Tax-free crime: new fiction from the investigation

The investigation has a good old tradition:

If your tax history doesn't work out, you can always call an expert.
The expert will do the math, write a nice conclusion... and it's almost "tax evasion".
But then the Supreme Court appears (17.03.2026, case No. 758/9/18) and breaks this scenario a little 👇

📌 The plot of the case in brief:

The tax authorities issued a tax violation notification letter.
The taxpayer went to the administrative court.
The courts said:
👉 TIW - cancel.
And, it would seem, the final.

But no.

Criminal proceedings under Art. 212 of the CCU continue to live their lives 🤷‍♂️
Because there is an "ironclad argument" from the prosecution:
📄 economic expertise that "confirms" tax evasion.

😂 And this is where the fun begins:

The prosecutor said:
- So what if the TACs are canceled? We have an expert!
- And the witnesses!
- And the papers!
- In fact, let's interrogate someone else!

The Supreme Court responds:

- Of course, this is all very exciting... but no 😄

⚖️ The court's position is as simple and painful as possible for the prosecution:
👉 If the TND is canceled and this decision has entered into force
If there is no agreed tax liability

then:

❗️ there is no tax debt as a legal fact
❗️ no shortfall in budget revenues
❗️ no corpus delicti under Art. 212 of the CCU
💥 And now the main punchline:

The court explicitly states:

🧠 an expert is not a tax office
📊 an expert is not a body that reconciles tax liabilities
⚖️ and even a very smart expert

👉 cannot replace the PPR

🤌 That is, we translate from legal to human:

If the court has already said:
"You don't owe the state anything"
is the version:
"But the expert believes they are guilty"
- looks something like this:
"The court canceled the fine, but the neighbor calculated that you still have to pay" 😅

📉 What else is important:

The Supreme Court actually "kills" the argument:
👉 "Let's also examine the evidence, call witnesses, look at the expertise"
Because if there is no basic element - an agreed PPR,
then all these actions are like repairing a car without an engine 🚗

🎯 The end of the case:

The court said:

👉 there is no other option but to justify it

Because:

📌 administrative courts have already decided everything
📌 no tax liabilities - none
📌 crime is "in the air"
😎 What it means for practice:
1. It will become a little more difficult for the investigation to "draw" the 212th through examinations
2. The defense gets a very strong argument
3. Another proof for business: a tax dispute must be won to the end

🤔 And now to be honest:

Will this stop the "expert creatives"?

- The Supreme Court said "stop"
- but whether they will hear is an open question

Because, as practice shows:

sometimes our experts are more confident than the courts 😅

🔥 Conclusion:

Without an agreed PPR:
👉 no debt
👉 no losses
👉 no 212 of the CCU
And expertise... is not a magic wand

#212CriminalCode # SupremeCourt #axes #criminal #courtPractice #lawyerSirko