Misuse of contributions. Misuse of funds by budgetary institutions. The concept of misuse of funds

To view photographs posted on the site in an enlarged size, you need to click on their reduced copies.

What you possess, also possesses you.

Gaius Petronius Arbiter

During the time of Emperor Nero, the Roman poet and satirist Petronius said very precisely and laconically about property, and noticed this in connection with owner. It is precisely this relationship: the use of property and its maintenance that our gardeners do not notice and try to disown it in every way and manner. But it doesn't work. And it won’t work, gentlemen, who are still professing the freebies of the former USSR.

In the process of studying the source material, as well as the practices that have developed in almost any SNT, we can say with complete confidence that targeted contributions unlike members, they have not been and, it seems, in the near future will not be the cause of desperate struggle in gardening associations. This is due to two main reasons, which are completely opposite to each other:

On the one side gardeners, having heard from the mouth of the chairman of the board about the amount of the target contribution and the ultimate goal of collecting it, they wisely reason: “Well, finally our board got around to investing money in a business, in an object that everyone needs.” That is, all gardeners, without exception, understand: why and why they collect in SNT target contribution.

On the other hand, the board and gardeners, completely consciously and confidently investing money in the IOP (object), do not understand and do not foresee that after the implementation of targeted funds, a project, a program, conflicts will inevitably arise in the SNT. These conflicts, once flared up, will not subside for years. And no one even tries to connect them with the beginning, the origins of the day when the general meeting of SNT members made an incompletely thought-out decision on collecting a targeted contribution and its amount for gardeners.

Based on the above, the importance of the target contribution for any SNT, we will determine the questions for this page:

What is a target contribution and how does it differ from a membership fee?
Which principle of collecting targeted contributions should be used in SNT?
How to calculate correctly target contribution amount in SNT?
How to avoid conflicts in SNT related to targeted contributions?

Let's try to figure it out, fellow gardeners!

Targeted contributions to SNT.
Differences from membership fees, principles of collection, amount.

Determining whether contributions are membership or target

The current edition of Federal Law-66 dated April 15, 1998 “On gardening, gardening and dacha non-profit associations of citizens” interprets the definition of a target contribution as follows:

The examples can be continued indefinitely. Let's touch on another difficult case. We are again talking about public roads. The general meeting decided to modernize the central passages and instead of soil, after leveling the surface, add crushed stone and sand. What contributions should I give to this event: membership or targeted? In our SNT, where by resolution of the Kaliningrad mayor’s office No. 2232 of 08/07/2002 “On amendments to the city mayor’s resolutions on the provision of land to gardening partnerships and citizen members of partnerships,” public land (PLO), that is, roads, is divided between gardeners in equal shares (each cut 50 m² without allocation in kind) must submit a targeted contribution, because the PDO does not belong to SNT. And, besides, what the gardeners planned is not at all similar to the current pothole or leveling repairs, i.e. cannot be attributed to maintenance, i.e. membership fee. The targeted contribution will definitely increase the cost of 50 m² of PDO for each gardener in SNT.

The main differences between targeted contributions and membership fees in SNT:

The table deliberately does not present entrance fees and other cash receipts to SNT in accordance with the norms of Federal Law-66 of April 15, 1998, because These revenues are not basic and regular.

Let’s put an end to this for now regarding the differences between targeted contributions and membership fees. It's time to understand the principles of collecting targeted contributions and their sizes.

The principle of collecting targeted contributions to SNT

First, let's try to understand everything that arises and revolves around targeted contributions to SNT. This point is no less important in making the right decision at general meetings of gardening partnerships. It should be noted that the justification for the principle of collecting a membership fee tied to a square meter of the owner’s garden plot is simpler. Here, in the case of a targeted contribution, everything is much more complicated.

Let's see how the issue is resolved principle of collecting targeted contributions in some SNT, and some SNT always applies this principle. Other partnerships do the same, including our “Pishchevik”. Let us also note that this principle is incorrect and subsequently leads to conflicts between gardeners and the board due to violation of the principle of social justice.

So, in some SNT they decided to smuggle in electricity. Good idea, isn't it!? The board, having realized what was what, came up with a proposal to the general meeting: to set a target contribution for the construction of power lines and everything accompanying it in the amount of 50,000 rubles per site.

After some time, gardeners have light. It would seem that everything is wonderful, everyone should be happy. But from this moment the problems begin. And they, worthless ones, will always begin, and for all types of property created with targeted contributions.

We are talking about the maintenance of the constructed power line and payment for consumed electricity. The board, not at all concerned with studying the right and wrong ways to resolve this issue, informs gardeners (in the best case, this is submitted for approval by the general meeting of SNT members) that from the moment electricity is supplied they (gardeners) will be required to pay a tariff, for example, according to 4 rubles per 1 kW/h of electricity. (reference: in 2012, the tariff for 1 kWh was set by the government of the Kaliningrad region in the amount of 2.86 rubles). When asked about the strange difference, the board replies that, they say, it is necessary to maintain the line (repair faulty equipment, pay the electrician’s salary, pay for losses, etc.) As a rule, everyone agrees with this, and for some time the fire of rebellion dies down.

Go ahead. Now many gardeners live in SNT permanently. This means that such gardeners spend more electricity than summer residents. Hence they pay more for the electricity consumed. This is where the question creeps into their heads: “Why, in fact, should we pay more for an electrician’s salary than others? And why should we pay more for the repair of power lines? Does an electrician, servicing a common power line for all, work more on permanently residing in SNT? You won’t get an intelligible answer from the board in this situation, because... it didn’t understand the situation from the beginning. And if the tariff also includes money that goes directly into the board’s pocket, then the answer is obvious: “If you don’t like it, we’ll turn off the lights!”

