Ineffective Use of Budgetary Funds: An Overview of Arbitration Practice. Failure to use the budget - someone's stupidity, sabotage or ...? Reasons for non-disbursement of funds

The issues of the effectiveness of the use of budgetary funds are always of great importance in the implementation of state (municipal) financial control. Recall that the principle of the effectiveness of the use of funds, given in Art. 34 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation means that when drawing up and executing budgets, participants budget process within the framework of the budgetary powers established by him, must proceed from the need to achieve the specified results using the least amount of funds or achieve the best results using the amount of funds specified in the budget.

In addition to the designated article, there is not a single regulatory document that answers the question of what is ineffective use of funds. Moreover, neither the Ministry of Finance nor the legislators bothered to develop and approve the criteria for that very efficiency. In other words, any inspector, when carrying out a control event, determines the degree of efficiency or inefficiency of the use of funds based solely on his own understanding of the named term. In this article, we provide an overview of several court decisions related to control measures, in which the auditors identified cases of ineffective use of funds. We hope that the material will be of interest to our readers.

Is it possible to apply to budgetary and autonomous institutions the provisions of Art. 34 BC RF?

As we have already noted, Art. 34 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation established the principle of the effectiveness and efficiency of the use of budgetary funds, which means that when drawing up and executing budgets, participants in the budgetary process within the framework of the established budgetary powers should proceed from the need to achieve specified results using the least amount of funds or achieve the best result using a volume defined by the budget. funds.

By virtue of Art. 6 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, recipients of budgetary funds (funds of the corresponding budget) - a government body (government body), a government non-budgetary fund management body, a local government body, a local administration that is under the jurisdiction of the main manager (manager) of budgetary funds, a government agency that has the right to receive and (or) fulfill budgetary obligations on behalf of the public-law entity at the expense of the corresponding budget.

Since neither budget nor autonomous institutions are not recipients of budgetary funds, the requirement for compliance with Art. 34 of the RF BC, the principle of efficiency cannot be applied to them. This conclusion was reached by the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal in its resolutions dated 01.12.2015 No. 09AP-42351/2015, 09AP-42588/2015.

In addition, in clause 23 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated June 22, 2006 No. 23 "On some issues of the application by arbitration courts of the norms of the Budget Code Russian Federation»Clarified: when assessing compliance by the participants of the budget process with this principle, the courts must take into account that the participants in the budget process, within the framework of the implementation of their tasks and within the limits of budget funds allocated for certain purposes, independently determine the need, expediency and economic feasibility of performing a specific expenditure transaction. In this regard, a specific expenditure transaction can be recognized as ineffective spending of budgetary funds only if the control body will prove

It turns out that in order to draw a conclusion about the ineffective use of funds, the auditor must collect and attach to the act documentary evidence confirming the fact of the violation.

Is the payment of fines and penalties ineffective?

The subject of the proceedings in the AS ZSO (Decree of 06.10.2015 No. A27-20425 / 2014) was the complaint of the Federal State Institution "Main Bureau of Medical and Social Expertise in the Kemerovo Region" (hereinafter in the section - the institution) to the Territorial Administration of Rosfinnadzor in the Kemerovo Region (hereinafter in the section - Management).

Based on the results of the audit carried out by the department of the financial and economic activities of the institution in 2013, an act of 10.07.2014 was drawn up, from the content of which it follows that in violation of the requirements of Art. 34, 162 BC RF funds federal budget in the amount of 90 611 thousand rubles. sent by the institution to pay a fine for late return of the rented premises (27,312 thousand rubles), interest for using other people's funds (38,055 thousand rubles) and for late payment of payment for reimbursement of utilities and maintenance services (9,244 thousand rubles .), state fees for legal costs (16,000 thousand rubles).

Let us recall that a forfeit (fine, penalty interest) is a sum of money determined by law or by an agreement, which the debtor is obliged to pay to the creditor in case of non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of an obligation, in particular in case of delay in fulfillment. Upon the demand for payment of the penalty, the creditor is not obliged to prove the damage caused to him (clause 1 of article 330 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). An agreement on a penalty must be drawn up in writing, otherwise it is invalid (Art. 331 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation for the use of other people's funds due to their unlawful withholding, evasion of their return, other delay in their payment, or unjustified receipt or savings at the expense of another person, interest is payable on the amount of these funds. It should be noted that, in contrast to the forfeit, interest for the use of someone else's money can be collected even if the specified condition is not included in the agreement (contract).

On the basis of the inspection report, the department issued a submission of 08/07/2014 No. 50, in which the institution was asked to take measures to eliminate the causes and conditions conducive to the commission of violations identified by the inspection within 30 days from the receipt of the submission. Disagreeing with the findings of the inspectors, the institution went to court.

