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.
DIFFERENT OBJECTIVES OF THE LOAN - DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES FOR THE BORROWER
The manager applied to the court for the completion of the procedure for the sale of the debtor's property (case no. A56-70644/22).
The courts of two instances released the debtor from his obligations, since the creditors, being professional participants in the credit market, had the opportunity to receive reliable information about the financial and property status of the citizen who applied to them.
The courts considered that the debtor's actions did not contain signs of dishonesty, since the debtor's income at the time of assuming obligations amounted to a significant amount.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration in part, noting that the courts did not take into account that when receiving loans, the debtor indicated that loans were taken for consumer purposes. Thus, when applying to credit institutions, the debtor did not indicate the actual purpose of obtaining borrowed funds (commercial investments), which made it impossible for banks to objectively assess the risks when issuing loans and warn against questionable financial investments of funds.
The courts also failed to take into account that large loan agreements were concluded by the debtor on the same day with various banks. After determining such optimal credit conditions, the standard behavior of a bona fide borrower is to contact the bank that offered the best conditions in order to obtain a loan for the entire required amount, thereby giving the bank the opportunity to assess the prospects and risks of concluding a transaction. These circumstances were not taken into account either by the court of first instance or the court of appeal.
In addition, the debtor submitted explanations to the court, according to which, at the date of taking credit obligations, he worked not only in several areas. Despite the arguments of the banks about the debtor's misconduct in applying for loans and abuse of rights, the courts of first and appellate instances did not properly verify the debtor's explanations about his income in the specified amount at the time of the loan agreements.
Photo: Freepik
The courts of two instances released the debtor from his obligations, since the creditors, being professional participants in the credit market, had the opportunity to receive reliable information about the financial and property status of the citizen who applied to them.
The courts considered that the debtor's actions did not contain signs of dishonesty, since the debtor's income at the time of assuming obligations amounted to a significant amount.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration in part, noting that the courts did not take into account that when receiving loans, the debtor indicated that loans were taken for consumer purposes. Thus, when applying to credit institutions, the debtor did not indicate the actual purpose of obtaining borrowed funds (commercial investments), which made it impossible for banks to objectively assess the risks when issuing loans and warn against questionable financial investments of funds.
The courts also failed to take into account that large loan agreements were concluded by the debtor on the same day with various banks. After determining such optimal credit conditions, the standard behavior of a bona fide borrower is to contact the bank that offered the best conditions in order to obtain a loan for the entire required amount, thereby giving the bank the opportunity to assess the prospects and risks of concluding a transaction. These circumstances were not taken into account either by the court of first instance or the court of appeal.
In addition, the debtor submitted explanations to the court, according to which, at the date of taking credit obligations, he worked not only in several areas. Despite the arguments of the banks about the debtor's misconduct in applying for loans and abuse of rights, the courts of first and appellate instances did not properly verify the debtor's explanations about his income in the specified amount at the time of the loan agreements.
Photo: Freepik
09.09.2025