There may be another option, when board members themselves come to the realization that this should not be the case. The search for a solution leads to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, or more precisely to Section II “Ownership and other property rights”.

From the very beginning, gardeners created public property, which includes the notorious power lines, which are owned by gardeners, because the latter made targeted contributions. And by virtue of the norms of Article 4, Clause 2 of Federal Law-66 “Forms of horticultural, gardening and dacha non-profit associations,” they are not SNT funds and are taken into account separately. This means that the power lines belong to the gardeners on the right of common shared ownership.

Important: Property may be in common ownership with the determination of the share of each owner in the right of ownership (common ownership) or without determining such shares (joint ownership), when the law provides for the formation of joint ownership of this property.

It follows from this that in our case, on the basis of Federal Law-66 and the Civil Code, gardeners created common shared ownership. And nothing more. “Moreover” will be when at the general meeting it is determined that common shared property is created using targeted contributions, with the determination of everyone’s share in this property. And this is exactly how, and not otherwise, it should be written down in the minutes of the general meeting. But! No one does this and no one writes protocols. This happens everywhere in SNT. Therefore, as a result, we have: the shares of the participants are not determined on the basis of the law and are not established by agreement (minutes of the general meeting of owners or members of SNT) of all owners. This means that the shares are considered equal (Article 245 of the Civil Code "").

What's next? And then gardeners who permanently live in SNT easily come to the only correct decision based on Art. 249 of the Civil Code "": all gardeners, regardless of the electricity consumed, must make equal contributions for the maintenance of power lines. In other words, making the share of each gardener-owner in the electrician’s salary dependent on the amount of electricity consumed is illegal (more details about tariffs and maintenance of electrical equipment in SNT). As a result, SNT resolves the conflict: all owners of the power line spend the same amount on its maintenance. Everyone is happy for a while.

But another conflict begins to brew. Gardeners - summer residents, who visit their plots only in the summer, begin to cry: “How is it that I spend 500 kW/h a year, and permanent residents spend 500 kW/h a month, but we pay the same for maintenance. It’s unfair.” I agree that it is unfair, but it is legal. But where is the guarantee that tomorrow a summer resident will not turn into a permanent resident? Where is the guarantee that tomorrow he will not spend 500 kW/h of electricity per month? The summer resident always has the right to such expenses. For example, in our SNT there are such gardeners. And their number increases from year to year.

To turn the situation around in SNT, gardeners must, at a general meeting, determine the shares of participants in the common property (in power lines). Moreover, in order for gardeners permanently residing in SNT to pay more for maintenance, it is necessary to ensure that their shares are greater than those of summer residents. Let's assume that the summer residents, of whom there are more, will push through such a decision at a general meeting. In this case, gardeners permanently residing in the partnership will go to court. The basis for the claim, to cancel the imaginary victory of the summer residents and return to the initial stage of the conflict, will be precisely the same 50,000 rubles that the gardeners paid in the form of a targeted contribution for the construction of power lines. It is very doubtful that the court would make any other decision other than establishing the principle of equality, i.e., the principle of equal shares in common property for gardeners. Why are we considering all this in such detail? And to that:

Conclusion: For SNT, collecting targeted funds for the creation (purchase) of common property on the basis of equal targeted contributions is unacceptable.

There is an opinion on the World Wide Web that the principle of collecting targeted money can be established depending on the length of gardeners’ garden plots. Let's figure it out! It would not be a mistake if we assume the following: in each SNT there are garden plots that differ significantly from each other in length, incl. the length of the boundaries attributable to passages (streets). Let’s assume that one gardener’s driveway border is 30 meters, and another’s is 15 meters. At the same time, the area of ​​the garden plot of the first is 6 acres, and that of the second is 8.

Based on the boundaries of these two sections, the power line laid in such a SNT for targeted contributions on public land, and owned by gardeners on the right of common shared ownership, will be 30 meters and 15, respectively. And if so, then, using the false principle of social justice, without delving into the arguments of those who disagree, the general meeting decides that the target contribution should be twice as much from the first gardener as from the second. The main argument is one: since the gardener, as it were, owns a longer piece of power lines, then his target contribution should be larger. Great! And discontent is brewing among the members of the partnership.

The fact is that targeted contributions create common shared ownership. If these shares are different, then the content of these shares will be different (Article 249 of the Civil Code). In our case, current repairs of power lines, an electrician’s salary, and transformer maintenance will cost the owner 6 acres with a total PDO limit of 2,000 rubles per year, and the owner 8 acres with a lower total limit of 1,000 rubles. But, there is one "but". The owner of 6 acres has a garden house on the plot and it consumes 200 kWh per year, and the second one has a 2-story mansion on the plot. Its consumption per year amounts to 10,000 kW/h. It's kind of unfair, isn't it?

Similarly, this principle can be considered for garden plots with different lengths of common boundaries according to the PDO for gas pipelines, water pipelines and many other objects (IOP) created in SNT.

Conclusion: The principle of collecting targeted contributions depending on the length of the boundaries of the garden plot along the border of public land in the conditions of SNT is unacceptable, because violates social justice.

