When a company acts as the inviting party for a foreign national—for example, by issuing an invitation for that individual to enter Russia for the purpose of study, business negotiations, or employment—it serves as the guarantor of the foreign national’s compliance with the terms of their stay (residence) in Russia and is required to take measures to ensure such compliance with respect to:
- the stated purpose of the stay (residence);
- the activities being carried out (occupation);
- timely departure from the Russian Federation upon the expiration of the specified period of stay in the Russian Federation [1].
Administrative liability is imposed for violations of established obligations under Part 2 of Article 18.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and the following administrative fines apply:
– for individuals: between 2,000 and 4,000 rubles;
– for public officials: between 45,000 and 50,000 rubles;
– for legal entities: between 400,000 and 500,000 rubles.
At the same time, companies that invite foreigners pay little attention to the fact that the Government of the Russian Federation has established a specific set of measures that the inviting party is required to comply with. These measures are established by the Regulation on the Implementation by the Inviting Party of Measures to Ensure Compliance by Invited Foreign Citizens or Stateless Persons with the Rules of Stay (Residence) in the Russian Federation, approved by Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1428 of September 15, 2020 (hereinafter “Regulation No. 1428”).
These measures include:
- the inviting party providing the foreign national with its available contact information to maintain communication, including through the use of information technology;
- fulfilling the guarantees regarding financial, medical, and housing support for the foreign national as stated when the invitation was issued;
- assisting the foreign national in achieving the stated purpose of their entry into the Russian Federation;
- notifying the territorial body of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia of the loss of contact with a foreign citizen who is in the Russian Federation and has arrived at the inviting party’s location [2].
However, if the inviting party has no information regarding the foreign national’s re-entry into the Russian Federation on a multiple-entry visa, the measures specified in paragraphs 2) through 4) above shall not apply [3].
In practice, situations often arise where foreign nationals, for various reasons, “part ways” with the inviting party. For example, following business negotiations, upon completion of training, or upon termination (cancellation) of an employment (civil law) contract (including early termination), or upon revocation of permits, such as a work permit or a patent. In these cases, as a rule, companies consider it sufficient, in terms of compliance with migration regulations, to send the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs a corresponding notification regarding the termination of studies or the termination of an employment (civil law) contract; and in the case of a business visit, they do not consider it necessary to fulfill any obligations at all.
After analyzing recent case law regarding the prosecution of legal entities under Part 2 of Article 18.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, it can be concluded that migration authorities are focusing particular attention on violations by companies of migration regulations regarding their failure to ensure the timely departure of foreign nationals from the Russian Federation, and judicial bodies at all levels are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, siding with the regulatory authorities.
To avoid the risk of administrative liability, it is important to keep the following in mind:
Measures taken by the company outside the framework established by the Government of the Russian Federation, and which do not result in the foreign national’s timely departure, are not taken into account by the court.
Based on the court’s findings that the set of measures taken by the company outside the framework established by paragraph 2 of Regulation No. 1428 is insufficient, the company’s submission of a notice to the Ministry of Internal Affairs regarding the termination of the foreign national’s studies or the termination of the contract with the foreign national will not constitute a sufficient measure to facilitate the foreign national’s timely departure from the Russian Federation. Therefore, it is necessary to adhere strictly to the measures specified in Regulation No. 1428.
From case law:
- The university notified the foreign national of its unilateral termination of the educational contract for enrollment in a supplementary general education program due to non-payment of tuition fees by the deadlines specified in the contract.
The university also notified the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the foreign national’s early termination of studies within the timeframes established by law.
Accordingly, the foreign national’s period of temporary stay was shortened in accordance with paragraphs 3 and 23 of Article 5 of Federal Law No. 115-FZ of July 25, 2002, “On the Legal Status of Foreign Citizens in the Russian Federation.”
At the same time, the court found that the University had not taken the measures provided for in paragraph 2 of Regulation No. 1428, which are to be taken by the inviting party to ensure the timely departure of a foreign citizen from the Russian Federation upon the expiration of the specified period of his stay in the Russian Federation, and consequently, had not taken measures to ensure his timely departure. Contrary to the explanations provided by the University’s representative, no air tickets for return to the country of origin were requested, and no evidence to the contrary was presented.
In violation of paragraph 6 of Regulation No. 1428, the University did not notify the immigration service that it had lost contact with the foreign national.
- The fact that the Institution sent a notification to the Migration Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Komi Republic regarding a foreign national’s discontinuation of studies does not indicate that the Institution, as the inviting party, has fulfilled its obligation to take measures to ensure the foreign national’s timely departure from the Russian Federation upon the expiration of his or her period of stay in the Russian Federation.
