On January 5, the Kyiv Appeal Court considered a complaint against the decision of the Solomensky District Court to bring the citizen of Italy, Pizuto Marilena, to administrative liability. Recall that in October 2016 a woman was detained at the airport "Zhulyany" for trying to bring in a box of shoes 230 thousand. Euro and more than 783 thousand dollars


The judge of the Solomensk court imposed on Italian a fine of more than 26 million UAH and decided to confiscate funds which are the direct object of violation of customs rules for violation of Part 1 of Art. 483 of the Customs Code of Ukraine (hereinafter - CC).


During the hearing at the Court of Appeal, it was found that the employees of the customs post identified cash in the Pizuto Marilena suitcase until the moment when the Ukrainian customs border was stopped. The judge of the Court of Appeal concluded that during the customs control, the woman committed all actions that they considered necessary to move the goods across the state border of Ukraine. However, due to reasons beyond the control of her will, the movement was not completed.


Thus, in the actions of Pizuto Marilena, there is no composition of the completed administrative violation stipulated in Part 1 of Article 483 of the CC (the movement of goods across the customs border of Ukraine with concealment from customs control, that is, by providing one product of the kind of others).


The witness - the inspector of the customs clearance department No. 5 of the customs post "Airport Kiev" - confirmed that the Italian did not move the funds seized from her through the customs border of Ukraine, as her actions were suspended until the crossing of the customs border.


The Court of Appeal did not reveal in the actions of Pizuto Marilena the fact of concealing goods from customs control, that is, the use of special caches, storage facilities or other means that impede the discovery of goods, or giving other goods the appearance of others.


The fact that the money was placed in a box of the SANAHUNT trade mark cannot be regarded as providing one kind of things to others, according to the explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine of June 3. 2005 №8.


The court of appeal did not find the composition of an administrative violation in the actions of the Italian citizen and closed the proceedings in this case. The funds seized under the protocol were returned to Pizuto Marilene.