Refusing to satisfy the institution's demand to invalidate the above submission, the courts relied on the following. Established by Art. 34 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, the principle of the effectiveness of the use of budgetary funds means that when drawing up and executing budgets, participants in the budgetary process within the framework of the budgetary powers established by them should proceed from the need to achieve the specified results using the least amount of funds (economy) and (or) the need to achieve the best result using the amount of funds determined by the budget (effectiveness).

According to Art. 162 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, the recipient of budgetary funds ensures the effectiveness, targeted use of the budgetary appropriations provided for it.

Based on the meaning and content of the aforementioned legal norms, the courts noted that the costs of paying a fine for late return of the rented premises, interest for the use of other people's funds and for late payment of payment for reimbursement of utilities and maintenance services, as well as court costs are not considered a given result of activities institutions, and the costs of these needs are ineffective.

In view of the above, the amount of any fines and penalties paid by the recipient of budgetary funds may be deemed ineffective.

Payment of travel on a business trip in excess of the established size

According to Art. 168 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the procedure and amount of reimbursement of expenses related to business trips, to persons who have entered into an employment contract for work in federal state bodies, employees of state extrabudgetary funds RF, federal state institutions are determined by the regulatory legal acts of the RF Government. In turn, the procedure and amount of reimbursement of expenses related to business trips to persons who have concluded an employment contract for work in state bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, employees of state institutions of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, persons working in local self-government bodies, employees of municipal institutions are provided for by regulatory legal acts of bodies state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local government bodies. The procedure and amount of reimbursement of expenses related to business trips to employees of other employers are determined by a collective agreement or local regulatory act, unless otherwise provided Labor Code, other federal laws and regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation.

Considering the above, we note that state (municipal) institutions, when sending employees on business trips, are obliged to be guided by the rules of compensation travel expensesapproved by the Government of the Russian Federation, state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation or local government bodies. To independently establish such norms even at the expense of funds received from income-generating activities, they not entitled.

For example, federal state civil servants are reimbursed for business travel expenses in accordance with the norms specified in clause 21 of the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 18, 2005 No. 813 "On the procedure and conditions for sending federal state civil servants". Persons who are not federal civil servants, but who work in institutions funded by the federal budget, are reimbursed for business travel expenses in the amounts established by the Government of the Russian Federation dated 02.10.2002 No. 729 "On the amount of reimbursement of expenses related to business trips in the territory Of the Russian Federation, employees of organizations financed from the federal budget ”(hereinafter - Resolution No. 729).

When checking the correctness of reimbursement of funds when sending employees on business trips, controllers always pay attention to compliance with established standards. So, according to paragraphs. "C" clause 1 of Resolution No. 729 travel expenses to the place of business trip and back to the place of permanent work are reimbursed in the amount of actual expenses confirmed by travel documents, but not higher than the cost of travel:

  • by rail - in the compartment carriage of a fast corporate train;
  • by water transport - in the cabin of the V group of a sea vessel of regular transport lines and lines with complex passenger services, in the cabin of the II category of a river vessel of all lines of communication, in a cabin of the I category of a ferry vessel;
  • by air - in an economy class cabin;
  • by road - in a public transport vehicle (except for taxis).
However, it should be noted that, by virtue of clause 3 of Resolution No. 729, expenses exceeding the amounts established by clause 1 of this document, as well as other expenses related to business trips (provided that they are made by the employee with the permission or knowledge of the employer) are reimbursed by organizations for by saving funds allocated from the federal budget for their maintenance, and at the expense of funds received by organizations from entrepreneurial and other income-generating activities. Consequently, the institution has the right to exceed the established norms with the permission or knowledge of the head of the institution. However, such costs can be recognized ineffective.

The Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated 01.02.2016 No. 09AP-55065/2015 considered the complaint of the Federal State Treasury Institution "Directorate for the Construction and Operation of Rosgranitsa Objects" (hereinafter in the section - the institution) to Rosfinnadzor on invalidating the order dated 04.06.2015 No. AS -03-24 / 3438.

As established by the court, Rosfinnadzor in the period from 03/11/2015 to 04/07/2015 audited the use of federal budget funds in 2013 - 2014, including those aimed at implementing the federal target program "State Border of the Russian Federation (2012 - 2020)" (State the program of the Russian Federation "Ensuring state security"), at the Institution.

During the audit of the use of federal budget funds in 2013 - 2014, Rosfinnadzor revealed facts of acceptance and reimbursement of expenses to employees for the period to the place of business trip and back at the actual cost of air travel in business class cabins and reimbursement of expenses for using the lounges of officials and delegations at airports (VIP-lounges), as well as unreasonable reimbursement of travel expenses to the place of work and back of persons whose work is traveling in nature, without the approval of the procedure and amount of reimbursement of travel expenses for employees by local regulations of the institution.

Thus, during the audit, it was revealed that during the audited period, the expenses of employees of the institution for travel to the place of business trip and back were accepted and reimbursed at the actual cost of air travel in business class cabins, and the costs of using the lounges of officials of delegations at airports (VIP lounges ).

