{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013856812933025405, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0023094688221709007, 'mean_word_length': 5.192857142857143, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Control of a foreign investor over a Russian strategic economic company: the admissibility of indirect evidence in law enforcement

The key issues that arise when determining the signs of establishing control by a foreign investor over strategic companies are considered, as well as the issue of using indirect evidence when establishing the fact of the presence (absence) of such control.The classification of evidence of control is given, the judicial practice on the issue of evaluating the arguments of the antimonopoly authority and other persons when justifying the presence (absence) of control of a foreign investor over a Russian company engaged in a strategic type of activity is considered.It is concluded that it is inappropriate to legislate a closed list of grounds for a foreign investor’s control over a Russian strategic company in Federal Law № 57.