Questions and answers on currency control and Article 15.25 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences

The registration thresholds are RUB 3 million for import contracts, RUB 10 million for export contracts and RUB 3 million for loan agreements, including borrowing and lending by a resident. Check the agreement's scope and rouble equivalent against the applicable rules.

Calculate the rouble equivalent using the official Bank of Russia rate on the relevant contract or amendment date. An amendment that takes the value above the threshold can trigger registration. Establish the deadline from the applicable transaction and amendment rules rather than assuming that every amendment allows 15 working days.

Registration deadlines depend on the transaction. Relevant triggers include the payment instruction for a debit, a 15-working-day period after a credit where applicable, and filing the goods declaration for the relevant import. Identify the trigger before the first payment or shipment; there is no single deadline for every contract.

Prepare the contract, the information required by the bank and the expected dates for payment or performance. Confirm the bank's requirements for copies and translations; a foreign-language contract does not automatically require a notarised copy.

Failures to register or report may fall under different parts of Article 15.25. A corporate fine of RUB 40,000–50,000 applies to certain reporting offences, but a delay exceeding 30 days is not a universal classification rule. Check the particular duty, length of delay and applicable provision, including Parts 6–6.5 where relevant.

For an export transaction subject to repatriation requirements, the contract's payment deadline is important to currency control. Check whether the duty covers the proceeds, currency and payment route concerned before treating a late payment as a breach of Article 19 of Federal Law No. 173-ФЗ.

Where the import advance is subject to a repayment duty, establish when the goods, services or work were due and when the advance must be returned if performance fails. Read those dates alongside the applicable statutory exceptions and special rules.

Before the original deadline expires, consider a genuine contractual extension and complete the required bank updates. Send a documented payment demand to the non-resident and notify the bank. Court or arbitration proceedings may help establish the recovery steps taken, but neither an amendment nor a claim automatically removes liability.

Liability for a repatriation breach under Article 19 of Federal Law No. 173-ФЗ depends on the relevant part and version of Article 15.25, the person concerned, the currency and whether payment was eventually received. Where a daily component applies, verify the calculation based on 1/150 of the Bank of Russia key rate. Do not apply a blanket 75–100% fine to every shortfall.

Document recovery efforts and any circumstances that genuinely prevented payment: demands, proceedings and enforcement applications. Those facts may support a defence based on the applicable liability rules or exemptions. Part 4.1 of Article 15.25 should not be treated as a general exemption for circumstances beyond the resident's control.

Article 15.25(1) concerns unlawful currency transactions, including prohibited transactions and breaches of required payment procedures. The fine for individuals, individual entrepreneurs and companies is 20–40% of the unlawful transaction amount. Check the rules and exceptions for the particular cash or foreign-account payment. Late notification of an account does not by itself make every transaction through that account unlawful.

Article 15.25(4) concerns specified failures to receive funds where the relevant duty applies. The fine depends on the applicable provision and transaction; it is not a universal 100% of unpaid proceeds.

Statistical reporting for movements of goods within the EAEU is a separate obligation. Do not confuse it with Article 15.25(4.2). Identify the statistical form, reporting deadline and applicable offence before calculating any fine.

A possible scenario is an export contract with a counterparty in Pakistan, Iran or China whose payment remains overdue for months. Before responding to an FTS case under Article 15.25(4), establish whether repatriation was required, the operative deadline, the reason for non-payment and the correct sanction.

Defence options:

1. Document circumstances beyond the resident's control and the reasonable steps taken to secure payment. Assess them under the applicable liability rules and exemptions, not an assumed general exemption in Article 15.25(4.1).

2. Challenge the legal classification. For example, payment within a validly extended deadline may defeat an allegation based on the original date, subject to the applicable rules and evidence of the amendment.

3. Present mitigating circumstances under Article 4.2 and assess whether Article 4.1(3.2) permits a below-minimum fine. The available relief depends on the statutory conditions; it is not inherently restricted to commercial courts.

4. Check the two-year limitation period under Article 4.5 against the offence date and any applicable suspension. The relevant question is whether a penalty decision was made in time, not merely when the case was opened.

For example, a contract may require payment within 90 days of shipment. Before that period ends, the parties may agree a specific 180-day deadline where legally permissible. Send the amendment to the bank promptly and meet the applicable update deadline; do not assume that signing alone updates the bank's records.

Sign the amendment before the original deadline; do not backdate it. State a definite new date, complete the required bank update and identify the contracting parties accurately. Document any assignment or other change of party separately where required.

Repeated extensions need a credible commercial explanation and a consistent documentary record. They should not disguise a fictitious transaction or an attempt to avoid a repatriation duty.