There are still 3 principles remaining, in accordance with which the amount of targeted contributions can be set. These are similar to those outlined on the Membership Fees page. Let's stop briefly:

1 principle for determining the size of the target contribution for membership in SNT. That is, one member of the partnership makes one target contribution. Member contributions are equal. Let us recall one contradiction: What to do if one SNT member owns, for example, 3 plots? It's somehow unfair. Two equal contributions are made by two SNT members, and behind them there are 4 plots: one gardener has one garden plot, the other has 3.

2 principle for determining the size of the target contribution by plot. That is, one plot - one target contribution, two plots - two contributions. But what if the gardener owns one plot with one cadastral number, combined from 3 plots? The answer, I think, is obvious.

3 principle of determining the amount of the target contribution in proportion to the size of the plot. The explanation is the most elementary: whoever has more pays more. This principle is described in more detail on the page " ". There's no point in repeating myself. Let us only add that even if on a large plot today at the time the decision is made by the general meeting there is one small house, then tomorrow a large cottage with many outbuildings may appear here. And all these structures will consume electricity, water, gas, etc., etc., etc. But on a small plot of 4 acres, a gardener cannot build a cottage. The law prohibits this.

Last thing. A gardener - the owner of a large plot, who has made a larger target contribution, will be forced to maintain the created (acquired) IEP in a larger amount than a gardener - the owner of a small plot. And this is fully consistent with the norms of the Civil Code, Federal Law-66 of April 15, 1998 and the principle of social justice.

The legislator is moving in the same direction, proposing in the new edition of Federal Law-66 a new additional 17 subclause in Article 21 (link to the project at the beginning of the Main page of the SNT "Pishchevik" website).

Article 21. Competence of the general meeting of members of a horticultural, gardening or dacha non-profit association (meeting of authorized representatives) Federal Law-66 of 04/15/1998

1. The exclusive competence of the general meeting of members of a horticultural, gardening and dacha non-profit association (meeting of authorized representatives) includes the following issues:
add subparagraph 17 with the following content:

17) approval of the amount and procedure for payment of membership, target and other fees based on the annual reports of the board and the audit commission (auditor) in proportion to the area occupied by the land plot. The association's charter may provide for a different procedure for determining individual contributions and payments, the amount of which does not depend on the area of ​​the occupied site;

In the proposed version of the law, the relevant committee of the State Duma of the Russian Federation leaves a loophole for SNT, according to which it is possible to establish a principle different from the proportional area of ​​an individual garden plot for determining the size of individual contributions and payments. Let’s not fantasize, let’s look at a specific example of such a contribution, which is nevertheless included in the general membership fee, as its integral part.

Example: In our SNT "Pishchevik", public land, in accordance with the resolution of the Kaliningrad mayor's office No. 2232 of 08/07/2002, is provided as common shared ownership of 50 m² without allocation in kind with payment of land tax. According to this document of the mayor's office and Art. 249 “Costs for the maintenance of property in shared ownership” of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in a partnership it is impossible to make a decision to allocate targeted money for the modernization of public roads, based on the principle of a square meter (area) of an individual garden plot, because The shares of each gardener in our case are equal. It is also impossible to make a decision on collecting a membership fee based on the principle of a square meter, which is intended to carry out routine road repairs, for the same reason. There can only be one calculation: each gardener will have to, according to the decision of the general meeting that approved the cost estimate for the next year, invest the same amount for everyone in the IOP (roads or public land).

This example just confirms the fact that in each SNT and its features there may well be other correct and legal solutions. And the legislator meets such SNT halfway.

The gardener may have another legitimate question: “What about the IEP, which has already been created and all targeted contributions have been made long ago, and their size was equal for everyone?” The answer is discouragingly simple: “No way!” Let's figure it out!?

Target contribution amount

The practice of SNT shows that before making a decision on the amount, procedure and timing of making targeted contributions, SNT comprehensively studies the issue of a future public facility. And only when the final amount (cost) of the object, even approximate, becomes clear, a general meeting of future owners convenes and a decision is made, approving everything related to the object, including, first of all, the target contribution and its size. Please note that, as a rule, the target contribution is determined by the general meeting as equal for all participants. This decision fully complies with the provisions of Article 245 " " of the Civil Code in the part that states that the general meeting of owners can determine the size of the share in the common property for each participant once. There is no other time. The law does not allow this, according to the scientific and practical commentary to this article of the Civil Code.

The only case that can influence the situation in the direction of a turn towards justice is the following: when making a decision, the general meeting does not determine the final share of each gardener in the created IEP, but decides to collect, for example, 1000 rubles per month from each for the electrification of SNT, replenishing , thus, the trust fund until the required amount is received. After completing the plan, the gardeners at their meeting may well determine everyone’s share in the created electrical farm, depending on the size of the plot. The accountant will only have to calculate the amount of refund of overpaid amounts to gardeners-owners of small plots and the amount of additional payments for gardeners-owners of large plots.

However, this issue can and should be resolved immediately, i.e., before the first target contribution to the trust fund arrives. If SNT has the final cost of the object, then it is easy to calculate all stages of financing the project, making them dependent on the size of the plot of each participant (the future owner of the IOP). Including if this cost is approximate at the first stage of property creation.

From all of the above we can conclude:

Conclusion: The target contribution to the SNT for the creation of public property (facility) should be calculated in proportion to the size of the individual garden plot of each co-owner participating in the project.
The principle of dependence of the target contribution on the area of ​​an individual plot may not apply if the meeting of owners or the law determines the shares in the individual investment project (object) as equal.
The law or the general meeting of owners has the right to redistribute the size of shares in an individual proprietorship (object) once. It is most advisable for the general meeting to determine the shares of each gardener in the IOP (object) before the collection of targeted contributions begins.