In connection with the foregoing, Rosfinnadzor concluded that the institution violated the principle of the effectiveness of the use of budgetary funds, established by Art. 34 BC RF.

Based on the results of the consideration of the case, the court concluded that the institution in 2013 - 2014 violated the principle of the effectiveness of the use of budgetary funds, established by Art. 34 of the RF BC, in terms of accepting and reimbursing employees of travel expenses to the place of business trip and back at the actual cost of air travel in business class cabins and reimbursement of expenses for using the lounges of delegation officials at airports (VIP lounges).

At the same time, the court noted that paragraph 1 of Government Resolution No. 729 provides for reimbursement of travel expenses to the place of business trip and back in the amount of actual expenses confirmed by travel documents, but not higher than the cost of air travel in an economy class cabin.

Thus, the payment of this category of expenses should be made regardless of the category of staff of the institution.

When considering the institution's argument about the consent of the higher authority (Rosgranitsa) to reimburse the costs of travel to the place of business trip and back in business class, the court took into account that the institution sent memorandums long before sending employees on a business trip, and without the attachment of supporting documents for the absence of economy class tickets, or the impossibility of acquiring them... In addition, the memoranda lacks information about the sending person, the place and time of the trip, as well as information substantiating the real reasons for the need to fly in business class, etc.

Taking into account the fact that the memoranda are based on the personal desire of the head of the institution to fly in business class, and also taking into account the lack of documents confirming the impossibility of purchasing economy class tickets, which is directly provided for by Resolution No. 729, the institution's link to Rosgranitsa's consent was rejected by the court.

Thus, the payment of the cost of both travel and accommodation on a business trip in excess of the established norms without the application of supporting documents for the lack of tickets according to the established norms (at the established cost of living or in the case of living not in a one-room room) or the impossibility of purchasing them may be considered ineffective.

In conclusion, we note once again: when assessing the observance of this principle by the participants in the budgetary process, the courts must take into account that the participants in the budgetary process, within the framework of the implementation of the tasks assigned to them and within the limits of budget funds allocated for certain purposes, independently determine the need, expediency and economic feasibility of performing a specific expenditure transaction ... In this regard, a specific expenditure transaction can be recognized as ineffective spending of budgetary funds only if the control body will provethat the tasks assigned to the participant in the budgetary process could be accomplished using less funds, or that, using the amount of funds specified in the budget, the participant in the budgetary process could achieve a better result.

The ninth spring session of the Sakhalin Regional Duma began with a joint meeting of two committees - on social policy and budget and taxes. It reviewed the report of the Chamber of Control and Accounts (CCC) on the results of the audit of the use of budgetary funds aimed at implementing the subprogram to improve the quality and accessibility of preschool education within the framework of the corresponding state program for 2014 and nine months of 2015.

The regional Ministry of Education, the relevant departments of local self-government bodies of Kholmsky, Tymovsky, Nogliksky districts, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, as well as some preschool institutions were audited for the effectiveness of the use of budget funds. In general, it was revealed that the main tasks of the subprogram correspond to the directions of state policy in the field of education, determined by the strategy of social and economic development of the Sakhalin region for the period up to 2025.

By the end of 2014, the indicator "availability of preschool education at the age of 3 to 7" reached 100 percent, i.e. all children of this age are provided with places in kindergartens. At the same time, it was noted that some municipalities in the absence of a need for subventions, they did not make timely proposals to reduce planned allocations, which did not allow the Ministry of Education to reallocate budget funds for other purposes. As a result, by the end of 2014, RUB 83 million. remained unclaimed. The amounts intended for the implementation of educational programs in groups of short-term stay for preschool children have not been fully used. Unclaimed funds were returned to the budget.

In addition, there was a violation of the deadlines for commissioning two kindergartens in the Nogliki and Kholmsky urban districts.

As a result, the PCB report was taken into account. However, the deputies noted several problems that have long awaited a solution. In particular, the delivery of children to kindergartens from remote populated villages and towns. The bus service there is not regular, and therefore mothers are forced to sit with their children at home, at a time when there are places in city kindergartens, new preschool institutions are being built.

The inadmissibility of non-utilization of budget funds was also noted, in the conditions budget deficit... To do this, it is necessary to identify priority areas and strengthen control over their effective use.

At the same time, the members of the committees noted with satisfaction that the "Warm Windows" subprogram was successfully implemented. Now it's time to take on the facades of preschool institutions.

In addition, according to the deputies, already now it is necessary to think about the problem that may arise very soon - the lack of school places, because today's kindergarteners will soon move to school desks, and their number remains at the level of the 90s, when there was a period of demographic recession.

A little explanation. Money is put into budgets in advance - from the end previous year - to perform certain tasks. Each of them is drawn up with a corresponding budget application, for example, for the construction of a school or kindergarten or for a centralized sewage system, for the purchase of medical equipment for hospitals. All these tasks, in turn, are distributed according to one or another state program, for example, health development - "Densaulyk", infrastructure development - "Nurly Zhol", development of the agro-industrial complex and so on.

