Photo: gpk.gov.by

The driver reveals how goods banned by embargo are transported to Russia

You can read this article in 5 minutes

It is no secret that most of the products that go to Russia under a Belarusian label are from Poland. These products are mainly fruits, vegetables, dairy products and wines. However, not everyone is aware of how a wide network of smugglers is helping to bring exclusive European products to Russian tables. Sergei, a truck driver from Belarus, told the story.

The Russians have repeatedly accused the Russian authorities of hypocrisy as they have discovered in online photographs banned goods that appear on the tables of politicians at conferences, banquets and private events. After all, the services boast more and more often about the taking over a sensitive “sankcionka” (sanctioned goods). So, how did French cheeses, Polish apples and Spanish wines get on the Russian tables?

As it turns out, in Central and Eastern Europe there is an extremely extensive international structure, which transports goods subject to the embargo from Europe to Russia.

How is “sankcionka” transported?

The pattern is very simple. First, a truck with exclusive products from Poland, France or Spain arrives in Belarus. Fees are paid at the border, the vehicle undergoes the necessary checks and controls. Everything happens legally, according to the procedures.

The truck then moves on to the warehouse, where the cargo is reloaded to another vehicle that will go to Russia. It is at this stage that the origin of goods is changed. All labels with the name “Poland” are rubbed off, and the Belarusian designation appears in their place.

Then the driver, who knows exactly what he is transporting, receives the necessary transport documentation. According to the papers, the truck should be unloaded in one of the Belarusian towns located near the border with the Russian Federation.

But the truck never gets to the unloading address indicated in the waybill. The vehicle isn’t even heading in that direction. Instead, the driver arrives at an agreed location near the Russian border. More trucks with similar loads meet there. In an interview for the portal, 3mv.ru Sergei tells us that recently there were 16 of them. They form a column and start the route towards Russia.

The ride is always at night and alongside roads. The column is escorted by guides who drive in a separate car. If something happens while driving and one truck has to stop, nobody is waiting for it – the column has to move smoothly.

The trucks reach an unguarded section of the border, where another escort group is waiting for them. Sergei claims that during his last tour they were policemen dressed up as civilians from the Pskov Oblast bordering Belarus, Latvia and Estonia. Already in Russia, police officers are escorting trucks in two cars driving two kilometres from the trucks – one opens the column, the other closes it. For every vehicle, the escort charges $100.

10-15 kilometres further the column meets another group of people who help drivers to mount seals on trailers and give trucks a complete set of new transport documentation. Sergei notes that there were apples in his vehicle, and the waybill confirmed the transport of some equipment of the same weight.

This way, all trucks are escorted to St. Petersburg, 550 kilometres away from the Belarusian border, without any problems. This is where the vehicles arrive at various warehouses, where they are unloaded.

How much money is made on this?

For participation in such transport, drivers receive an average of $400 if they travel only from Belarus to Russia and about $2,000 if they transport goods directly from a European country. This is a very large amount and many drivers are willing to earn extra money, especially since the trucker is not responsible for the transported cargo. In the event of a mishap, the owner of the truck and the shipper of the cargo are liable.

The punishment, by the way, is not severe. In the worst case scenario, the vehicle and its cargo will be stopped and held for several months until the products have spoiled. Then the inspectors return the truck and blacklist it. This is not a problem either – Belarusian companies quickly register with new business, make new numbers for the truck and thus, to the quiet satisfaction of all, the vehicle “returns to the game”.