We can summarize: we have dealt with three important types of contributions to SNT. But they all concern members of SNT. But the problems of gardeners, who occupy a significant place in partnerships, and at the same time stand apart from the members of SNT, still remain unresolved. Based on the requests from gardeners received on the site’s mailbox and forum, one can easily assume the huge losses suffered by SNT and all active members of partnerships due to non-payments by gardeners engaged in individual gardening activities, and, nevertheless, actively using IEP. And many questions and misunderstandings also arise regarding such individual gardeners. Next is the page: “Contributions and payments of gardeners who garden individually in SNT” (the link does not work yet, the page is being prepared for publication).

The use of budget funds is based on two fundamental principles: targeted nature and targeting. It is not allowed to be spent according to arbitrary orders. However, in our society the phenomenon of misuse of public funds is by no means uncommon. This is usually due to budget overpayments. In all cases, administrative and even criminal sanctions are provided for violations in the use of budget money.

Key provisions for budgetary funds are enshrined in regulations. The main role is given to the “Budget Code of the Russian Federation” dated July 31, 1998 N 145-FZ.

The list of financial offenses is presented:

Thus, the misuse of budget funds occurs due to an incorrect interpretation of the classification of the expense item. This is largely due to the fact of corruption. But in some cases, errors are systemic in nature and must be identified by the supervisory body - the Accounts Chamber.

Payment of wages

Financial violations in the public sector of labor are considered one of the most serious in the classification. Here we also distinguish between the factor of arithmetic errors and deliberate overpayments for the purpose of illegal appropriation of budget funds.

Undue payments may be submitted:

• inflating wages bypassing labor standards and
• allowance under the guise of paying subsidies
• allowances and additional payments to existing earnings
• bonuses and financial rewards for success in work
• compensation not provided for by the staff regulations (moral or physical harm to health)
• other non-targeted cash payments

Separately, it should be noted violations in the management sphere, when management sets various additional payments for themselves from budget funds. A striking example: finances are intended to reward deserving employees of the organization, but go towards the salary of the general director or chief accountant. From a legal point of view, this is a direct violation of Art. 22 of the Labor Code (Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Allowances, incentive payments and bonuses make up the total budgetary wage fund. According to the regulations, the boss's salary is based on the average wages of employees in the amount of five times. Consequently, overpayments to the manager are a gross violation of labor laws.

The following are also recognized as illegal payments:

• Calculation of wages for work on weekends and holidays
• incorrect calculation of average salary
• incentive payments for work according to an unspecified schedule and scope of responsibilities
• errors when accounting for allowances for work in the Far North or at hazardous sites

As a result, improper payments are associated both with an error in calculations and with deliberate overstatement of salaries.

Expenditure of funds during repair and construction work

The construction industry requires particularly accurate calculations. This is due to the fact that during repair and construction work several financial sources are involved at once. When implementing the state housing construction program, budget money is taken into account.

Wrongful expenditure violations typically involve actual or partial payment of unfulfilled construction obligations. Before spending budget funds, expert measurements of the scope of work should be made and performed. As a rule, installation problems have:

1. Deliberate overestimation of construction estimates.
2. Overestimation of the physical scope of repair and construction work.
3. Carrying out the purchase of building materials for several financial items.
4. Repeated payment for the same construction work.
5. Making payments to third party contractors, etc.

On a note! When determining financial expenditures from the budget, technical standards are usually used. The documents are presented by such instructions as GESN or FER (TER).

You can avoid improper spending of the budget during construction work by drawing up documentation. It displays the following requirements:

• information on technical inspection of capital construction projects and calculation of design and estimate indicators
• the price list for future work is formed taking into account market prices and inflation (if not possible, approximate indicators at the time of drawing up the plan)
• must provide a link to the price list used as the basis for determining material costs
• the final amount of major repairs is formed minus the cost of dismantled elements, if the latter remain suitable for further use in construction

When calculating the use of the budget, primary documentation must be taken into account: orders, invoices, estimates, price lists, etc.

Business travel violations

Going on a business trip is one of the elements of the work routine in organizations and enterprises. According to Art. 167 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, business travelers receive monetary allowance and retain their place of work until their return.

The employer is required to reimburse the employee for the following expenses:

1. Costs for travel to the place of business trip (payment for gasoline - if it is the employee’s personal car, tickets for a bus, train, plane, sea or other type of transport).
2. Costs of paying for accommodation (rented apartment, hotel, dorm room).
3. Daily allowances are necessary for an employee’s accommodation away from their main place of work (costs of food, rest, etc.).
4. Other expenses incurred by an employee while on a business trip: obtaining a visa, consular pass, etc.

According to the rules, expenses are reimbursed immediately upon the employee’s arrival. In order for costs to be reimbursed in full, a complete expense report must be provided. Note that the first violations are allowed here: on the one hand, the employer may doubt the legality of the expenses and not pay some of them. On the other hand, costs can be covered to a greater extent. Moreover, budget funds are used for financing.

Example: according to local enterprise regulations, business travelers must live in a rented apartment. Bypassing this rule, the employer allows his deputy to check into the hotel. Consequently, the expense portion will be reimbursed as the cost of living in a hotel room. Unjustified expenses will be included in the budget item, thereby violating the target principle.

