduced himself as Butskikh, said that he works as a pilot in. He liked the apartment and its location, they decided on the rental amount. Butskikh explained that he needed documents regarding the rental of the apartment, to which he replied that his wife, NTI, could draw up a rental agreement for him. an individual, or from the Uyut Hotel, with which she cooperates and has an agreement under which the hotel administration has the right to rent out this apartment at its discretion and in agreement with NTI. She pays a commission of 25% for those clients whom they refer to her apartment to stay. Butskikh explained that financial documents from an official hotel were more convenient for him, and paid the entire amount at once; in turn, he wrote a receipt to NVA for receiving the funds. At home, he gave his wife the money and a receipt and explained that they needed documents from the hotel. The wife called L from the hotel. The evening of the next day, he and his wife stopped by the apartment, and the wife gave Butskikh all the necessary financial documents. He learned that the payment documents provided by the Uyut Hotel were fake after Butskikh read the expert report. Currently, NTI is dead. He believes that his wife NTI and Butskikh became victims of fraudulent actions by employees of the administration of the Uyut Hotel or other persons. Butskikh did not know that the payment documents provided by the NVP were fake. He also explained that when he was interrogated as a witness, he did not explain about the payment documents from the Uyut Hotel, since he was not asked about it.
The witness also explained that the defendant lived in the apartment with DD.MM.YYYY to DD.MM.YYYY, paying 40,000 rubles. The wife died DD.MM.YYYY while living in. After her death, I did not find any documents confirming the existence of an apartment rental agreement between my wife and the Uyut Hotel. He also explained that when providing documents from the hotel, the wife referred to a realtor named L, who entered into an agreement with the hotel.
The court is critical of the testimony of the witness to Novitsky, considering it to be far-fetched and given in the interests of the defendant in order to help the latter avoid criminal liability for his crime.
Indication by the witness NVA that his deceased wife NTI entered into a lease agreement with the Uyut Hotel, according to which living in their apartment was equivalent to official accommodation in the Uyut Hotel, and also that his wife handed over to Butskikh all the necessary financial documents about his stay in the specified hotel are unfounded, since they are not confirmed by anything. In the case materials there is a response from the specified hotel, according to which agreements between the hotel and individuals, legal entities never concluded that refutes the testimony of the witness. Butskikh, interrogated as a suspect DD.MM.YYYY, indicated that no documents were drawn up regarding the rental of the apartment. In addition, the court sees contradictions in the testimony of the witness. Thus, in a written testimony, he explained that his wife, NTI, had concluded an agreement with the hotel to rent out an apartment, but at the court hearing, the witness explained that when providing documents from the hotel, the wife referred to a realtor named L, who entered into the agreement with a hotel.
The guilt of the defendant in committing the crime charged to him is confirmed, in addition to his testimony, which forms the basis of the verdict, by the testimony of witnesses and written evidence.
Thus, from KEA’s testimony it follows that Butskikh, an employee of Tomsk Avia Airlines LLC, was sent on a business trip, at the end of which he was provided with a report on his hotel stay: a travel certificate, invoices for payment for hotel accommodation and cash receipts. There were no other documents regarding rental housing. The reports provided were not checked for accuracy, since all employees lived in the hotel during business trips. Butskikh did not explain anything when submitting the advance report, and was not interested in the possibility of living in the private sector.
From the examined testimony of witness KEA, it follows that she works as a deputy chief accountant for taxation and accounting of travel expenses at the Tomsk Avia Airlines, maintains accounting records, and is a colleague of Butskikh. She accepts the report from travelers and reviews the documents attached to the report, which they provide within three days of arrival. The traveler is issued a travel certificate signed by the director or deputy, and a business trip assignment. There are two options for paying for a business trip: either it is advanced to the traveler according to a report where a calculation of the expected expenses is presented, with a transfer to the salary card, or, if the advance has not been received, upon the employee’s arrival from the business trip, accepting the expenses that they spend and reimburse. Upon arrival, business travelers are presented with travel documents - hotel bills, cash receipts, tickets. The reliability of the submitted documents is determined only in extreme cases when they are in doubt. In this case, she calls the hotels. Mainly looks at the presence of documents and their dates. Butskikh, an advance was made, the funds were transferred to his salary card, the documents were provided to them on time. I learned from transport police officers that DD.MM.YYYY Butskikh, being an employee of Tomsk Avia Airlines LLC, after returning from a business trip from where he was in the period from DD.MM.YYYY to DD.MM.YYYY, provided accounting department of Tomsk Avia Airlines LLC, advance report No. dated DD.MM.YYYY, to which was attached false invoices of the UYUT Hotel for the periods from DD.MM.YYYY to DD.MM.YYYY, from DD.MM.YYYY to DD .MM.YYYY, from DD.MM.YYYY to DD.MM.YYYY for a total amount of 40,000 rubles. It was explained to her that the hotel employees claim that Butskikh did not actually live in this hotel during the indicated periods, and Butskikh himself explains that he did, and therefore the person who committed the theft of funds was not identified at the time of the inspection. Thus, it has been established that the actions of an unidentified person contain signs of a crime under Part 1 of Art. . In fact, LLC Tomsk Avia suffered material damage in the amount of 40,000 rubles ().