There is no evidence in the case file to confirm that the Institution took all measures within its power to properly comply with the requirements of applicable law and prevent the commission of an administrative offense, nor is there any evidence of extraordinary and unavoidable circumstances that would have made it impossible to comply with the applicable rules and regulations, the violation of which served as the basis for imposing administrative liability, are not contained in the case file.
Conclusion: The court found the legal entities guilty in both cases under Part 2 of Article 18.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
- In the first case, the fine amounted to 400,000 rubles.
- In the second case, the request to overturn the relevant ruling was partially granted—the ruling was amended with regard to the penalty imposed, and the fine was reduced to 200,000 rubles; however, it was established that the institution had violated the laws governing the rules for the stay of foreign citizens in the Russian Federation.
Ruling of the Arbitration Court of the Northwestern District dated December 19, 2025, No. F07-12351/2025, in Case No. A56-6835/2025;
Ruling of the Arbitration Court of the Volga-Vyatka District dated April 29, 2025, No. F01-365/2025 in Case No. A29-12282/2023
The company must provide the Ministry of Internal Affairs or the court with evidence of objective reasons preventing compliance with the requirements of applicable law governing its business activities, and/or evidence demonstrating that it has taken a full range of measures aimed at complying with the requirements established by law.
Circumstances beyond one’s control, such as natural disasters and catastrophes that led to the closure of airports or the destruction of roads during the period when the foreign national was required to depart, may prevent compliance with the legal requirements for departure. It may also include epidemiological restrictions: border closures by both the Russian Federation and the foreign national’s country of origin, the imposition of self-isolation measures, the cancellation of all international flights (as occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic), and so on. A sudden illness of the foreign national may also be a valid reason. It is important to understand that all these circumstances must be documented.
A foreign national’s deliberate refusal to leave the country—including failure to report as required, changing their place of residence, and so on—would also constitute such a reason. However, the law does not permit the forcible removal of a person; therefore, in such cases, it is important for the inviting party to have evidence of their efforts to locate the individual (such as police reports and correspondence).
Evidence of compliance with the relevant measures must consist of documentary proof that the company has fulfilled the requirements set forth in Regulation No. 1428. This involves not only submitting the relevant notification to the Ministry of Internal Affairs regarding the termination of the employment contract or the completion of studies, but also providing written notification to the foreign national themselves—for example, regarding the fact that the duration of their stay in the Russian Federation will be shortened in the relevant case—providing them with the company’s contact information within the timeframes and in accordance with the procedure established by paragraph 3 of Regulation No. 1428, requesting or purchasing tickets for departure, correspondence with the foreign national, and notifying the territorial body of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs of the loss of contact with a foreign citizen in the Russian Federation within 2 business days from the moment such a circumstance arises (is established) [4].
The amount of an administrative fine originally set at between 400,000 and 500,000 rubles to be imposed on a legal entity may be adjusted only in accordance with the general rules of Article 4.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. Measures to reduce the amount of fines under Article 4.1.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation are not taken into account: the rules for modifying administrative penalties provided for in this article do not apply to Part 2 of Article 18.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. The minimum possible fine for a company in the event of such a violation will be 200,000 rubles for each foreign national.
When imposing an administrative penalty on a legal entity, the nature of the administrative offense committed, the legal entity’s financial and economic situation, mitigating circumstances, and aggravating circumstances are taken into account [5].
In exceptional circumstances related to the nature of the administrative offense committed and its consequences, as well as the financial and economic situation of the legal entity subject to administrative liability, the courts or officials hearing such cases may impose a penalty in the form of an administrative fine in an amount less than the minimum amount of the administrative fine provided for in the relevant article, provided that the minimum amount of the administrative fine for legal entities is not less than 100,000 rubles [6].
When imposing an administrative penalty under exceptional circumstances, the amount of the fine may not be less than half of the minimum administrative fine prescribed for legal entities under the relevant article [7].
Grounds for reducing the fine may include, for example, economic performance indicators, financial documents—including balance sheets for the relevant years, tax returns, information on cash or movable (immovable) property, and so on.
From judicial practice:
- The company failed to ensure the timely departure from the Russian Federation of a foreign citizen invited by it on a business visa upon the expiration of the permitted duration of his stay in the Russian Federation.
- When holding the company administratively liable under Part 2 of Article 18.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the supervisory authority reduced the amount of the administrative fine originally subject to imposition—ranging from 400,000 to 500,000 rubles—to 200,000 rubles, i.e., by half (as provided for in Part 3.3 of Article 4.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).
- The court of first instance unlawfully further reduced the fine to be imposed on the company to 100,000 rubles (in violation of Part 3.3 of Article 4.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).
- Furthermore, although the court of first instance referred to the financial circumstances of the individual subject to administrative liability, it did not present any primary evidence to support this.
