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.
BUSINESS TRANSLATORS: WHEN A MIRROR COMPANY BECOMES THE CAUSE OF BANKRUPTCY
The manager applied to the court for bringing the controlling persons to subsidiary responsibility (case no. A40-243795/21).
The court of first instance partially satisfied the application, finding that the commission of a tax offense was the first direct cause of the debtor's bankruptcy. The fact of transferring the business to a "mirror" company with the same name and the same controlling persons has been established. The purpose of these actions is tax evasion. The fact of business transfer clearly reflects the dynamics of companies' revenue. In case of non-fulfillment of financial activity, the debtor would have the opportunity to comply with the requirements of the tax authority. The equal participation of two co-defendants in illegal actions has been established.
The appeal overturned the ruling in terms of bringing one of the co-defendants to subsidiary responsibility and denied this part, since the co-defendant was the organizer and beneficiary of the tax evasion scheme. The case materials do not contain reliable evidence of the second defendant's involvement in the scheme.
The cassation upheld the ruling of the first instance, referring to the fact that the court of appeal had no grounds to reassess the conclusions of the court of first instance on the established circumstances of the dispute and satisfaction of the claims against the second defendant.
The circumstances established by the court of first instance have not been refuted by the conclusions of the court of appeal. The argument about the nominee of the head is not an independent basis for refusing to bring to subsidiary responsibility. On the contrary, acting reasonably and in good faith, understanding his nominee, the second defendant had to resign as head of the debtor.
It was established that the second defendant personally received the electronic digital signature of the mirror company and made transactions personally with the co-defendant on more favorable terms.
Photo: Freepik
The court of first instance partially satisfied the application, finding that the commission of a tax offense was the first direct cause of the debtor's bankruptcy. The fact of transferring the business to a "mirror" company with the same name and the same controlling persons has been established. The purpose of these actions is tax evasion. The fact of business transfer clearly reflects the dynamics of companies' revenue. In case of non-fulfillment of financial activity, the debtor would have the opportunity to comply with the requirements of the tax authority. The equal participation of two co-defendants in illegal actions has been established.
The appeal overturned the ruling in terms of bringing one of the co-defendants to subsidiary responsibility and denied this part, since the co-defendant was the organizer and beneficiary of the tax evasion scheme. The case materials do not contain reliable evidence of the second defendant's involvement in the scheme.
The cassation upheld the ruling of the first instance, referring to the fact that the court of appeal had no grounds to reassess the conclusions of the court of first instance on the established circumstances of the dispute and satisfaction of the claims against the second defendant.
The circumstances established by the court of first instance have not been refuted by the conclusions of the court of appeal. The argument about the nominee of the head is not an independent basis for refusing to bring to subsidiary responsibility. On the contrary, acting reasonably and in good faith, understanding his nominee, the second defendant had to resign as head of the debtor.
It was established that the second defendant personally received the electronic digital signature of the mirror company and made transactions personally with the co-defendant on more favorable terms.
Photo: Freepik
10.10.2025