There are dozens of such state programs in Kazakhstan. So, you may not believe it, but in our country, as a rule, in the fall, budget funds have not been disbursed. And this is billions of tenge. Can you imagine ?!

That is, the money is (was), but it was not spent, in the language of officials it is called “not mastered”. You've probably heard the phrase in the news "budget missed ..."

"But how can this be - they haven't mastered ?!" - any zealous housewife will justly be indignant. If she planned to make repairs in the apartment within a year, update furniture, buy something from household appliances, set aside money for this, then she will repair, and update, and buy. There is no doubt about it.

The work of our officials, not all of them, of course, is sometimes less effective. Apparently, the larger the tasks, the more difficult it is to achieve what was planned.

Judge for yourself, at the meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers of the republic, held on September 19, the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan Bakhyt Sultanov reported on the results of the execution of the republican budget for 8 months of 2017. A detailed message about this is published on ratel.kz.

According to the minister, as of September 1, 101.6 billion tenge has not been spent in the country as a whole. The "record holder" of non-utilization of budget funds - the Ministry of Health - 20.3 billion tenge. The second place in the list of penalties was shared by two ministries - the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Culture and Sports. Their administrators did not use 9.3 billion tenge each. The three leaders in non-utilization of budget funds are closed by the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which did not manage to spend 7.9 billion tenge. Strange as it may seem, failure to use the budget for our army is a common thing.

Why is this happening? Bakhyt Sultanov named the reasons: the sluggishness of the administrators of budget programs, the late holding of competitive procedures, the postponement of their holding, litigation, untimely adoption of regulations, delays in the work schedule, adjustment of construction documents and the absence of applications for compensation for agricultural subsidies. Another reason is insufficient control over the work of contractors on the part of administrators of budget programs.

In our region, the situation with this is also not easy. At one of the recent meetings of the regional akimat, the head of the region, Zhanseit Tuimebayev, called the work of akims of districts and cities, as well as heads of departments for the development of budgetary funds, unsatisfactory. He recalled that one of the main tasks of the head of each institution is the effective and timely use of budget funds.

The sum of the adjusted budget of South Kazakhstan oblast amounted to 511.4 billion tenge. According to the results of 9 months of 2017, regional departments did not use 209.6 million tenge, and 559.4 million tenge in districts and cities. These data were reported by the acting. R. Mulkemanov, head of the regional finance department.

According to him, most of large amounts of funds have not been utilized in Shymkent, Saryagash and Sairam districts, as well as regional departments of energy and housing and communal services, physical culture and sports. By the way, last year 40 million tenge remained undeveloped in South Kazakhstan, including agricultural management. Well, tell me, is there much use of money for locust control if it has already eaten half of the crop? Or - until the villagers wait for subsidies and benefits from the state for fuel, seeds, fertilizers, they will have to get into onerous debts ...

For our region, which is 80% subsidized from the budget, such sluggishness is a bad indicator. Was anyone responsible for this? Yes, but, as they say, these are people of the second echelon of power.

... To eradicate this practice in our country can only be increased responsibility. For example, the deputy of the Mazhilis Omarkhan Oksikbayev in March of this year proposed to imprison officials who did not use money under state programs, LSM.kz reported. For this, it is necessary to introduce personal responsibility for each budget program.

“For example, if a school has been built somewhere and it is filled by 30%, but somewhere we really need a school, because there are children in four or five shifts. Those who misdirected these funds should be held accountable. Surely there was self-interest, some kind of calculations. It is necessary to ask the guilty in full, and not just to administratively fine 10 thousand tenge, since this does not solve anything, ”the mazhilisman believes.

Failure to use the budget is always someone's unfulfilled hopes, above all, for civilized living conditions. There are auls in our region where there is still no drinking water or natural gas. Let me remind you that outside the window is the second decade of the XXI century.

The 17th session of the regional maslikhat took place last week. On the eve of it, at the meetings of the standing committees, the deputies expressed their dissatisfaction with the work of the regional administration of energy and housing and communal services. What they are not happy with - unforgivable red tape, inaction on gasification of settlements in the Kazygurt and Maktaaral regions, as well as on the water supply of the Sharapkhan village of the Kazygurt region, whose residents still carry water in buckets.

Another fact - in the village of Zhartobe with a population of 30 thousand, the only clinic is in an emergency condition ... And at the same time, such a fact - at the session the deputies once again experienced amazement, this time about the urgent allocation of 3 billion 300 million tenge for equipping the substation Astana-1 and 2 ... And where were the program administrators before ?! There was a month left until the end of the year.

And finally - the audit commission controls the expenditure of the regional budget funds. Its work should be open to us, ordinary taxpayers. How, you ask? Known - all current information, minutes of meetings, answers to questions from citizens - all this should be posted on the department's website.

What do we have? We go to the site of the SKO revkomissii - almost zero useful information. At the same time, on the main page there is a welcoming speech ... of the ex-head of the department, Syrym Shalabay, if you remember, was detained red-handed for a corruption offense on 23 July.