- The court of first instance did not examine the company’s economic performance indicators. Financial documents, including balance sheets for the relevant years, tax returns, and information regarding the company’s cash or movable (immovable) property, were not examined by the court of first instance and are not set forth in the reasoning section of the judicial act.
- At the same time, the court of cassation does not have the right to worsen the legal position of a person subject to administrative liability compared to the legal position they had in the courts of first and appellate instance [8], therefore, in accordance with the general rule, it did not alter the amount of the fine already imposed by the court.
Conclusion: The Company’s request to overturn the decision to hold it liable under Part 2 of Article 18.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation for failing to take measures to ensure the timely departure of a foreign citizen from the Russian Federation is denied, as it has been confirmed that the Company’s actions constitute the alleged offense. There is no evidence that the Company took a full range of measures aimed at complying with the requirements of applicable law governing its business activities, nor is there evidence of objective reasons preventing compliance with these requirements.
The company was held liable under Part 2 of Article 18.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation: a fine of 100,000 rubles.
Ruling of the Arbitration Court of the North Caucasus District dated December 26, 2025, No. F08-7344/2025, in Case No. A53-3097/2025
- The period during which a foreign national fails to depart may be brief. To be held liable, it is sufficient to violate the established period of stay; that is, if it expires on a specific date, the foreign national is required to leave the Russian Federation by that date, inclusive. It is important to accurately determine the end date of the temporary stay in the Russian Federation.
- A company may be investigated after the dismissal of a foreign employee if the foreign national invited by the company is held liable for violating the terms of stay.
- The court considers all circumstances of the case; the “minor nature” of the offense (Art. 2.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation) may be applied under certain circumstances.
From case law:
- An employment contract was entered into with a foreign national on February 21, 2020, with a term ending on November 14, 2020, in accordance with the validity period of his work permit. The employment relationship was terminated on November 2, 2020, at the employee’s request, and the relevant notification was sent to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The work permit was revoked on August 20, 2021. Upon the expiration of the legally established period of stay, he did not leave the Russian Federation; from August 20, 2021, the foreign national remained in the territory of the Russian Federation on a private visit.
- By a ruling dated September 3, 2022, the foreign national was held administratively liable under Part 2 of Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation for violating the rules of stay (residence) in the Russian Federation, manifested in the discrepancy between the stated purpose of entry into the Russian Federation and the actual circumstances.
- Based on a report received on April 27, 2023, an inspection was conducted regarding the Company under Part 2 of Article 18.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
- During the inspection, the regulatory authority determined that the Company failed to exercise the degree of care and diligence required of it in organizing the recruitment and employment of foreign workers and did not take all measures within its power to comply with the rules and regulations, the violation of which is subject to administrative liability under Part 2 of Article 18.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, as a result of which a foreign citizen was able to violate Part 2 of Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and the terms of stay, manifested in evading departure from the Russian Federation during the period from August 18, 2022, to September 24, 2022.
- The court of first instance concluded that the Company’s actions constituted the elements of the alleged administrative offense, but overturned the ruling due to the insignificance of the act.
- Having assessed the nature and degree of public danger posed by the offense committed by the Company, taking into account that this is the Company’s first offense (no evidence to the contrary has been presented), and the fact that the work permit was revoked only on August 20, 2021, whereas the employment contract with the Company was terminated on November 2, 2020, and considering the restrictive measures related to the novel coronavirus infection, the courts concluded that the offense in question does not pose a significant threat to protected public interests, did not harm the interests of citizens, society, or the state, and did not actually result in any serious consequences. In this regard, based on the provisions of Article 2.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, paragraphs 18, 18.1, 21 of Resolution No. 10 of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated June 2, 2004, “On Certain Issues Arising in Judicial Practice When Considering Cases of Administrative Offenses,” the courts reasonably found grounds to classify the offense as minor.
Conclusion: The court rejected the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ arguments and overturned the department’s decision to impose an administrative fine of 400,000 rubles under Part 2 of Article 18.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation on the grounds of insignificance, taking into account the current restrictive measures related to the novel coronavirus infection, the fact that this was the company’s first offense, and the significant time gap between the notice of termination of the employment contract and the revocation of the work permit (9 months).
Decision of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District dated February 19, 2024, No. F09-8836/23 in Case No. A50P-437/2023
The revocation of a work permit requires the inviting party—the employer—to take all necessary measures: from the dismissal procedure to the relevant notifications and ensuring departure. Revocation of a work permit is grounds for shortening the period of stay and departure from the Russian Federation within 3 days. For companies that register employees for migration purposes at their premises at the place of temporary residence, it is also recommended not to forget to promptly deregister dismissed employees.
From case law:
- On August 25, 2024, a foreign national entered the territory of the Russian Federation on a work visa valid until June 23, 2027, issued at the invitation of the Company. The foreign national was granted a work permit as a highly qualified specialist, valid from September 13, 2024, to September 12, 2027.