The witness fully confirmed the examined testimony, indicating that in connection with for a long time, which has passed since the events in question, does not remember the date and number of the accounts provided by Butski. She also testified that after the forgery of documents provided by the defendant was revealed, an employee of Ryzhkov’s accounting department and she herself personally found out by telephone that Butskikh did not live at the Uyut Hotel. I heard R talking to Butskikh, who claimed that he lived in a hotel.
From the testimony of the MOS witness, it follows that she works as the duty administrator of ETC LLC Hotel Uyut. In her job responsibilities includes accommodation of hotel guests and paperwork. Her work schedule is every three days. When checking into the Uyut Hotel, the visitor fills out a form with his own hand indicating his last name, first name and patronymic, date of birth, place of birth, passport details, address permanent place residence, place of work and position. After which she compares the questionnaire data with the passport data. Then the hotel visitor pays for the hotel room, and she (MoS) issues a receipt - an invoice - in the name of the hotel visitor and knocks off a cash register receipt. The receipt-invoice at the Uyut Hotel is issued in three copies: one copy of the receipt-invoice is handed over to the hotel visitor, the second - to the chief accountant of the Uyut Hotel, and the third - to the manager of the Uyut Hotel. After completing registration at the Uyut Hotel, the hotel visitor is recorded in the registration log. DD.MM.YYYY at No. hours she (MOS) took over as duty administrator. When checking the registration log of visitors to the Uyut Hotel for DD.MM.YYYY, it turned out that Butskikh DD.MM.YYYY was not registered at the Uyut Hotel. The presented receipt - invoice No., issued DD.MM.YYYY in the name of Butskikh, was not filled out by her (MOS), this invoice was not filled out in her handwriting. For DD.MM.YYYY the numbers of receipts and invoices began with No. The room number No. indicated in the presented receipt - invoice does not exist in the Uyut Hotel; the numbering of rooms in the hotel begins with the room No. She did not bounce the presented cash register receipt for DD.MM.YYYY; this cash register receipt was not “bounced” at the cash register of the Uyut Hotel. On the presented receipt - invoice, the round seal imprint does not correspond to the actual round seal imprint of the Uyut Hotel. In real receipts - invoices of the Uyut Hotel, the amount of VAT and the name of the duty administrator who issued the receipt - invoice are indicated in writing. In the presented receipt-invoice, neither the VAT amount nor the name of the duty administrator is indicated ().
Witness KOI gave testimony similar to that of MOS, adding that she took over the shift as the duty administrator DD.MM.YYYY and DD.MM.YYYY at hours no. Butskikh neither DD.MM.YYYY nor DD.MM.YYYY was registered at the Uyut Hotel. She did not fill out the receipts presented to her - the invoice for DD.MM.YYYY and DD.MM.YYYY in the name of the Butskikhs, she did not punch out the cash register receipts for DD.MM.YYYY and DD.MM.YYYY, these checks were not punched out on the cash register Hotel "Uyut" (
From the testimony of the KIA witness, it follows that she works in the Tomsk Regional District of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. She interrogated Butskikh as a witness and a suspect. The interrogations were carried out in the presence of a defense lawyer, Butskikh testified voluntarily without exerting any influence, and there were no comments on the protocols of his interrogations from either the defense lawyer or Butskikh. She interrogated NVA as a witness, since the defendant indicated him as the person who provided him with the apartment. The NVA confirmed Butskikh's testimony as a witness.
Witness BMW explained that he and Butskikh work in the same aviation company. In February 2011, he took a refresher course together with the defendant. Classes were held in a building located near Tolmachevo Airport. DD.MM.YYYY, together with Butskikh, attended classes that lasted from No. hours to No. hours. After finishing classes, he and Butskikh went to the nearest cafe “Captain”, where they stayed for an hour and a half, after which they went to no. he left by bus, but the defendant, having met an acquaintance, stayed behind.
In addition to the testimony of the defendant and the witnesses on which the verdict was based, the Butskikhs’ guilt in using a deliberately forged document is objectively confirmed by written evidence examined in court.
