 April 2026 brought not only spring warmth to businesses but also several legislative surprises that are worth examining before they turn into fines. I analyzed the latest publications from ConsultantPlus and highlighted four key changes—each of which is already affecting compliance processes in Russian companies. First: The Federal Tax Service has begun reflecting OKVED codes of the reporting type in extracts from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities and the Unified State Register of Individual Entrepreneurs. The data is now generated by Rosstat based on statistical reports from the previous year, and the transition to the new procedure will be phased until 2028. For businesses, this means that when checking a counterparty, the extract may not contain current codes—the system is still being configured. If you automate due diligence, it's important to incorporate this nuance into your verification logic; otherwise, you risk missing discrepancies between the partner's actual activities and what is listed in the register. Second: The court upheld a fine for submitting EFS-1 on paper when the organization lacks a manager with an electronic signature. The fund fined the policyholder for submitting the semi-annual report on paper—from June to October, the company could not submit an electronic report due to the manager's resignation and lack of an electronic signature. The court sided with the fund. The conclusion is harsh: the absence of an electronic signature for the director does not relieve the obligation to submit the report electronically. If you have only one manager on staff and they resign, you are still required to find a way to submit EFS-1 online; otherwise, a fine applies. Third: The Social Fund violated the inspection procedure—and the court did not impose a fine for failure to provide information on contributions. The fund requested data on accrued contributions for injuries from the organization; the policyholder did not provide it, and the fund imposed a fine. However, the court overturned the fine because the Social Fund violated its own inspection procedure. This is a good precedent: if the fund acts with procedural violations, the fine can be challenged. But relying on this as a strategy is a mistake. It's better to avoid disputes altogether. Fourth: The State Duma adopted amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses regarding new fines for violating rules on the sale of labeled goods—the changes will take effect from September 1, 2026. If your business involves the circulation of goods subject to mandatory labeling (from clothing to medicines), prepare for increased liability. The "Honest SIGN" system already causes plenty of headaches, and from autumn, fines will become even more significant. What unites all four news items? The speed of changes exceeds a person's ability to track them manually. While a lawyer reads one letter from the Federal Tax Service, a new government decree is issued. While an accountant deals with EFS-1, the State Duma adopts amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses. This is where AI agents come to the rescue. ASI Biont analyzes changes in legislation within seconds of publication—it doesn't "find" them in real time (we don't wish for the impossible), but rather analyzes already published data at a speed unattainable for humans. The system compares new norms with your business processes, highlights risk areas, and generates a report: what changed, who it affects, and what to do. Forget about ConsultantPlus newsletters that you put off for later. Get a token for a 1500 start and connect an AI compliance agent to your business today—asibiont.com.