RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
21/07/2026
Tuesday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
21 July 
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme C The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 Mikhail Romanov was crowned in Moscow, having become the first Tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1970 Mikhail Romanov was crowned in Moscow, having become the first Tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1970 Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition to fight Protestantism.
1970 Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition to fight Protestantism.
21 July
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme C The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 Mikhail Romanov was crowned in Moscow, having become the first Tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1970 Mikhail Romanov was crowned in Moscow, having become the first Tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1970 Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition to fight Protestantism.
1970 Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition to fight Protestantism.
CASHING OUT FUNDS BY THE DIRECTOR DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN WITHDRAWING ACTIVITIES
The manager filed a lawsuit to recover damages from the former head of the debtor (case No. A40-38315/23).
The courts of two instances partially satisfied the application, considering that the defendant had not submitted any orders for the issuance of advance payments, cash documents, including cash withdrawal orders, to the manager or to the materials of this case. The defendant had also failed to provide documentary evidence of the validity of the expenses in the form of advance reports, and the use of the purchased goods and services in the interests of the company had not been confirmed.
The courts established that the defendant had withdrawn cash from the debtor's bank account rather than issuing it for advance payments. Partial refunds were fake transit “refunds” followed by cash withdrawals; creating the appearance of a deposit for subsequent withdrawal; time gaps and inconsistencies in periods.
The cassation sent the dispute for a new trial, noting that the court of first instance did not evaluate the defendant's references to payment orders with the payment basis "Refund on an advance report, not subject to VAT" in the court decision, and the court of appeal rejected the defendant's references to payment orders with the payment basis "Refund on an advance report, not subject to VAT" as unsubstantiated, indicating that they are not refunds but are actually transit payments that were withdrawn by the defendant from another bank account.
The court decisions do not evaluate the defendant's argument that the payment documents belong to the same group of payments. The courts did not provide any reasoning as to why some of the payment orders were accepted as proper evidence, while others were classified as part of the scheme used by the courts to determine the withdrawal of funds from the debtor's accounts.
However, the courts did not examine or evaluate the arguments that the transfer of funds from one of the debtor's accounts to another was solely due to various bank fees and the convenience of the bank branches. In addition, the final loss in this case should only be considered to be the balance between the withdrawn (issued) cash and the cash spent in the interests of the debtor, or the cash returned.
The defendant's reference to the payment order, according to which the funds were transferred to pay off the debt under the contract, was not evaluated by the court of first instance. And the court of appeal, rejecting it, noted that the specified payment could not be considered as the transfer of funds in the interests of the debtor's business activities.
Meanwhile, the defendant's arguments, which referred to the fact that the funds withdrawn from the debtor's account were used to pay off the debtor's debt to the bank, rather than the defendant's personal obligations, were not subject to judicial review or assessment. Additionally, the nature of the bank account required the use of a bank card, which meant that the payment of services, goods, and other items in the company's interests required the prior withdrawal of cash. Furthermore, the court's criticism of the loan agreement was made without considering the fact that the bank's claim was included in the debtor's creditor register.
Rejecting the defendant's argument that he had a loan agreement with another company, the courts noted that the agreement had not been submitted to the court. However, the courts did not consider the argument that neither the manager nor the creditors had disputed the existence of a contractual obligation between the debtor and the other company. According to the bank statement submitted to the court, the debtor had received funds from the other company under a loan agreement, and had partially repaid the loan and paid interest on it. All documents were transferred to the manager, and the defendant does not have them.
The courts of two instances partially satisfied the application, considering that the defendant had not submitted any orders for the issuance of advance payments, cash documents, including cash withdrawal orders, to the manager or to the materials of this case. The defendant had also failed to provide documentary evidence of the validity of the expenses in the form of advance reports, and the use of the purchased goods and services in the interests of the company had not been confirmed.
The courts established that the defendant had withdrawn cash from the debtor's bank account rather than issuing it for advance payments. Partial refunds were fake transit “refunds” followed by cash withdrawals; creating the appearance of a deposit for subsequent withdrawal; time gaps and inconsistencies in periods.
The cassation sent the dispute for a new trial, noting that the court of first instance did not evaluate the defendant's references to payment orders with the payment basis "Refund on an advance report, not subject to VAT" in the court decision, and the court of appeal rejected the defendant's references to payment orders with the payment basis "Refund on an advance report, not subject to VAT" as unsubstantiated, indicating that they are not refunds but are actually transit payments that were withdrawn by the defendant from another bank account.
The court decisions do not evaluate the defendant's argument that the payment documents belong to the same group of payments. The courts did not provide any reasoning as to why some of the payment orders were accepted as proper evidence, while others were classified as part of the scheme used by the courts to determine the withdrawal of funds from the debtor's accounts.
However, the courts did not examine or evaluate the arguments that the transfer of funds from one of the debtor's accounts to another was solely due to various bank fees and the convenience of the bank branches. In addition, the final loss in this case should only be considered to be the balance between the withdrawn (issued) cash and the cash spent in the interests of the debtor, or the cash returned.
The defendant's reference to the payment order, according to which the funds were transferred to pay off the debt under the contract, was not evaluated by the court of first instance. And the court of appeal, rejecting it, noted that the specified payment could not be considered as the transfer of funds in the interests of the debtor's business activities.
Meanwhile, the defendant's arguments, which referred to the fact that the funds withdrawn from the debtor's account were used to pay off the debtor's debt to the bank, rather than the defendant's personal obligations, were not subject to judicial review or assessment. Additionally, the nature of the bank account required the use of a bank card, which meant that the payment of services, goods, and other items in the company's interests required the prior withdrawal of cash. Furthermore, the court's criticism of the loan agreement was made without considering the fact that the bank's claim was included in the debtor's creditor register.
Rejecting the defendant's argument that he had a loan agreement with another company, the courts noted that the agreement had not been submitted to the court. However, the courts did not consider the argument that neither the manager nor the creditors had disputed the existence of a contractual obligation between the debtor and the other company. According to the bank statement submitted to the court, the debtor had received funds from the other company under a loan agreement, and had partially repaid the loan and paid interest on it. All documents were transferred to the manager, and the defendant does not have them.
21.07.2026