The prisoner greets the site visitors with the words: "We are glad to welcome you ... We are waiting for your responses to the processes taking place in the region, constructive wishes and suggestions for increasing the efficiency of state audit, resolving urgent problems of South Kazakhstan oblast ..."

And how effective, rich, and interactive such a site really should be, can be judged by a similar Internet resource, say, in the East Kazakhstan, Karaganda and West Kazakhstan regions. There - professionalism, openness, respect for the rights of citizens. But here ... Why is this done? It is well known that it is always easier to fish in troubled waters.

Farida Sharafutdinova

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev announced the need to toughen penalties for governors for failure to use budget subsidies. According to him, the heads of the regions should bear personal responsibility. “A number of recent decisions indicate that this kind of sluggishness and ineffective work should not be forgiven in all cases. Therefore, firstly, I urge all governors to think about how they will comply with these rules, ”said Medvedev.

At a meeting with the Deputy Prime Ministers of the Russian Federation, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev heard information from Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Kozak, who said that as of January 1, the regions did not use 72.2 billion rubles. federal subsidies allocated to them in 2015. 428 billion. According to budget legislation, in case of violation of the terms of the agreement on the allocation of subsidies, the region must pay a fine and eliminate the deficiencies. Subjects of the Russian Federation must return unused funds by April 1.

In connection with this information, Medvedev proposed to tighten the personal responsibility of governors for the ineffective use of federal subsidies. He urged that every leader of "our territories, our region, region, republic feel personal responsibility for all financial decisions that he makes, including the use of federal funds." “Very often our colleagues think in this way: we do not use this year - we will use it next year, they will forgive, they will postpone it if we overdue something, decide to soften the rules, and so on. I want to draw your attention: that's enough already. And a number of recent decisions indicate that not all cases should be forgiven for such sluggishness and ineffective work. Therefore, firstly, I urge all governors to think about how they will comply with these rules, ”said Medvedev.

According to him, in the event of violations of financial discipline by the regional authorities, the Russian government will "come up with appropriate proposals, as was done with regard to, for example, dilapidated housing, which is quite deserved and objective."
We will remind that earlier the governor of the Trans-Baikal Territory Konstantin Ilkovsky was dismissed for disrupting the program of resettlement of citizens from emergency housing, and the head of Karelia, Alexander Khudilainen, was reprimanded.

print version

Related materials

Transbaikal region

The President dismissed the governor of the Trans-Baikal Territory, Konstantin Ilkovsky. The formal reason for the dismissal was Ilkovsky's personal statement "on the early termination of powers." However, one of the real reasons for the resignation was the disruption in the province of the federal program to resettle citizens from hazardous housing. Experts talk about a whole range of problems that led to Ilkovsky's dismissal. Vladimir Putin appointed Natalya Zhdanova, Speaker of the Regional Legislative Assembly, Acting Governor.

Republic of Karelia

The reprimand was announced to the head of Karelia Alexander Khudilainen by the President of Russia Vladimir Putin. This is due to the violations committed by Khudilainen during the implementation of the program for the resettlement of citizens from hazardous housing. Earlier, the Minister of Construction of the Russian Federation Mikhail Men reported to the President about the problems in the implementation of this program in Karelia and Transbaikalia. Putin then demanded to find out the state of affairs in the regions and make decisions, including the "personnel order". Today, Putin dismissed the Trans-Baikal governor Konstantin Ilkovsky.

the main thing

  • Deputy Stepanenko: Ulyanovsk Governor Morozov takes revenge on the Communist Party of the Russian Federation for opposition to the mayoral elections
    Four claims from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation to deprive the powers of Dimitrovgrad City Duma deputies were sent to court by Governor Sergei Morozov. One of the deputies from this list, Sergei Stepanenko, told the Club of Regions that the governor is taking revenge on the communists for a ten-month confrontation, when the regional authorities and the “red” city council could not find a common language on the mayoral election.
    After the scandalous deforestation near Lake Amut, Khabarovsk Governor Furgal dismissed the head of forest management
    In the Khabarovsk Territory, the head of forest management, Konstantin Khryanin, was removed from office for the duration of an official check. It is reported that Governor Sergei Furgal made this decision after the scandalous story of deforestation near Lake Amut. Now Khryanin is undergoing an official check. Greenpeace expert Aleksey Yaroshenko notes that social activists and environmentalists demanded not only to stop logging in the lake area, but also to conduct a thorough investigation and bring those responsible to justice. Political scientist Sergei Komaritsyn believes that the federal center should fundamentally solve the problem of dubious and criminal logging. According to the governor of the Novosibirsk region, Andrei Travnikov, regional elections in September may attract the attention of "destructive forces." He stressed that one of the tasks is to prevent these forces from destroying "the relationship between the various branches of government that have been built over the past years." Experts believe that by destructive forces Travnikov could mean non-systemic opposition. At the same time, political analysts expect the continuation of the practice of agreements in the elections between United Russia and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. At the same time, experts believe that such interaction in the elections carries risks for both parties.
    Rostov Governor Golubev signed an agreement to build the world's largest linseed oil plant
    Rostov Governor Vasily Golubev, within the framework of the Berlin international agricultural fair "Green Week", signed an agreement with a company from Belgium on the construction of a plant for the production of flaxseed oil. The investor promises that the Rostov plant will be the largest in the world. Experts interviewed by the Club of Regions note the importance of support from regional authorities in attracting investment in the agricultural sector and believe that the implementation of a large-scale project will increase flax production in Russia.