A report on the discovery of signs of a crime by the senior inspector of the LLC Tomsk LO Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, police captain MLS from DD.MM.YYYY, according to which it was established that Butskikh, upon arrival from a business trip, provided to the accounting department of Tomsk Avia Airlines LLC invoice No. from DD. MM.YYYY, No. from DD.MM.YYYY, No. from DD.MM.YYYY that he lived in the Uyut Hotel, located at the address: during the periods from DD.MM.YYYY to DD.MM.YYYY, from DD.MM.YYYY to DD.MM.YYYY, from DD.MM.YYYY to DD.MM.YYYY. When checking this information, it was established that Butskikh did not live in this hotel ();
The seizure resolution dated DD.MM.YYYY and the seizure protocol dated DD.MM.YYYY, according to which accounting documentation was seized from the deputy chief accountant of Tomsk Avia Airlines LLC - KEA: advance report No. dated DD.MM.YYYY, accounts No. from DD.MM.YYYY, No. from DD.MM.YYYY and No. from DD.MM.YYYY for accommodation in the Uyut hotel for a total amount of 40,000 rubles, cash receipts for accommodation in this hotel from DD.MM.YYYY in the amount of 16,000 rubles, from DD.MM.YYYY in the amount of 12,000 rubles, from DD.MM.YYYY in the amount of 12,000 rubles, for a total amount of 40,000 rubles, cash receipt for travel by bus by message "", cash receipt for travel by bus by message "", travel certificate No. dated DD.MM.YYYY, service assignment No. dated DD.MM.YYYY addressed to Butskikh ();
Protocol of inspection of items (documents) from DD.MM.YYYY, according to which the following accounting documentation was examined: advance report No. from DD.MM.YYYY, accounts No. from DD.MM.YYYY, No. from DD.MM.YYYY and No. from DD.MM.YYYY for accommodation in the Uyut hotel in, cash receipts for accommodation in this hotel from DD.MM.YYYY in the amount of 16,000 rubles, from DD.MM.YYYY in the amount of 12,000 rubles, from DD.MM.YYYY for the amount of 12,000 rubles, for a total amount of 40,000 rubles, a cash receipt for travel on a bus message "", a cash receipt for travel on a bus message "", travel certificate No. dated DD.MM.YYYY, service assignment No. dated DD.MM.YYYY to name Butskih ()
Resolution on the recognition and inclusion of material evidence in the criminal case from DD.MM.YYYY, according to which the seized and examined accounting documentation was recognized and added to the materials of the criminal case No. as material evidence ();
Resolution on seizure from DD.MM.YYYY, seizure protocol from DD.MM.YYYY, according to which the following were seized from the deputy director for economics and commerce of the Uyut Hotel, located at the address: KVA: round seal impressions of the Uyut Hotel, certified copies of the registration log of visitors of the Uyut Hotel for DD.MM.YYYY, for DD.MM.YYYY, for DD.MM.YYYY, certified copies of the work time sheet for DD.MM.YYYY, account forms No. from DD.MM .YYYY in the name of VNV, No. from DD.MM.YYYY in the name of SMO, No. from DD.MM.YYYY in the name of GOV, No. from DD.MM.YYYY in the name of LLV of the Uyut Hotel, cash receipts of the Uyut Hotel » from DD.MM.YYYY from DD.MM.YYYY and from DD.MM.YYYY ().
The specified items and documents were examined by DD.MM.YYYY (volume no. pp. 62-64), by resolution dated DD.MM.YYYY they were recognized and added to criminal case No. as material evidence (volume no. pp. 65 -66);
A copy of the time sheet of LLC "Operational and Technical Center" of the Uyut Hotel for January 2011, according to which, DD.MM.YYYY, the administrator of the MOS, DD.MM.YYYY and DD.MM.YYYY worked as the administrator of the hotel KOI ( );
Copies of the guest registration log of the Uyut Hotel for DD.MM.YYYY, for DD.MM.YYYY, for DD.MM.YYYY, according to which Butskikh DD.MM.YYYY, DD.MM.YYYY and DD.MM.YYYY in was not registered at the Uyut Hotel (), and therefore did not reside.
