Criminal Proceedings in the Context of Corporate Conflict: Legal Mechanisms and the Limits of Evidentiary Conclusions
Report D-20 examines the difficult boundary between legitimate criminal enforcement in the business sphere and the use of criminal proceedings as an instrument of corporate pressure. Its central proposition is that the existence of a corporate conflict does not itself establish abuse of criminal process. The basis of the accusation, legality of each coercive measure, and evidence connecting state action with changes in corporate control, property rights or negotiating positions must be assessed separately. ARGA_D-20_Criminal_Proceedings_…
A major part of the study concerns the distinction between commercial failure and criminal conduct. Non-performance of a contract, an unsuccessful transaction or a disputed management decision does not automatically demonstrate criminal intent. Criminal liability requires proof of the relevant legal elements, including intent, authority, conduct, harm and the connection between them. This becomes particularly important after changes in corporate management, when earlier business decisions may be retrospectively reinterpreted.
Through cases including Gusinskiy v. Russia, Cebotari v. Moldova, Merabishvili v. Georgia, Navalnyye v. Russia and Džinić v. Croatia, the report identifies several distinct mechanisms. Some decisions document a connection between public coercion and an ulterior commercial objective. Others establish defects in proportionality, legal classification or procedure without proving a corporate takeover, conspiracy or improper purpose.
The report also examines pre-trial detention in economic cases, seizure of company and third-party assets, bankruptcy, access to documents and digital information, the effect of prior civil judgments, and judicial review. Russian law contains specific safeguards applicable to certain economic proceedings, but these protections do not create a general immunity from legitimate criminal investigation.
The report ultimately distinguishes three levels: corporate context, procedural violation and proven ulterior purpose. Moving from one level to another requires additional evidence. Criminal proceedings can be used improperly and cause disproportionate interference with a business, but they can also provide essential protection against fraud, forged corporate documents and unlawful transfers of control.
Citation Rules
- Mandatory source attributionWhen using ARGA Observatory materials, the full name must be cited.
- Date and version indicationFor analytical reports, the year of publication is mandatory.
- Link to the originalElectronic materials must be accompanied by an active link to the official website.
- Context preservationCitations must not be shortened or altered in a way that distorts the original meaning.
- Note on adaptationIf the text is abridged or translated, state: "adapted from ARGA Observatory report".
- No commercial use without written permission from the organization
- Data accuracy preservationCharts and tables must be reproduced without changes.
Ask the ARGA experts
Four short steps. We reply within one business day.