Carrying out an inspection

Timely suppression of the misuse of the budget falls within the competence of the regulatory authorities - the Accounts Chamber and the Russian Financial Supervision Authority.

When checking the intended use of budget funds, a special procedure is applied:

1. a developed plan of financial and economic activities for the current year (and in some cases for the next)
2. confirmation of budget execution within the framework of economic activities (number of employees, agreement for the use of property)

• A written and oral survey of those involved in the expenditure of budget money (general director, chief accountant, staff employees, etc.) - not only funds, but also budget property are subject to verification.
• Carrying out the continuous ownership of the subject - assessment of the target and targeted principles, efficiency of use, safety from premature loss.

Financial accounting allows you to identify both unintentional and intentional errors in calculating the use of budget funds. Sanctions are represented by a verbal warning, reprimand, removal from office or financial compensation for damage. Identified criminal offenses are considered in court according to a special procedure.

Responsibility for violations

Misuse of budget money entails administrative and criminal liability.

Administrative penalties in accordance with Art. 15.14 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is presented:

• imposition of a fine in the amount of 20,000 to 50,000 rubles (individuals), compensation from 5 to 25% of the amount of the unlawfully used budget (legal entities)
• disqualification (holding a position) from 1 to 3 years

Criminal in nature in accordance with Part 1 of Article 285.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are presented:

• imposition of a fine in the amount of 100,000 to 300,000 rubles (or deductions from the income of the convicted person for two years)
• forced labor for up to 2 years with parallel removal from office for up to 3 years
• temporary restriction of freedom for up to six months
• imprisonment for up to 3 years

As practice shows, most often convicts are removed from office and forced to cover the damage they caused.

The application of criminal penalties depends on the extent of the damage. The countdown begins with major damage from misuse of the budget - from 1.5 million rubles. A much more serious one starts at 7.5 million rubles.

Thus, misuse of budget funds is a malicious violation of current legislation. Unreasonable payments are suppressed by supervisory authorities. Violations are subject to administrative and criminal liability.

Write your question in the form below

Read also:

• 
  Deprivation of bonus for violation of labor discipline -...
• 
  Supplement for work in the Far North...
• 
  Summarized recording of working hours is what:...
• 
  What is an effective contract in education: what...

The intended use of budget revenues is established by virtue of Art. 38 BC. It means communicating allocations and commitment limits to specific recipients, indicating the directions for their distribution. Let us consider further cases of misuse of budget funds.

Terminology

Misuse of budget funds is a budget violation. Explanations are given in Part 1 of Art. 306.4 BC. According to the provisions of the article, the direction of budget revenues and the payment of obligations for purposes that do not fully or partially correspond to those defined in the decision (law) on the budget, estimate, schedule, agreement or other document serving as the basis for the provision of these funds are recognized as inappropriate. Violation under Art. 306.1, part 1 of the BC recognizes failure to comply with the requirements of the Code, legislative and other regulations governing financial legal relations, agreements and other acts in force in this area. It is also considered the inaction/action of the main manager, administrator of funding sources, authorized body, recipient of funds. For committing the specified violations in Ch. 30 BC provides for the use of appropriate coercive measures.

Recipients

The concept of these subjects is explained in Art. 6 BC. The recipients are the following bodies:

• State power.
• Office of State Funds (non-budgetary).
• Local authorities.
• Municipal administration under the authority of the administrator.

All of them must have the right to accept or fulfill financial obligations on behalf of a public legal organization at the expense of the relevant fund. The budgetary institution does not act as a recipient. Therefore, he is not subject to the provisions of Part 1 of Art. 306.1 BC. However, it is necessary to take into account Part 2 of this article, which also mentions the misuse of budget funds. Responsibility in this regard arises for inaction/action that violates the bookkeeping code and other regulatory documents regulating financial legal relations. In this case, coercive measures can be applied to entities that are not participants. It follows from this that misuse of budgetary funds by a budgetary institution is also prosecuted by law.

Types of violations

A fine for misuse of budget funds may be imposed for:

KOSGU

In accordance with Art. 18, clause 1 of the BC, budget classification is used for the preparation and subsequent execution of income and expense items. It is presented in the form of a grouping of revenues, costs and sources of covering deficits. It also includes a classification for operations in the public administration sector (KOSGU). The procedure for its application is approved by the Ministry of Finance. In particular, for financial departments, lists of expenses are established that must be allocated to certain sub-articles and articles of KOSGU.

The grouping of operations in this classification is carried out depending on their content. Moreover, each article and subarticle contains a brief description of the process. As for costs, operations in them are characterized by lists of areas for spending finances. For effective planning and proper execution of the budget, issues related to the reflection of costs under articles or subarticles of KOSGU can be regulated by the budget estimate, state assignment, methodological instructions (recommendations) of the manager and other documents that act as the basis for receiving the corresponding revenue.

The inclusion of material assets in the corresponding group of non-financial assets (inventories or fixed assets) is within the competence of the budgetary institution. It makes one decision or another, guided by instruction No. 157n. This takes into account the purpose of the valuables and the procedure for their use.

Explanations from the Ministry of Finance

In the event of misuse of budget funds identified by regulatory authorities, it is necessary to objectively, comprehensively and completely establish the circumstances in their totality. Such an order is present in the letter from the Ministry of Finance. In addition, the Ministry insists on clarifying all the reasons and conditions that contributed to the attribution of costs to certain sub-items/items in each individual situation.