Keep evidence explaining each extension: correspondence, the counterparty's financial position and relevant sanctions, currency restrictions or other external events. Preserve demands, foreign court claims or arbitration filings that show genuine recovery efforts. A five-year document-retention plan may be useful, but check any different mandatory period.

An amendment signed even one day after the original deadline may leave an earlier breach unresolved. Liability still requires the applicable statutory conditions. Backdating does not cure the problem: the bank can compare the date with the actual correspondence and document history.

Relevant obstacles may include the non-resident's bankruptcy, sanctions blocking transfers, war, civil unrest, force majeure or a foreign court or regulatory order preventing payment. Support each with the relevant records. Claims and judgments involving a defaulting counterparty must show what actually prevented recovery; their existence alone is not enough.

Evidence to prepare before proceedings under Article 15.25:

1. Recovery measures: demands and notices to the non-resident, with proof of dispatch and receipt.

2. Litigation or arbitration records: claims abroad or in international arbitration, resulting decisions and enforcement steps.

3. The non-resident's circumstances: bankruptcy, liquidation and defaults to other creditors.

4. External events: official records of sanctions, currency restrictions or hostilities in the non-resident's country.

5. Internal records: counterparty correspondence, risk assessments, alternative arrangements considered and reports on recovery efforts.

A general reference to sanctions or an unpaid invoice does not establish a defence. Document each obstacle and show how it prevented receipt of the funds, together with the steps taken to overcome it.

A commercial court can reassess the evidence when reviewing an administrative penalty. Present a complete account of the external obstacles and recovery efforts, without assuming that courts apply a more lenient standard than the FTS.

An administrative appeal may be made to the competent higher authority or official. The ordinary ten-day appeal period is tied to receipt or service of the decision, not simply its issue date. Confirm the competent FTS or Bank of Russia recipient, the filing route and the applicable time-computation rules.

A commercial-court challenge is available where the dispute falls within that court's jurisdiction. Check the ten-day filing period under the applicable procedure, its starting event and the effect of any administrative appeal. An administrative appeal is not a universal prerequisite, and venue should not be assumed to depend only on the authority's address.

Chapter 25 of the Commercial Procedure Code governs the relevant administrative-offence proceedings. The court may set aside or amend a penalty, including reducing a fine where permitted. Check the applicable hearing period rather than assuming two months, and assess each further appeal against its own admissibility rules.

Possible grounds for setting aside a penalty:

1. No offence: the alleged event did not occur or does not meet the elements of the offence charged.

2. Material procedural defects: inadequate notice of the offence report, denial of defence rights or a penalty imposed outside the applicable two-year period under Article 4.5.

3. Evidence that circumstances beyond the resident's control prevented receipt of proceeds, assessed under the applicable liability rules and exemptions.

4. Grounds for reducing a disproportionate fine under Article 4.1(3.2), where its conditions are met.

5. Insignificance under Article 2.9, where applicable, allowing release from administrative liability with an oral warning.

When choosing an administrative appeal, prepare for a possible court challenge at the same time. Record service dates and calculate each deadline under the correct procedure, so that waiting for one decision does not jeopardise another remedy.

Documents commonly relevant to an audit:

1. The foreign trade contract, with all schedules and amendments.

2. Bank registration records: contract details, correspondence and the bank's control records.

3. Performance records: invoices, packing lists, B/L, CMR or AWB transport documents, import or export declarations, acceptance records, service reports and completion certificates.

4. Payment records: foreign-currency and rouble account statements, SWIFT messages and the bank's currency-control statement.

5. Evidence of the non-resident's outstanding balance: reconciliations, correspondence and interest or contractual-penalty calculations.

6. For overdue funds, evidence of recovery efforts: demands, claims, judgments and bank correspondence about suspended payments.

Identify the lawful response deadline in the request; do not assume a standard 10–30-day period. Failure to provide documents may carry a penalty, but the offence and amount depend on the duty breached. The RUB 40,000–50,000 corporate range is not a universal sanction for every unanswered request.

Preparing the response:

1. Submit an organised set of documents with an index and covering letter. Make each document's relevance clear to reduce avoidable follow-up requests.

2. Provide documents in Russian or with the required translation. For foreign contracts and invoices, check the FTS's lawful requirements for certification.

3. Identify and explain discrepancies, such as differences between invoice and payment amounts, before submitting the response.

4. Set a documented retention period for currency-control records and do not destroy them before the applicable legal period expires. A five-year internal policy should not be confused with a universal five-year rule in Article 23 of Federal Law No. 173-ФЗ.