At the end of last year, the Interdepartmental Coordination Council for State Financial Control in the Republic of Tatarstan approved the "Conclusion on the Results of Analysis and Systematization of Violations and Deficiencies Revealed by State Financial Control Bodies." The head of the Control and Auditing Department of the Accounts Chamber of Tatarstan Azat VALEEV tells about what kind of document it is.

Undoubtedly, the main task of state control bodies is to identify violations and shortcomings in the financial and budgetary sphere. However, this is only one side of the work of controllers. The second, no less significant, is the prevention of deviations from accepted standards and violations of legal norms. It is no secret that in some cases financial violations are committed due to ignorance of the new norms of budgetary legislation, therefore, preventive and educational work is simply necessary.
In this regard, in control activities, special attention is paid to work aimed at anticipating violations. For this purpose, Tatarstan has prepared a Conclusion, which systematizes the most common violations and shortcomings in the activities of budgetary institutions. The opinion was prepared on the basis of an analysis of the results of audits carried out by the Accounts Chamber, the Treasury Department of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Tatarstan, territorial departments of FAS and Rosfinnadzor. This document is intended for managers and accountants of budgetary institutions. It contains over 400 specific examples of typical violations and deficiencies. Information about them is systematized in the appropriate sections and subsections, in some cases, links to regulatory documents are given. Today we will consider typical violations in the execution of the budget for expenditures (Table 1), cases of inappropriate and ineffective use of budgetary funds (Tables 2, 3), violations in the field of state and municipal purchases (Tables 4, 5), as well as in the implementation of construction and repair work (tab. 6). For the convenience of perceiving information, all data are tabulated.

Table 1 Execution of the budget by expenditure

Violation

Comments

Failure to deliver (untimely delivery) to the recipients of budget funds of notifications about budget allocations, limits of budgetary obligations

According to Art. 221 of the Budget Code (as amended, entered into force on January 1, 2008), the budget of a budgetary institution is drawn up, approved and maintained in accordance with the procedure determined by the main manager of budgetary funds, which is in charge of the budgetary institution, in accordance with the general requirements established by the Ministry of Finance RF. The general requirements for the procedure for drawing up, approving and maintaining budget estimates of a budgetary institution were approved by order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated November 20, 2007 No. 112n

Violation of the established procedure for drawing up and approving a budget estimate of a budgetary institution

Adoption monetary obligations in excess of the brought limits of budgetary obligations

Table 2 Examples of ineffective spending of budget funds

Violation (disadvantages)

Comments

Lack of demand for equipment, inventory and other material values \u200b\u200bacquired at the expense of budget funds

The principle of efficiency and effectiveness of the use of budgetary funds is spelled out in Art. 34 of the Budget Code. This principle means that when drawing up and executing budgets, the participants in the budgetary process, within the framework of the budgetary powers established by them, must proceed from the need to achieve the specified results using the least amount of funds or achieve the best result using the amount of funds specified by the budget. The need for the recipient of budgetary funds to ensure the effectiveness of the use of budgetary allocations provided for him is also enshrined in Art. 162 of the Budget Code

Payment for design and survey works that do not find further practical application

Purchase of goods, works, services for state and municipal needs at prices significantly higher than the average market

Distribution of equipment, inventory and other material assets acquired at the expense of budget funds, without analyzing the actual need, as a result of which material assets are used ineffectively

Education overdue accounts receivable, failure to take measures to collect it

Purchase of inventory items that are not required to perform the functions assigned to the institution

Non-use for a long time of budget funds received on the basis of the application

Failure to utilize budget funds if there is a need for them

Purchase of materials, equipment of inadequate quality

Payment of penalties (fines) as a result of failure to take repayment measures accounts payable

Failure to take into account the priority and expediency of construction, reconstruction of an object when allocating funds for capital investments, as a result of which the final result of using budget funds is not achieved

Table 3 Examples of inappropriate use of budget funds

Violation

Comment

Use of budget funds for purposes that do not meet the conditions for their receipt

The principle of targeting and targeted nature of budget funds is formulated in Art. 38 of the Budget Code. This principle means that budgetary allocations and budgetary commitments limits are communicated to specific recipients of budgetary funds, indicating the purpose of their use. Failure to comply with this principle entails inappropriate use of budget funds

