Originally, FAS intended to set turnover-based fines so that obstructing audits would have the same consequences as making an anticompetitive agreement, since colluders preferred to pay a minor fine for obstruction of audit rather than a turnover-based fine.
Anton Seliverstov believes that the intended objective of preventing banned organizations from deriving income from Russian users is misconceived, since it is impossible to make payments to social networks for promotion without complicated workarounds. Moreover, Russian law enforcement agencies are likely to consider such transactions as financing of extremist activity. Therefore, the prohibition proposed by the bill does not serve its purpose, as payments for advertising to the owners of such information resources are actually restricted and carry high and unjustified legal risks, the expert says.
It is a noteworthy case since the courts applied a broad interpretation of the circumstances mitigating liability, which is not typical for this category of cases. Moreover, the Supreme Court noted that the "maximum fine" rule can have two meanings in the CAO: it may be an element for calculating a fine and it may limit it, i.e. serve as its upper limit. "Thus, the SC departed from the literal interpretation and looked deeper into the rule: it is designed to reduce the administrative burden on SMEs, and it does not matter how the fine was determined or whether the limitation is applicable."
Read the full article on Pravo.ru.