5. Obtain advice on Federal Law No. 173-ФЗ before giving substantive explanations. Statements that conflict with the documents can complicate a later defence.

Use the prescribed notification form and submit it through the taxpayer's online account or to the relevant tax inspectorate in paper form. Confirm the form applicable on the filing date.

Foreign-account transaction reporting is separate from an opening notification. Individuals generally report annually under Government Resolution No. 1365 of 12 December 2015, subject to applicable exemptions. Companies and individual entrepreneurs follow separate quarterly reporting rules. Account location and information-exchange arrangements may affect the duty.

Penalties for notification and reporting failures:

— A late or improperly submitted account notification is distinct from failure to notify. For companies, Article 15.25(2) provides RUB 50,000–100,000 for the former; Article 15.25(2.1) provides RUB 800,000–1,000,000 for the latter. The offence and applicable version must match the facts.

— Failure to submit an account-transaction report and late submission must be classified separately. The corporate RUB 40,000–50,000 range under Article 15.25(6) is not a universal fine for every reporting delay.

Review the notification breach separately from the legality of each foreign-account transaction. A missed notification deadline does not automatically turn all payments into unlawful transactions or produce a fine equal to their full value.

Submit a missed notification promptly and retain proof. Document the reasons for the delay, such as technical failure, illness or force majeure, and present any relevant mitigating circumstances to the FTS. Late compliance does not automatically remove the original breach.

For example, sanctions or correspondent-bank restrictions may prevent direct payment to a foreign supplier. A Russian company instead pays roubles to an intermediary, which settles with the supplier abroad. Review both payments and their contractual connection, rather than assuming that two transfers necessarily have one legal classification.

Article 6 of Federal Law No. 173-ФЗ addresses transactions between residents and non-residents. An intermediary's lack of an authorised-bank licence is not, by itself, proof that an agency payment is prohibited. Check the parties, accounts, currency, legal basis and applicable restrictions before assessing Article 15.25 exposure.

Payment arrangements to assess:

1. A genuine agency arrangement under which a resident acts in its own name for the principal's account. Check the agreement and payment route through the required banking infrastructure. Do not assume that every trade agent needs a separate currency licence or that an agency agreement alone makes payment lawful.

2. Payment through an authorised bank with suitable correspondent relationships. Confirm that the route is available for the parties and transaction; sanctions can interrupt those relationships.

3. An available bank clearing arrangement involving EAEU, CIS or BRICS countries. Verify the specific system, participating banks and legal basis; membership of those groups does not itself create a simplified payment route.

Arrangements to avoid:

1. Undocumented payments through individuals who transfer funds abroad. Examine the person's role and the true payment purpose. Article 193.1 of the Criminal Code requires its specific elements; it does not criminalise every payment involving an individual intermediary.

2. Cryptocurrency or other digital-asset payments that do not comply with the applicable framework, including Federal Law No. 259-ФЗ where relevant. Different types of digital assets must not be treated as interchangeable.

3. Presenting a payment as barter when that does not reflect the actual transaction.

If proceedings begin, reconstruct the transaction's genuine commercial purpose and payment history. Keep bank correspondence explaining why direct payment was unavailable and evidence of the relevant sanctions. Those facts explain the choice of route; they do not automatically legalise a prohibited payment.

For a genuinely continuing offence, the discovery date may determine the start of the limitation period. A completed payment through a foreign account is not automatically a continuing offence, and an unreported account does not by itself make each payment unlawful. Test the authority's classification against the actual duty and event.

For a one-off offence, identify the legally relevant commission date and calculate the two-year period. A penalty imposed outside that period can be challenged. Expiry during an appeal does not, by itself, invalidate a penalty that was lawfully imposed in time.

Start with the operative contractual deadline, including valid amendments. For example, if payment was due on 31 December 2023, non-performance on 1 January 2024 may be the relevant event for a two-year calculation extending to January 2026. Confirm the precise final day, applicable version and any suspension before relying on 1 January 2026 as the deadline.

The limitation period is not generally restarted by investigative steps. Check any statutory suspension, including the period for transferring a case following an approved request to hear it at the person's place of residence. Do not assume that every procedural delay suspends time.

Limitation checks for the defence:

1. Identify the commission date and two-year period for each alleged offence. A time-barred episode cannot support a new penalty merely because other episodes remain in time.

2. Where a continuing offence is alleged, first test that classification. Then check the documented discovery date in the audit record, offence report or other relevant evidence.

3. Raise limitation where it bars liability, whether before the inspectorate, commercial court or Supreme Court. Distinguish a late penalty from one imposed in time and challenged later.

If limitation bars a penalty for every alleged episode, the case may be resolved on that ground without deciding the substantive allegations.