- On December 5, 2024, the Ministry of Internal Affairs decided to revoke this work permit pursuant to subparagraph 1 of paragraph 9.7 of Article 18 of Federal Law No. 115-FZ of July 25, 2002, “On the Legal Status of Foreign Citizens in the Russian Federation”: the employer’s provision of forged or falsified documents / the employer’s submission of knowingly false information about themselves or about the foreign citizen in question.
- On December 16, 2024, a decision was made to shorten the foreign citizen’s temporary stay based on the decision to revoke the work permit in accordance with paragraph 26. 5 of the Procedure for Making Decisions on the Extension or Reduction of the Term of Temporary Stay of a Foreign Citizen or Stateless Person in the Russian Federation, approved by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia No. 926 dated November 22, 2021.
- In this regard, the Company notes that as of December 19, 2024, the foreign national held a valid visa, and the notation regarding the reduction of the temporary stay period was not entered on it until February 28, 2025; consequently, the Company had no obligation up to that point to ensure the foreign national’s timely departure from the territory of the Russian Federation.
- Contrary to the complainant’s arguments, the case materials indicate that the notification dated December 5, 2024, regarding the decision to revoke the work permit was received on December 11, 2024, by the Company’s representative acting under a power of attorney.
- Consequently, as of December 11, 2024, the Company was obligated to terminate the employment relationship with the said individual and take measures to ensure his departure from the territory of the Russian Federation.
- The case file contains no evidence that the Company took any measures after receiving the notice of revocation of the work permit, including measures aimed at terminating the employment contract with the foreign citizen.
- At the same time, according to the information and reference records of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, the foreign national did not leave the territory of the Russian Federation within the period (3 days) specified in paragraph 1 of Article 31 of Federal Law No. 115-FZ of July 25, 2002, “On the Legal Status of Foreign Nationals in the Russian Federation.”
- Thus, it has been established that the Company, in violation of the requirements of paragraph 6 of Article 16 of Federal Law No. 115-FZ of July 25, 2002 “On the Legal Status of Foreign Citizens in the Russian Federation,” failed to take measures to ensure the timely departure of the invited citizen upon the expiration of the specified period of his stay in the Russian Federation, that is, committed an administrative offense under Part 2 of Article 18.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
Conclusion: The Company’s request to overturn the ruling on liability under Part 2 of Article 18.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation was denied. A fine of 200,000 rubles was imposed.
Decision of the Thirteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated December 10, 2025, No. 13AP-24497/2025 in Case No. A56-16787/2025
An analysis of judicial practice indicates that a consistent legal position is emerging: the inviting party’s formal fulfillment of certain obligations (such as sending a notice of contract termination to the Ministry of Internal Affairs) is not considered by the courts to be sufficient grounds for exemption from liability under Part 2 of Article 18.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. When considering such cases, the courts assess the completeness of the measures taken as provided for by Regulation No. 1428, other circumstances, including assistance in obtaining travel documents, active efforts to locate the foreign national, documentation of the loss of contact with the foreign national, and timely notification of the migration authority thereof, as well as the provisions of migration legislation as a whole.
At the same time, practice shows that the risk of enforcement actions against a legal entity persists after the termination of employment or other relations with the foreign citizen if he or she has not left the territory of the Russian Federation within the established time limit.
Konsul’s specialists are ready to analyze a specific situation, verify the completeness of the measures taken, assess and minimize the risks of administrative liability, and provide consultation on compliance with migration legislation.
[1] Paragraph 6 of Article 16 of Federal Law No. 115-FZ of July 25, 2002, “On the Legal Status of Foreign Citizens in the Russian Federation”
[2] Paragraphs 2 and 6 of the Regulations on Measures to Be Taken by the Inviting Party to Ensure Compliance by Invited Foreign Citizens or Stateless Persons with the Rules Governing Their Stay (Residence) in the Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1428 of September 15, 2020
[3] Paragraph 7 of the Regulations on Measures to Be Taken by the Inviting Party to Ensure Compliance by Invited Foreign Citizens or Stateless Persons with the Rules Governing Their Stay (Residence) in the Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1428 of September 15, 2020
[4] Paragraph 6 of the Regulations on Measures to Be Taken by the Inviting Party to Ensure Compliance by Invited Foreign Citizens or Stateless Persons with the Rules Governing Their Stay (Residence) in the Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1428 of September 15, 2020
[5] Section 4.1, Part 3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation
[6] Section 3.2 of Article 4.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation
[7] Section 3.3 of Article 4.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation
[8] Article 46 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Part 1 of Article 4 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation
Author
Olga Tumasova
- Senior lawyer, labour and migration practice
Send message
Please describe your situation and we will find an optimal solution for your business.
info@konsugroup.com