Exceptions

If it is revealed that the recipient has incorrectly allocated expenses to sub-items/articles of KOSGU after performing a comprehensive analysis, this violation is not considered as misuse of budget funds if:

1. Costs are determined by the estimate or justifications attached to it, documents confirming compliance with the limits of obligations, planning and other acts of the main manager using information from KOSGU.
2. It is proven that the recipient committed erroneous actions unintentionally.

Misuse of budget funds: responsibility

It is established in the Administrative Code. In particular, under Art. 15.14 for misuse of budget funds, the punishment for officials is as follows:

1. Disqualification for 1-3 years.
2. Administrative penalty. Its size is 20-50 thousand rubles.

Legal entities are also subject to sanctions. They will have to pay from 5 to 25% of the amount misdirected.

Subsidies

They are due to budgetary institutions in accordance with Art. 78.1, part 1 BC. Subsidies are used to finance the execution of state or municipal tasks. These revenues are calculated taking into account standard expenses for the provision of relevant services by organizations and maintenance of property. Subsidies may also be provided for other purposes. The procedure in accordance with which such financing is carried out is approved by the government, the highest executive structure, the administration of the Moscow Region or authorized bodies of state power and territorial administration.

Subsidies for other purposes, except those allocated for capital investments, are provided in the manner agreed with the Ministry of Finance. Financing is carried out by bodies having the powers and functions of the founders. In accordance with the approved procedure, special provisions are provided that indicate the goals, conditions, amount, rules and timing of the transfer of funds. The concluded agreement between the recipient and the manager thus acts as the basis for the provision of financing.

PFHD

The above agreement is not the only document that can confirm the misuse of budget funds. The Russian Federation, acting as a rule-of-law state, establishes fairly stringent requirements and rules in its regulations relating to the financial sector. In particular, the work of organizations receiving state funding is carried out in accordance with the PFHD (plan for financial and economic activities). The requirements for this document are established by order of the Ministry of Finance. In accordance with them, the PFCD must include such sections as:

1. Data on the activities of a municipal/state institution, including information about the types and purposes, the list of services/work performed for a fee.
2. Indicators of the financial position of the organization. This section provides information about assets and liabilities as of the last reporting day preceding the date of formation of the plan.
3. Indicators of receipts and payments (planned).
4. Activities for the strategic development of the organization.

Thus, actual actions must coincide with those planned. Inappropriate use of budget funds is identified by comparing the information from the financial statements and the actual situation.

UK

In addition to administrative ones, criminal sanctions are also provided for the misuse of budget funds. In particular, they are established in Art. 285.1, part 1 of the Criminal Code. The formulation of the crime under this article is similar to that given in the Code of Administrative Offenses. However, in this case, for misuse of budget funds, the guilty person faces not only payment to the state of 100-300 thousand rubles, but also:

1. Arrest for up to six months.
2. Imprisonment for up to 2 years.
3. Forced labor for up to 2 years.

In addition, the court may prohibit an official from engaging in a specific activity or holding a certain position for 3 years. It is worth noting that these sanctions are applied in case of misuse of funds on a large scale. An amount exceeding 1.5 million rubles is recognized as it. A size of 7.5 million rubles or more will be considered especially large.

Appealing the findings of regulatory services

Often, the position of the inspected institution does not coincide with the opinion of the authorized supervisory authorities on the issue of the legality of spending funds. Challenging the conclusions of the control service is allowed both pre-trial and directly in court. The first is usually prescribed in regulations governing the activities of financial supervisory authorities.

In particular, the inspected organization may submit written objections to the decisions of the regulatory services no later than 5 days (working days) from the date of receipt of the conclusion. In its application, the institution must indicate the specific page of the act with which it does not agree. In addition, the objection cites articles of legislation that prove the organization is right. Comments can also be presented in a table. One column will state the controllers' findings, and the other will state the position of the audited organization. If this does not have an effect, the case will be dealt with in court.

If the state has allocated money from the budget to an organization for certain purposes, it will closely monitor that it is used exclusively for its intended purpose. Using budget money for other tasks is already a serious offense. How to qualify such actions? Who is held accountable if violations are committed by a budget organization or an organization that received a subsidy? How is it decided whether misuse has occurred? We discuss it in the article.

Features of the concept of misuse of funds

The distribution of public funds is under the jurisdiction of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation.

Art. 38 of this code states that the allocation of funds from the budget of any level cannot occur without a precise indication of the purpose of financing. And part 1 art. 306.4 BC RF precisely defines misuse of budget funds– directing them and paying their obligations for completely or partially other purposes than indicated in the document defining the appropriation:

• budget law;
• consolidated budget list;
• budget estimate;
• subsidy agreement;
• agreement;
• in another authorized document.

Thus, the violation itself consists of the action or inaction of the manager of budget money and the recipient of funds, which entailed a discrepancy between the expenditure goals and the above regulations.

Consequences of inappropriate spending

In addition to liability for the offense, which we will discuss below, this identified action has legal and factual consequences. They depend on the level and form of complete misuse of money provided by the budget:

1. Violation of the goal was committed by one of the financial authorities or representatives:
   • chief manager;
   • manager;
   • recipient of budget funds.

If identified, part of the violator’s financial powers is transferred to the commissioner for a particular budget.

2. Errors in interbudgetary financing: money from another is allocated for the purposes of one budget. Incorrectly contributed funds will be recovered from the budget that received them unlawfully, plus a fee for their use. The program of these financial transfers may also be suspended or reduced.

