RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
03/03/2026
Tuesday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
3 March 
1933 Hitler proclaimed the formation of the Third Reich.
1933 Hitler proclaimed the formation of the Third Reich
1878 The principality of Great Bulgaria was formed as part of the Ottoman Empire.
1878 The Principality of Great Bulgaria was formed as part of the Ottoman Empire
1613 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich was elected to reign and became the first tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1613 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich was elected to rule and became the first Tsar of the Romanov dynasty
3 March
1933 Hitler proclaimed the formation of the Third Reich.
1933 Hitler proclaimed the formation of the Third Reich
1878 The principality of Great Bulgaria was formed as part of the Ottoman Empire.
1878 The Principality of Great Bulgaria was formed as part of the Ottoman Empire
1613 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich was elected to reign and became the first tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1613 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich was elected to rule and became the first Tsar of the Romanov dynasty
CHALLENGING TRANSFERS TO INDIVIDUALS IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE TRANSACTION
The manager applied to the court for invalidation of transactions involving the transfer of funds from the debtor's current account in favor of the defendant (case no. A40-146621/23).
In granting the application, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that the case file did not contain evidence of counter-performance on the part of the defendant; the transactions were made in conditions where the debtor had unfulfilled obligations to creditors; as a result of the transactions, the debtor's creditors suffered harm.
Canceling the ruling of the court of first instance and refusing to satisfy the application, the court of appeal proceeded from the fact that the financial manager had not proved the fact of affiliation of the parties to the transaction; the applicant provided evidence of counter-performance. The conclusions of the court of appeal on the equivalence of counter-performance are based on the explanations provided by the defendant, according to which the funds were transferred by the debtor to pay for the lease agreement for residential premises.
The cassation upheld the ruling of the first instance and was based on the court's finding that the disputed transactions were made during a period of suspicion. The court also took into account that during the period of the transactions, the debtor had unfulfilled obligations to creditors, whose claims were subsequently included in the register of creditors' claims of the debtor. The Court of Cassation critically assessed the arguments of the appellate instance on the equivalence of the counter-execution, based only on the defendant's explanations about the rental of housing.
The case file does not include a lease agreement, and the case file does not contain evidence of state registration of a contract concluded for a period of more than a year. In addition, the disputed payments were made after the expiration of the lease in uneven amounts. The respondent has not provided explanations regarding the expediency of choosing such a calculation method, nor has it provided a payment schedule under the agreement.
The actual behavior of the parties to the disputed transactions, namely the choice of the payment method under the lease agreement; the absence of relevant and acceptable evidence of the real nature of the transaction, including the lease agreement, the schedule of lease payments, evidence of the state registration of the contract, may indicate the interest of the parties.
Photo: Freepik
In granting the application, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that the case file did not contain evidence of counter-performance on the part of the defendant; the transactions were made in conditions where the debtor had unfulfilled obligations to creditors; as a result of the transactions, the debtor's creditors suffered harm.
Canceling the ruling of the court of first instance and refusing to satisfy the application, the court of appeal proceeded from the fact that the financial manager had not proved the fact of affiliation of the parties to the transaction; the applicant provided evidence of counter-performance. The conclusions of the court of appeal on the equivalence of counter-performance are based on the explanations provided by the defendant, according to which the funds were transferred by the debtor to pay for the lease agreement for residential premises.
The cassation upheld the ruling of the first instance and was based on the court's finding that the disputed transactions were made during a period of suspicion. The court also took into account that during the period of the transactions, the debtor had unfulfilled obligations to creditors, whose claims were subsequently included in the register of creditors' claims of the debtor. The Court of Cassation critically assessed the arguments of the appellate instance on the equivalence of the counter-execution, based only on the defendant's explanations about the rental of housing.
The case file does not include a lease agreement, and the case file does not contain evidence of state registration of a contract concluded for a period of more than a year. In addition, the disputed payments were made after the expiration of the lease in uneven amounts. The respondent has not provided explanations regarding the expediency of choosing such a calculation method, nor has it provided a payment schedule under the agreement.
The actual behavior of the parties to the disputed transactions, namely the choice of the payment method under the lease agreement; the absence of relevant and acceptable evidence of the real nature of the transaction, including the lease agreement, the schedule of lease payments, evidence of the state registration of the contract, may indicate the interest of the parties.
Photo: Freepik
24.02.2026