Photo: gpk.gov.by

Tags:
Drivers receive high fines for ‘lack of GNSS signal’. What can be done to avoid themAcross Italy, hauliers re reporting a surge in fines reaching several thousand euros for alleged ‘malfunctions’ of second-generation smart tachographs. The problem is that – according to explanations from the Italian Ministry of the Interior and EU institutions – in many cases there is no malfunction at all, only a temporary anomaly in the GNSS signal. And that is a fundamental difference. In recent months, Italian drivers and carriers have reported an increasing number of cases involving expensive and severe penalties imposed for the alleged ‘missing GNSS transmission’ in second-generation smart tachographs (G2V2), as reported by the Italian transport press. Control protocols most often record the phrase: ‘lack of GNSS signal’. On this basis, the authorities apply Article 179 of the Italian Road Code – a regulation intended for vehicles with a manipulated or non-functioning tachograph. The sanctions are very severe: from 866 to 3,464 euros, the possible suspension of the driving licence for up to three months, 10 penalty points, and joint liability for the company. However, this is a misinterpretation by the authorities. It should be recalled that the Italian Ministry of the Interior indicated in a circular from February 2024 that errors ‘!1C’ and ‘!0F’ do not indicate a failure but a ‘simple software anomaly or temporary problem with satellite signal authentication’. Such an event does not render the tachograph faulty. The device continues to function, records data, and remains compliant with the law. EU regulations (including EU Regulation 799/2016) also clearly distinguish an anomaly from a failure, and classify the lack of GNSS signal in the former category. What is the problem with GNSS? It is often external interference The issue was highlighted by the Council of the European Union in a document dated 21 May 2025, which points to the growing number of GNSS signal disruptions (jamming and spoofing). Their main sources are Russia and Belarus, and the effects are felt not only by lorries but also by ships and aircraft. In such cases, the responsibility of the driver or carrier for a temporary loss of signal is obviously excluded. What should carriers do to avoid unjust fines? It is not about avoiding inspections, but about asserting your rights and preparing documentation properly. To avoid fines in cases of GNSS signal loss, you should: Immediately secure data from the tachograph and record the error code This is the key evidence. Codes ‘!1C’ and ‘!0F’ indicate an anomaly, not a malfunction, and may determine whether the fine is annulled. Demand that the authorities precisely indicate the legal basis The carrier or driver has the full right to ask inspectors to justify why they classify the anomaly as a ‘failure’. It often turns out that officers incorrectly apply Article 179. Request an assessment from a tachograph service centre An authorised service centre can confirm that the device is functioning correctly and that the issue concerned only the GNSS signal. Such a document is a very strong argument in an appeal. Attach EU documents and ministerial interpretations to the appeal Explanations from the Ministry of the Interior and provisions of EU Regulation 799/2016 clearly state that such anomalies are not failures. In practice, it is often enough simply to refer to these documents for the fine to be overturned. Implement a company procedure for handling GNSS signal loss This could be a short instruction for the driver: •	record the time and place, •	report the issue to the dispatcher, •	take a screenshot of the error code, •	report the incident upon return to the company. Such simple actions allow for an effective defence in the event of an inspection. Additionally, carriers should properly train drivers and explain the difference between an ‘anomaly’ and a ‘failure’. Many drivers unknowingly accept the fine, assuming that enforcement officers know the regulations better. It is important during an inspection to verify the technical and legal grounds for the fine.

Drivers receive high fines for ‘lack of GNSS signal’. What can be done to avoid themAcross Italy, hauliers re reporting a surge in fines reaching several thousand euros for alleged ‘malfunctions’ of second-generation smart tachographs. The problem is that – according to explanations from the Italian Ministry of the Interior and EU institutions – in many cases there is no malfunction at all, only a temporary anomaly in the GNSS signal. And that is a fundamental difference. In recent months, Italian drivers and carriers have reported an increasing number of cases involving expensive and severe penalties imposed for the alleged ‘missing GNSS transmission’ in second-generation smart tachographs (G2V2), as reported by the Italian transport press. Control protocols most often record the phrase: ‘lack of GNSS signal’. On this basis, the authorities apply Article 179 of the Italian Road Code – a regulation intended for vehicles with a manipulated or non-functioning tachograph. The sanctions are very severe: from 866 to 3,464 euros, the possible suspension of the driving licence for up to three months, 10 penalty points, and joint liability for the company. However, this is a misinterpretation by the authorities. It should be recalled that the Italian Ministry of the Interior indicated in a circular from February 2024 that errors ‘!1C’ and ‘!0F’ do not indicate a failure but a ‘simple software anomaly or temporary problem with satellite signal authentication’. Such an event does not render the tachograph faulty. The device continues to function, records data, and remains compliant with the law. EU regulations (including EU Regulation 799/2016) also clearly distinguish an anomaly from a failure, and classify the lack of GNSS signal in the former category. What is the problem with GNSS? It is often external interference The issue was highlighted by the Council of the European Union in a document dated 21 May 2025, which points to the growing number of GNSS signal disruptions (jamming and spoofing). Their main sources are Russia and Belarus, and the effects are felt not only by lorries but also by ships and aircraft. In such cases, the responsibility of the driver or carrier for a temporary loss of signal is obviously excluded. What should carriers do to avoid unjust fines? It is not about avoiding inspections, but about asserting your rights and preparing documentation properly. To avoid fines in cases of GNSS signal loss, you should: Immediately secure data from the tachograph and record the error code This is the key evidence. Codes ‘!1C’ and ‘!0F’ indicate an anomaly, not a malfunction, and may determine whether the fine is annulled. Demand that the authorities precisely indicate the legal basis The carrier or driver has the full right to ask inspectors to justify why they classify the anomaly as a ‘failure’. It often turns out that officers incorrectly apply Article 179. Request an assessment from a tachograph service centre An authorised service centre can confirm that the device is functioning correctly and that the issue concerned only the GNSS signal. Such a document is a very strong argument in an appeal. Attach EU documents and ministerial interpretations to the appeal Explanations from the Ministry of the Interior and provisions of EU Regulation 799/2016 clearly state that such anomalies are not failures. In practice, it is often enough simply to refer to these documents for the fine to be overturned. Implement a company procedure for handling GNSS signal loss This could be a short instruction for the driver: • record the time and place, • report the issue to the dispatcher, • take a screenshot of the error code, • report the incident upon return to the company. Such simple actions allow for an effective defence in the event of an inspection. Additionally, carriers should properly train drivers and explain the difference between an ‘anomaly’ and a ‘failure’. Many drivers unknowingly accept the fine, assuming that enforcement officers know the regulations better. It is important during an inspection to verify the technical and legal grounds for the fine.

Agnieszka Kulikowska - Wielgus

Agnieszka Kulikowska - Wielgus Journalist Trans.info | 17.11.2025