Types of misuse of public finances

This offense can be classified according to the types of participants:

• allowing misuse by participants of the budget process;
• violation of the goals of directing funds from the budget by autonomous institutions.

NOTE! Despite the fact that in the 2nd case, budget money, before being used, in fact becomes the funds of autonomous institutions (transferred to their current accounts), their use for the purposes stated in the agreement (agreement) remains strictly mandatory and controlled. These are no longer “budget funds”, but still “funds from the budget”, which are subject to the requirements of administrative legislation regarding budget violations (Article 15.14 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

Options for funds from the budget “for the wrong purposes”

Groups of examples of costs “not based on objectives” were born from practice. Inspection activities monitoring the use of public finances have identified the following types of the most common violations that can be classified as inappropriate expenses:

• according to the business plan for a particular financial year, expenses were not envisaged, but were incurred;
• the level of the funding budget is mixed up, for example, obligations that are intended to be financed by the municipal budget are repaid using funds from the federal budget;
• Budget funds were used to pay for goals intended for extra-budgetary sources;
• this money financed the costs of another organization;
• the money was used to pay for services outside the activities of the financed organization;
• the tenants took advantage of budget money and did not reimburse these expenses;
• costs of financing facilities without an accepted design estimate;
• violation of the conditions for providing subsidies;
• funding has been shifted across budget sections: funds from some sections finance the goals of other sections;
• profit from investing budget funds is not used according to the financial and economic plan;
• incorrect movement of finances according to articles and sub-articles of the budget classification, which distributes operations across sectors of government.

Subsidies applied inappropriately

When budget money is allocated on the basis of a contract (agreement), we talk about subsidizing. Breach of contract in terms of agreed financing objectives is not uncommon. Judicial practice identifies the following common cases of misdirection of government subsidies:

1. Payment for the wrong services. The terms of the subsidy or government assignment stipulated the targeting of services paid for through the subsidy, and the money was spent on things that were not specified in the agreement. For example, an educational institution paid for the insurance policies of its employees with subsidized money: the state task includes only educational services, and not legal ones, which had to be paid for from extra-budgetary funds.
2. Payment for services not provided. The work according to the documents has been completed, which is confirmed by the acceptance certificate, and the budget money for its payment has been written off. The audit reveals that in fact the contractor did not provide the mentioned services - in whole or in part. There is an administrative violation by the person who signed the act, which is why the subsidy was not used for its intended purpose. In this case, it is not so important whether these services corresponded to the purposes of the subsidy: after all, the funds, undoubtedly, were spent unreasonably in any case, and therefore unlawfully.
3. Payment for the maintenance of someone else's property. The institution pays with state money for the maintenance of property that does not belong to it. The state task provides for the costs of maintaining property attached to the organization, directly related to the target activity. But if you prove in court that the expenses for unattached property are regular and related to the state task, you can achieve recognition of the illegality of the violation.

Who is guilty

Any violation entails liability. Who is responsible for this in case of improper spending of budget funds?

First of all, on the organization itself. Legal entities may be fined and their activities suspended.

Secondly, to a specific official. A person may receive fines, be sent to forced labor, lose the right to occupy specific positions, or even be deprived of liberty for a period specified by law.

Such an official is most often the manager as responsible for economic issues. His signature is required on all important financial documents - without it they will not entail legal action. But sometimes, instead of the manager, the paper is signed by an authorized person, for example, a deputy. If the right to sign has been officially transferred to him, then he will have to answer in case of violations.

IMPORTANT! Legal responsibility for violating the purpose of using budget funds rests with the person whose signature on financial documents entailed the corresponding action.

Forms of responsibility

This type of violation provides for two types of liability: administrative and criminal.

Administrative penalties for “non-targeting”

Sanctions for the use of budget funds for other purposes are provided for in Art. 15.14 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. If there are no signs of a criminal act in the violation:

• the organization will get off with a fine, which will range from 5 to 20% of the non-targeted money;
• the official will be disqualified for 1-3 years or fined 20-50 thousand rubles.

Criminal penalties for failure to meet budget goals

Such crimes are considered by Art. 285.1 “Misuse of budget funds” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. According to it, the following may be applied to the guilty official:

• fine from 100 to 300 thousand rubles;
• a fine in the amount of his salary or other annual or two-year income;
• forced labor with excommunication from certain positions for 1-3 years;
• arrest for up to six months;
• imprisonment for up to 2 years with or without deprivation of the right to certain activities for the next 3 years (or without such a ban).

The punishment will become more severe if the misuse was carried out by a group of people or its size turned out to be particularly large (7.5 million rubles or more were wasted from the budget):

• the fine will increase to 200-500 thousand rubles;
• duration of forced labor – up to 5 years;
• terms of imprisonment - up to 5 years.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION! The letter of the law classifies “non-targeting” as an offense only if intent to commit it is proven. Otherwise an error occurs. If the inspectors made a decision on a budget violation, but it was committed unintentionally, then the legality of the sanctions can be challenged in court.

Legal relations between the healthcare system, medical insurance companies, and the compulsory medical insurance within the compulsory medical insurance structure are coordinated by the legislative act of October 29, 2010 No. 326-FZ “On compulsory health insurance in the Russian Federation.” According to the regulatory act, medical institutions are required to manage compulsory health insurance funds for their intended purpose. Thanks to judicial practice, a huge number of cases of illegal use of cash subsidies from compulsory medical insurance are revealed. Controversial situations arise between compulsory medical insurance controllers and representatives of medical organizations. What exactly is called misuse of compulsory medical insurance funds? What are examples of such situations? What measures do authorized authorities take regarding a medical company that has violated the law? We will answer these questions in this article.