Expert conclusion No. from DD.MM.YYYY, according to which: “state account forms: No. from DD.MM.YYYY in the name of VNV, No. from DD.MM.YYYY in the name of SMO, No. from DD.MM.YYYY in the name of GOV , No. from DD.MM.YYYY in the name of LLV of the Uyut Hotel, submitted for examination as samples, and the examined GI account forms: No. from DD.MM.YYYY, No. from DD.MM.YYYY, No. from DD.MM. YYYY hotels "Uyut" in the name of the Butskikhs were completed different ways. The samples were made using the printing method, and the forms addressed to the Butskikhs were made reprographically using the electrophotography method using a laser printer or duplicating device. The seal imprints in the State Account forms: No. from DD.MM.YYYY, No. from DD.MM.YYYY, No. from DD.MM.YYYY of the Uyut Hotel in the name of the Butskikhs are not stamped with the seal of the Uyut Hotel, experimental samples of which submitted for examination. Cash register receipts from DD.MM.YYYY, from DD.MM.YYYY, from DD.MM.YYYY of the Uyut Hotel and cash receipts from DD.MM.YYYY, from DD.MM.YYYY and from DD. MM.YYYY, submitted for examination as a sample, are printed on different cash registers" ();
Expert conclusion No. from DD.MM.YYYY, according to which handwritten entries in the accounts of the State Administration: No. from DD.MM.YYYY, No. from DD.MM.YYYY, No. from DD.MM.YYYY of the Uyut Hotel in the name of Butskikh were made not MOS, not Butskikh and probably not KOI; It is not possible to answer who signed the invoices ().
Analyzing the evidence examined at the trial, the court comes to the conclusion that it was obtained in compliance with the requirements of criminal procedural legislation, is logical, consistent and interconnected. The court did not establish any reasons why the witnesses could incriminate the defendant. The court recognizes the examined evidence as admissible, relevant, reliable and sufficient to qualify the actions of the defendant.
The court reliably established that upon arrival from a business trip, Butskikh provided DD.MM.YYYY to the accounting department of LLC Tomsk Avia, located in, advance report No., to which he attached false invoices No. from DD.MM.YYYY, No. from DD.MM.YYYY and No. from DD.MM.YYYY, according to which he lived in the Uyut Hotel, as well as cash register receipts from the Uyut Hotel for a total amount of 40,000 rubles. The fact that the specified documents were provided to the organization at his place of work is not disputed by the defendant; it is confirmed by the testimony of witness KEA, documents seized from the accounting department of Tomsk Avia Airlines LLC, although in reality Butskikh did not live in this hotel and did not pay for the hotel.
The conclusions of expert No. from DD.MM.YYYY are consistent with the testimony of witnesses MOS and KOI that the handwritten entries in the invoices submitted by Butskikh to the accounting department of Tomsk Avia Airlines were not made by them, and also that the seal impressions on the invoices were made not with the seal of the Uyut Hotel, but cash receipts are printed on different cash registers, not on the cash register of the Uyut Hotel.
From the testimony of witnesses, MOS, KOI, whose duties, as duty administrators of the ETC Hotel Uyut LLC, include, among other things, issuing statements in the name of the hotel visitor, issuing receipts - invoices and a cash register receipt. They did not knock off the cash register checks presented to them for DD.MM.YYYY, DD.MM.YYYY and DD.MM.YYYY, indicating that these checks (presented by the defendants to the advance report for writing off the received funds for living expenses during business trips) were not recorded on the cash register of the Uyut Hotel. The fact of their work as administrators on these days is confirmed by a copy of the work time sheet of Operational and Technical Center LLC of the Uyut Hotel.
The subject of the crime is in this case invoices - receipts, namely: invoice No. from DD.MM.YYYY, invoice No. from DD.MM.YYYY, invoice No. from DD.MM.YYYY, as well as cash receipts for a total amount of 40,000 rubles, provided by the defendant to the accounting department "Airline "Tomsk Avia" DD.MM.YYYY.
Thus, the forged documents provided by the defendant, which are the subject of the crime, certify facts of legal significance, provide the right to use funds issued by Tomsk Avia Airlines LLC, while the information contained in them does not correspond to reality.
The court recognizes the use of forged documents as their presentation by the organization Tomsk Avia Airlines LLC when these documents remain in their custody.
Butskikh’s direct intent to use forged documents is evidenced by the circumstances of the crime, from which it follows that Butskikh, without living in the hotel, provided forged documents from the Uyut Hotel as a report on his business trip. The defendant’s intent is evidenced by Butskikh’s actual actions: providing the employer who sent him on a business trip with forged documents from a hotel in which he did not live. From the testimony of the NVP witnesses, it also follows that the defendant, upon moving into his apartment, explained that providing a business trip report from an official hotel was more convenient for him. Filling out the advance report form with his own hand, as follows from its details, Butskikh provided data from the documents attached to the report, including the invoice for payment for accommodation, which indicated the room number of the Uyut Hotel. The defendant could not help but see that the documents contained no information about his actual residence in private apartment.