Payment for goods, works, services not according to the corresponding codes of the budget classification

Unlawful transfer by the recipient of budgetary funds of the balances of funds from budget accounts to an off-budget account or to accounts legal entities

Use of budget funds to pay for expenses not provided for in the estimate of income and expenses

Use of budgetary funds to pay for expenses that should be carried out from extrabudgetary sources

Use of budget funds to pay for works and services not related to the activities of a budgetary institution, to provide financial assistance to commercial and non-profit organizations or to create them

Table 4 Violations when placing orders

Violation

Examples / Notes

Failure to comply with the terms of publication in the official print media and placement on the official website of information on placing orders

The notice of an open auction was published in the newspaper 11 days before the deadline for filing applications for participation in the auction.

According to part 1 of Art. 33 of the Federal Law of July 21, 2005 No. 94-FZ "On placing orders for the supply of goods, performance of work, provision of services for state and municipal needs" (hereinafter - Law No. 94-FZ), the notice of an open auction is published in the official printed publication and posted on the official website at least 20 days before the deadline for filing applications for participation in the auction.

There are also facts of untimely posting on the official website of the minutes of trading and requests for quotations, as well as publication of the minutes of trading in the official printed edition

Inconsistency of the information contained in the tender (auction) documentation with the information specified in the notice of bidding

There are discrepancies between the tender documentation and the notice posted on the official website in terms of the terms for the provision of services:

According to part 6 of Art. 22 of Law No. 94-FZ, the information contained in the tender documentation must comply with the information specified in the notice of an open tender

Violations by members of the commissions of the procedure for selecting bidders, requesting quotations, unjustified admission (or refusal of admission) of a procurement participant to participate in the bidding, requesting quotes

The commission admitted to the tender a participant in the placement of an order, which, as part of the application, did not submit an extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities.

According to part 3 of Art. 25 of Law No. 94-FZ, an application for participation in the tender must contain an extract from the unified state register of legal entities or a notarized copy of such an extract received no earlier than six months before the date of posting on the official website of the notice of an open tender

Establishing in the tender documentation criteria for evaluating applications for participation in the tender not provided for by Law No. 94-FZ

According to part 4 of Art. 28 of Law No. 94-FZ (as amended on March 1, 2009) to determine the best conditions for the execution of the contract proposed in the applications for participation in the tender, the tender commission must evaluate and compare such applications at the contract price and other criteria specified in the tender documentation ... In this case, the criteria for evaluating applications for participation in the tender, in addition to the contract price, may be:

- functional characteristics (consumer properties) or quality characteristics of the goods;

- the quality of works, services and (or) qualifications of the bidder when placing an order for the performance of work, the provision of services;

- the cost of operating the goods;

- the cost of maintaining the goods;

- terms (periods) of delivery of goods, performance of work, provision of services;

- the term for providing a guarantee of the quality of goods, works, services;

- the scope of providing guarantees for the quality of goods, works, services.

According to part 6 of the above article, the use of other criteria for evaluating applications for participation in the competition is not allowed

Publication in the official print media or placement on the official website on the Internet of information on the placement of orders, subject to such publication or placement in accordance with the legislation on placing orders, in violation of the requirements of Law No. 94-FZ

Absence in the notice of an open tender for the quantity of the supplied goods, the volume of work performed, the services provided.

According to paragraph 4 of part 4 of Art. 21 of Law No. 94-FZ, the notice of an open tender must indicate the subject of a state or municipal contract, indicating the quantity of the supplied goods, the volume of work performed, and the services rendered. Exception - cases when, when holding a tender for the right to conclude a state or municipal contract for the performance of maintenance and (or) repair of machinery, equipment, provision of communication services, legal services, it is impossible to determine the required number of spare parts for machinery, equipment, scope of work, services ...

The absence in the tender documentation of the procedure for evaluating and comparing applications for participation in the tender, which does not allow making the assessment of the applications of the tender participants objective.

According to part 4 of article 22 of Law No. 94-FZ, the tender documentation must contain the procedure for evaluating and comparing applications for participation in the tender

Establishment of requirements for procurement participants not provided for by Law No. 94-FZ

The tender documentation on the subject of the tender "maintenance and supply of spare parts for cars" establishes requirements for bidders that are not provided for by Law No. 94-FZ. Namely: the organization must have a license to given view works.

However, according to Federal law dated August 8, 2001 No. 128-FZ "On licensing of certain types of activities" activities on the subject of the competition are not subject to licensing. Art. 11 of Law No. 94-FZ, an exhaustive list of requirements for participants in the placement of an order when holding an auction is established and no one has the right to change or supplement it

Conclusion of state and municipal contracts on conditions that do not correspond to the bids of participants in the order placement and documentation on the conduct of tenders or the announced conditions for the request for quotations

For example, the terms of the concluded contract regarding the expiration of the delivery time of the goods and the payment procedure do not correspond to the conditions specified in the auction documentation:

The method of placing an order does not comply with the law. Conclusion of state and municipal contracts with a single supplier (performer, contractor) without bidding or requesting quotations

The method of placing an order with a single supplier was wrongly chosen, when the amount of an order for the supply of goods (works, services) of the same name under one contract or under several contracts (and other documents confirming the conclusion of a transaction) during a quarter exceeds the maximum amount of cash settlements.

