In Doroshenko v Ukraine (ECHR Case 1328/04) the tax authorities formed the opinion that a businessman (D) had been guilty of tax evasion and began criminal proceedings.
In June 2001 he was required to give a written undertaking not to abscond without the investigators’ permission. (D reportedly interpreted this as implying that he could not leave his home town although it is arguable whether the undertaking should simply be interpreted as an undertaking not to leave the Ukraine.)
While the criminal proceedings were awaiting trial D began civil proceedings against the tax authorities.
In 2007 D was convicted of tax evasion and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment suspended on probation. D applied to the ECHR contending that the requirement that he should undertake not to abscond was a breach of Article 2 of...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In Doroshenko v Ukraine (ECHR Case 1328/04) the tax authorities formed the opinion that a businessman (D) had been guilty of tax evasion and began criminal proceedings.
In June 2001 he was required to give a written undertaking not to abscond without the investigators’ permission. (D reportedly interpreted this as implying that he could not leave his home town although it is arguable whether the undertaking should simply be interpreted as an undertaking not to leave the Ukraine.)
While the criminal proceedings were awaiting trial D began civil proceedings against the tax authorities.
In 2007 D was convicted of tax evasion and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment suspended on probation. D applied to the ECHR contending that the requirement that he should undertake not to abscond was a breach of Article 2 of...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