The essence of the concept of misuse of compulsory medical insurance subsidies

By law, state medical companies use the compulsory medical insurance fund to provide assistance and purchase medications only to the extent and conditions established by the basic or territorial program under Federal Law. The program includes expenses:

• For the purchase of medicines, medical equipment, food products;
• For payments for laboratory and instrumental tests that are required to be made by another institution due to the lack of a license or diagnostic equipment from the main company;
• For catering, if this is not provided or cannot be carried out on the hospital premises;
• For payments for communication services, provision of transport, work and services for the maintenance of the building, rent for the use of premises; payments for software, housing and communal services;
• Social guarantees for medical workers in accordance with the law;
• For the purchase of medical equipment in the amount of up to 100 thousand rubles inclusive for each type of equipment;
• For payments to a medical organization for the provision of medical care;
• A number of costs necessary for the general organization of the medical activities of the institution.

For each specified item in the list of program services, a tariff is provided. Spending more than the tariff is considered inappropriate spending or exceeding the established limit. Often, inappropriate spending of the compulsory medical insurance fund occurs due to an incorrect interpretation of the law by the management of the institution. Funds may be spent in violation if the conditions of not only the Federal Law, but also local regulations and local regulations of the state company are not met.

How is misuse of compulsory medical insurance funds detected?

Each region has a Territorial Compulsory Health Insurance Fund (TFOMS). The functionality of the fund includes presenting demands to a medical institution regarding the return of funds to the TFOMS budget that the company spent for other purposes. That is, search and detection of misappropriation of funds is the exclusive right of the Territorial Fund. Inspections are regularly carried out in those organizations that carry out medical activities. We are talking about institutions included in the register of companies that operate in the field of compulsory health insurance. Identification of inappropriate use is the main task of each control audit by the TFOMS.

What measures are taken after violations are identified?

One of the most important tasks of carrying out control activities is the elimination of identified violations related to the misuse of budget funds and the illegal disposal of state property, as well as punishment of those responsible and compensation for damage to the state. If representatives of the territorial body establish violations, the final part of the inspection report shall indicate:

• Information about the amounts of inappropriate expenses;
• Directions where they were spent by the institution;
• Request for the return of the amount spent to the TFOMS budget;
• Information about the amount of fines and penalties.

According to Art. 39 of Part 9 of the Federal Law of October 29, 2010, the fine for violation is set at 10% of the amount of inappropriate spending and a penalty of 0.01 of the refinancing rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation current at the time of the audit. Payment of the fine is made by the medical institution within 10 working days from the date of receipt of the request. If the territorial body of the compulsory medical insurance reveals serious violations in the disposal of funds that will require immediate remedial measures, a representative of the inspection organization has the right to transfer the information to the courts. By decision of the court, the guilty employees will be held accountable and they will be charged with responsibility.

What are examples of misuse of funds by medical organizations and disputes between authorized bodies?

To determine the inappropriate nature of the use of budget funds, it is necessary to take into account the correlation of the result of use with the purpose pursued when allocating these funds. Judicial practice shows that the court does not always agree with the requirements of the TFOMS. There are various situations when a preventive measure is applied partly due to the fact that the judge makes different conclusions.

Examples of court decisions on misuse of funds by a medical institution

Moscow City Clinic No. 23 purchased medical equipment worth over 100 thousand rubles. per unit of goods. The court, by decision No. 305-KG15-17571 of January 22, 2016, ruled that this fact cannot be considered an inappropriate expenditure, but that there is only an excess of expenditure limits, for which responsibility is in the form of return (restoration) of all spent funds, with the accrual of penalties and a fine is not established by Article 39 of Law No. 326-FZ.

Based on the results of the audit, it was established that the city hospital of Mednogorsk does not have a license to provide emergency specialized medical care, but compulsory medical insurance funds were received for this. During the trial, the court found that the lack of a license was due to the reorganization of the institution. The court, by decision No. F09-8098/16 of August 12, 2016, ruled that the hospital’s refusal to provide assistance would be contrary to Art. 41 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and Art. Art. 4-7, 10, 11 of Law No. 323-FZ. Since the license was again obtained after the reorganization, the court did not recognize that the expenditure of funds was inappropriate.

Polyclinic No. 1 in Ust-Ilimsk used compulsory medical insurance funds to pay for services for replacing windows and paying for estimate documentation for major repairs. As part of the government contract, work was performed that did not comply with the design estimates and technical specifications submitted by the customer for an open auction. The Arbitration Court of the Irkutsk Region recognized the fact of misappropriation of funds by decision No. A19-690/2015 and ordered the medical organization to return 220,460 rubles, as well as pay a fine in the amount of 22,046 rubles.

In the course of checking the use of compulsory health insurance funds by the territorial compulsory health insurance fund, it may be established that the medical institution has made expenses not provided for by the Territorial programs of state guarantees for the provision of free medical care to citizens of the Russian Federation for the corresponding years. To avoid controversial situations regarding items of expenditure of funds from the Compulsory Medical Insurance Fund, it is recommended to always seek advice from a lawyer in the field of health insurance.

Conclusion

For misuse of funds allocated by the Compulsory Medical Insurance Fund, institutions bear special responsibility in the form of sanctions and fines. Such liability applies only after proof of misuse of funding through control inspections of a medical institution.