Cases of placing an order with a single supplier (performer, contractor) are established in Art. 55 of Law No. 94-FZ.

The method of placing an order by requesting quotations was applied, when the amount of contracts for the execution of goods (works, services) of the same name, payable within one quarter, is more than 500 thousand rubles.

Failure to enter information about state and municipal contracts in the registers of contracts

Customers do not always send (or send, but out of time) information about contracts, including information about the execution (termination) of a contract, to the bodies authorized to keep a register of state (municipal) contracts.

The procedure for entering information into the registers of contracts, as well as the procedure for maintaining the registers is established by Art. 18 of Law No. 94-FZ, Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 807 dated December 27, 2006

Lack of a local legal act defining the order of work of commissions for placing orders

According to part 2 of Art. 7 of Law No. 94-ФЗ, the customer, the authorized body must decide on the creation of a commission for placing orders, its composition (including the chairman) and the procedure for work must be determined

Absence (improper maintenance) of a register of purchases carried out without the conclusion of state and municipal contracts

According to Art. 73 of the Budget Code budgetary institutions are obliged to keep registers of purchases made without the conclusion of state (municipal) contracts, which must contain the following information:

- short name of the purchased goods, works and services;

- the name and location of suppliers, contractors and service providers;

- price and date of purchase

Table 5 Execution of state and municipal contracts

Violation

Examples / Notes

Unlawful change of conditions of state (municipal) contracts

In contracts, the quantity (volume) of goods (work, services) and, accordingly, the price per unit, the delivery time of goods (performance of work, services)

Exceeding the established advance payment limit

According to the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia (letter dated May 2, 2007 No. 6121-ASh / D04 "On measures to prevent adverse consequences from the actions of unscrupulous suppliers (contractors, performers) under state and municipal contracts"), the establishment of advance payments under state or municipal contracts is the right, but not the obligation of the customer, the authorized body (unless otherwise provided by the legislation of the Russian Federation).

Taking into account the fact that receiving an advance payment is in some cases the main purpose of concluding a contract on the part of an unscrupulous supplier (contractor, executor), the need to transfer an advance should be carefully analyzed in each specific case.

Violations of the terms of state (municipal) contracts, both on the part of suppliers (contractors, performers) and on the part of customers

For example:

- untimely payment by the customer for the delivered goods, work performed, services rendered;

- delivery and acceptance of goods according to characteristics, quantity and prices that do not correspond to the terms of the contract;

- violation of the terms of delivery of goods, performance of work, provision of services established by the contract

Lack of control on the part of the customer over the fulfillment of contractual obligations. Failure to submit claims to suppliers (contractors, performers) who have violated the terms of the contract

In case of improper fulfillment of the terms of the contract, the customers do not always present the contractor with claims for compensation for damage and payment of a penalty for each day of delay if the deadline for the delivery of work established by the terms of the contract is not met

Table 6 Repair and construction and installation work

Violation

Financing capital investments in the absence of approved design and estimate documentation

Overestimation of the physical volume of work (including payment for work and costs that were not actually carried out), repeated payment for the same work

Payment by the customer for works and costs not provided for by the contract and design estimates

Non-compliance by the contractor with design solutions (non-compliance with the work technology, unjustified replacement of some types of materials with others, failure to perform certain hidden works)

Overestimation of costs for unforeseen work, costs for the construction of temporary buildings and structures, additional costs in the production of work in the winter

Payment by the customer of the cost of materials in the acts of work performed without confirmation of the actual cost in the event that their cost exceeds the average regional prices, which does not correspond to paragraph 4.24 of the Methodology for determining the cost construction products on the territory of the Russian Federation, approved by the decree of the Gosstroy of Russia dated March 5, 2004 No. 15/1

Carrying out capital works under the guise of current and overhaul repairs (reconstruction)

Inconsistency of contracts with legal requirements (violation of clause 2 of article 743 of the Civil Code: the construction contract does not include a condition on the composition and content of technical documentation for construction and conditions on which of the parties and in what time frame is obliged to submit the specified documentation; the procedure and terms of providing quality assurance and terms of detecting hidden defects in constructed objects)

Conclusion of contracts (agreements) with contractors that do not have a license to carry out the relevant work

Failure to comply with the standard construction duration specified in the design documentation

Operation of a building without an act of acceptance of the completed construction of the facility by the acceptance commission, signed by representatives of the State Construction Supervision and other interested bodies, permission to put the facility into operation, which may pose a danger to human life and health

To share with friends:
What else to read

All rights reserved, 2020

Copyright © 2020 All for an entrepreneur.