Having received funds previously issued to him for accommodation, the defendant illegally, deliberately, in order to extract the useful properties of the documents and personal gain, expressed in writing off this money, provided the accounting department of Tomsk Avia Airlines LLC, advance report No. dated DD.MM. YYYY, to which he attached false invoices No. from DD.MM.YYYY, No. from DD.MM.YYYY and No. from DD.MM.YYYY, confirming the fact of residence at the Uyut Hotel, as well as cash receipts hotel "Uyut" for a total amount of 40,000 rubles, although in reality he did not live in this hotel.
The above refutes the defense version that there was no intent in the Butskys’ actions to use deliberately forged documents and provides grounds for invalidating the defendant’s testimony about ignorance of the falsification of the documents provided by him.
The court considers the defense's arguments that the defendant could not have purchased DD.MM.YYYY near the Uyut Hotel forged documents about his stay in this hotel, since the BMW witness was with Butskikh on that day, untenable. The witness's testimony does not exclude the fact that the defendant purchased forged documents at the place (near the Uyut Hotel) and at the time (daytime) specified in the indictment. Thus, witness BMW confirmed that Butskikh and he were in classes from No. to No. o'clock, then they were together in a cafe. However, he broke up with the defendant DD.MM.YYYY at approximately no. The defense lawyer's reference to the time required to travel from Tolmachevo Airport to the Uyut Hotel also does not indicate the impossibility of the defendant performing the above actions.
The court finds unfounded the defense attorney's arguments about the failure of the Tomsk Transport Prosecutor to take action on the witness's statement to Novitsky dated DD.MM.YYYY, in which he sets out the circumstances of the defendant's receipt of forged documents, similar to the written testimony he submitted to the court. The defender submitted a response to this letter from DD.MM.YYYY according to which the arguments stated by V.A. Novitsky are refuted by the collected evidence and there are no grounds for terminating the criminal case against the Butskikhs. Novitsky was satisfied with the response received from the Deputy Tomsk Transport Prosecutor's Office, since he appealed it.
In addition, the arguments referred to by the defense lawyer do not affect the qualification of the defendant’s actions, since at the court hearing he found confirmation of the fact of the use of Butskikh DD.MM.YYYY by submitting deliberately forged documents to the accounting department of Tomsk Avia Airlines LLC.
The court qualifies Butskikh’s actions under Part 3 of Art. (as amended by the Federal Law dated March 7, 2011 No. 26-FZ), as the use of a deliberately forged document.
When deciding on punishment, the court takes into account all the circumstances of the case, the nature and degree of social danger of the crime committed, the identity of the perpetrator, and circumstances mitigating his responsibility.
The defendant Butskikh committed a crime against the order of management, which the law classifies as a crime of minor gravity.
Butsky aggravating circumstances provided for in Art. , the court has not established.
When assigning a sentence to the defendant, the court takes into account that the place of residence and place of work is characterized only positively.
As a circumstance mitigating the punishment of the defendant Butskikh in accordance with paragraph “g” of Part 1 of Art. , the court recognizes that he has a dependent minor child.
Circumstances aggravating the punishment have not been established, however, there are no grounds for applying the norms of Part 6 of Art. , art. , in relation to the defendant the court does not find.
Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, in conjunction with the data characterizing the personality of Butskikh, the court considers it fair and consistent with the crime committed, imposing a fine on him.
At the same time, by virtue of paragraph “a” of Part 1 of Art. , a person is released from criminal liability if two years have passed from the date of commission of a minor crime.
Since two years have passed since Butskikh committed the crime, he is subject to release from punishment.
Based on the above, guided by art. Art. , - , 367-369 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation court,
SENTENCED:
Butskikh was found guilty of committing a crime under Part 3 of Art. (as amended by Federal Law No. 26 of 03/07/2011), and impose a penalty in the form of a fine in the amount of 40,000 rubles.
Butskikh will be released from the imposed punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution on the basis of clause 3 of part 1 of Art. .
The measure of procedural coercion against the Butskikhs in the form of an obligation to appear upon the entry into force of the sentence is cancelled.
The verdict can be appealed to the Tomsk Regional Court within 10 days from the date of its proclamation. An appeal or complaint is filed through the court that issued the sentence.
Judge signed N.V.Chach
The copy is correct: the judge -
secretary -
Court:
Tomsk District Court (Tomsk region)Defendants:
Butskikh P.V.Judges of the case:
Chach Nadezhda Viktorovna (judge)Judicial practice on:
Misappropriation and embezzlementJudicial practice on the application of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Forgery of documents, state awards, seals
Judicial practice on the application of Art. 327 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation