RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
05/12/2025
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
5 December 
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
5 December
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
A TRICK GIFT: A FAMILY DEAL AGAINST CREDITORS
The creditor appealed to the court with a demand to invalidate the donation agreement between the debtor and the defendant (case no. A10-6545/21).
The courts of two instances, recognizing the transaction as invalid, proceeded from the fact that the transaction was completed in the absence of a counter-provision during the period when the debtor had significant obligations, which led to the impossibility of filling the bankruptcy estate and causing harm to creditors, which the person affiliated with the debtor could not have been unaware of.
The cassation refused to satisfy the application, recognizing that the disputed donation agreement was concluded outside the three-year period of suspicion established by bankruptcy law. At the time of the disputed transaction, the debtor had outstanding obligations to the creditor, which confirms the fact of his insolvency during the period of the disputed transaction.
The debtor and the donee are affiliated persons, since they are close relatives, which obviously indicates the actual interconnectedness and interest of the parties. However, these circumstances form the presumption of an unlawful purpose for making suspicious transactions.
The conclusion about the damage to the property rights of the debtor's creditors was made by the courts on the basis of a study and assessment of the terms of the gift agreement. At the same time, the transaction should have been qualified under part 2 of the article of the bankruptcy law as a special norm regulating the grounds for suspicious transactions of the debtor.
The arguments presented by the creditor in their entirety are fully covered by the disposition of a special provision of the bankruptcy law for challenging a transaction made by a bankrupt debtor in order to harm creditors' property rights. By itself, the fact of concluding a transaction before the start of the period of suspicion precludes the possibility of challenging it on special grounds.
Arguments about the presence of signs of the debtor's insolvency and failure to file a bankruptcy petition with the court do not exclude the right of creditors to independently apply to the court with a corresponding application for declaring the debtor bankrupt. Failure of the debtor to file for bankruptcy in court does not in itself constitute a civil liability, which entails the possibility of applying the construction of the general norms of the Civil Code.
The arguments about making a series of consecutive transactions with the debtor's property aimed at changing the title owner also fit into the disposition of a special provision of the bankruptcy law. Arbitrary or double qualification of the same offense according to both special and general norms contradicts the principles of legal certainty and predictability.
Taking into account the above circumstances, the district court concluded that the applicant had not proved the existence of grounds for qualifying the disputed donation transaction in accordance with the general norms of the Civil Code. This circumstance is an independent reason for refusing to satisfy the requirement to declare the transaction invalid.
Photo: Freepik
The courts of two instances, recognizing the transaction as invalid, proceeded from the fact that the transaction was completed in the absence of a counter-provision during the period when the debtor had significant obligations, which led to the impossibility of filling the bankruptcy estate and causing harm to creditors, which the person affiliated with the debtor could not have been unaware of.
The cassation refused to satisfy the application, recognizing that the disputed donation agreement was concluded outside the three-year period of suspicion established by bankruptcy law. At the time of the disputed transaction, the debtor had outstanding obligations to the creditor, which confirms the fact of his insolvency during the period of the disputed transaction.
The debtor and the donee are affiliated persons, since they are close relatives, which obviously indicates the actual interconnectedness and interest of the parties. However, these circumstances form the presumption of an unlawful purpose for making suspicious transactions.
The conclusion about the damage to the property rights of the debtor's creditors was made by the courts on the basis of a study and assessment of the terms of the gift agreement. At the same time, the transaction should have been qualified under part 2 of the article of the bankruptcy law as a special norm regulating the grounds for suspicious transactions of the debtor.
The arguments presented by the creditor in their entirety are fully covered by the disposition of a special provision of the bankruptcy law for challenging a transaction made by a bankrupt debtor in order to harm creditors' property rights. By itself, the fact of concluding a transaction before the start of the period of suspicion precludes the possibility of challenging it on special grounds.
Arguments about the presence of signs of the debtor's insolvency and failure to file a bankruptcy petition with the court do not exclude the right of creditors to independently apply to the court with a corresponding application for declaring the debtor bankrupt. Failure of the debtor to file for bankruptcy in court does not in itself constitute a civil liability, which entails the possibility of applying the construction of the general norms of the Civil Code.
The arguments about making a series of consecutive transactions with the debtor's property aimed at changing the title owner also fit into the disposition of a special provision of the bankruptcy law. Arbitrary or double qualification of the same offense according to both special and general norms contradicts the principles of legal certainty and predictability.
Taking into account the above circumstances, the district court concluded that the applicant had not proved the existence of grounds for qualifying the disputed donation transaction in accordance with the general norms of the Civil Code. This circumstance is an independent reason for refusing to satisfy the requirement to declare the transaction invalid.
Photo: Freepik
22.10.2025
