On June 10, 2026, the President of the Russian Federation signed Federal Law No. 168-FZ "On Amending the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses" (hereinafter referred to as the "Law"). The adopted amendments are designed to ensure the enforcement of decisions in cases of administrative offenses committed outside of Russia and directed against its interests.
Key Innovations
The Law introduces comprehensive amendments to both the substantive and procedural norms of the CAO RF. The main innovation is the expansion of the principle of extraterritoriality within Articles 1.8 and 2.6 of the CAO RF. The Law establishes the possibility of holding citizens of Russia, foreign nationals, stateless persons, and foreign legal entities administratively liable for offenses committed outside the country if they are directed against the interests of the Russian Federation. This rule covers a strictly defined list of offenses, including the abuse of mass media freedom and fake news (Article 13.15 of the CAO RF), non-compliance with legislation on foreign agents (Article 19.34 of the CAO RF), insulting authorities on the Internet (Parts 3, 4, and 5 of Article 20.1 of the CAO RF), calls to violate the integrity of the Russian Federation (Article 20.3.2 of the CAO RF), calls for the introduction of sanctions (Article 20.3.4 of the CAO RF), the production and distribution of extremist materials (Article 20.29 of the CAO RF), the activities of undesirable organizations, as well as a number of other specialized articles (Articles 13.36, 13.37, 13.48, 17.13, 20.33 of the CAO RF) and cases of repeated failure to pay previously imposed fines under these articles.
Furthermore, regarding the aforementioned offenses, a ban has been established on the use of personal punishments and property confiscation against individuals who have left the country. Thus, if a citizen or a representative of an organization is physically abroad at the time of the case review, the law strictly prohibits applying penalties that require a mandatory presence in the country, including administrative arrest, compulsory works, and the administrative suspension of activities. It is also forbidden to confiscate the tools or instruments used to commit the offense. A monetary fine becomes the only possible punitive tool for individuals located abroad.
In this context, the Law also amends Article 25.1 of the CAO RF, completely abolishing the requirement for the mandatory presence of an individual during the consideration of cases involving the specified list of offenses. Judicial proceedings can freely be conducted in absentia if the person being held liable is outside the Russian Federation. Accordingly, in the event that goods and documents are seized from individuals who have left the country, officials are permitted to draw up procedural protocols unilaterally. If it is impossible to obtain the owner's personal signature due to their presence abroad, a corresponding note will be made in the protocol.
In order to protect the rights of the aforementioned individuals, the Law supplements Article 25.5 of the CAO RF with a new institution of court-appointed defense counsel. If an individual is abroad and it is impossible to properly notify them through standard procedural methods, the participation of a defense counsel becomes mandatory. Measures to appoint an attorney to represent the interests of the absent person must be taken independently by the judge, body, or official handling the case, while the general requirements for the defense counsel and the procedure for their appointment are approved by the Government of the Russian Federation.
An equally significant change is the new wording of Article 27.20 of the CAO RF, which regulates the rules for asset seizure. First and foremost, the seizure will be imposed on the offender's funds held in deposits and accounts in banks or other credit institutions. In the absence or insufficiency of funds in the accounts, the seizure of other property belonging to the individual is carried out. Such restrictive measures will be imposed exclusively by court order. At the same time, for individuals, the value of the property subject to seizure is not explicitly limited by the law to the amount of the established administrative fine. This means that large assets whose value significantly exceeds the size of the monetary penalty imposed by the court can be seized.
Comments
The adoption of the Law was prompted by the need to effectively hold administratively liable those individuals who have left the territory of Russia and subsequently committed offenses. Due to the obvious unenforceability of sanctions such as administrative arrest, the Law will provide exclusively for financial liability in the form of an administrative fine. However, since the value of the seized property is not legally limited to the amount of the fine, individual offenders abroad who have retained assets in Russia run the risk of facing the complete loss of their property.