The seller Mikheev was brought to administrative responsibility under Art. 14.5 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation for the sale of one chewing gum worth three rubles without the use of a cash register.
The district court, having considered Mikheeva’s complaint against the ruling of the tax inspectorate, decided to cancel the ruling and discontinue the proceedings, stating that although Mikheeva’s actions contained all signs of an administrative offense under Art. 14.5 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, but due to its insignificance, it should be exempt from administrative liability.
Upon the protest of the prosecutor, the judge of the regional court overturned the decision of the district court, leaving the decision of the head of the tax inspectorate in force, indicating that, firstly, Mikheeva committed an administrative offense intentionally, because she knew in advance about the need to use CCM, which is written in her labor contract, secondly, insignificance cannot be applied to formal structures, and thirdly, only the body that considers the case on the merits, but not reviewing it on complaints, can recognize a minor offense .
Give a legal analysis of the composition of an administrative offense, with the characteristic features of the object, the objective side, the subject and the subjective side. Is it possible to apply in this case exemption from administrative liability for insignificance, if so, under what conditions and in what order? Have the competent authorities dealt with the case?
After payment you will be available a link to the solution of this problem in the file of MS Word. It should be noted that the problem solutions put up for sale were successfully handed over in the period 2003-2018 and could be outdated. However, the general algorithm will always remain true.
No feedback yet