RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
19/02/2026
Thursday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
19 February 
1970 The Cuban leader, Fidel Castro, announced his retirement from the politics
1970 The Cuban leader, Fidel Castro, announced his retirement from the politics
1970 The oldest Korea's bank, Shinhan Bank, was opened
1970 The oldest Korea's bank, Shinhan Bank, was opened
1970 The French mathematician and astronomer Urbain Leverrier presented the first world's weather forecast
1970 The French mathematician and astronomer Urbain Leverrier presented the first world's weather forecast
19 February
1970 The Cuban leader, Fidel Castro, announced his retirement from the politics
1970 The Cuban leader, Fidel Castro, announced his retirement from the politics
1970 The oldest Korea's bank, Shinhan Bank, was opened
1970 The oldest Korea's bank, Shinhan Bank, was opened
1970 The French mathematician and astronomer Urbain Leverrier presented the first world's weather forecast
1970 The French mathematician and astronomer Urbain Leverrier presented the first world's weather forecast
ON THE TRANSFER OF CORPORATE DOCUMENTS TO A FOREIGN CITIZEN WITHOUT CONFIRMATION OF HIS PRESENCE IN THE TERRITORY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
The manager appealed to the former head of the debtor with a demand to hand over documents and valuables (case no. A40-312272/24).
The courts of the first and appellate instances, with reference to the defendant's explanations, established that in January 2025 the powers of the debtor's director general were removed from the defendant, and therefore, on January 31, 2025, the defendant transferred all documents of the company to a citizen of Georgia under the act of acceptance and transfer of documents.
In refusing to satisfy the claims of the administrator, the courts proceeded from the fact that evidence had been provided confirming the transfer of documentation in full, the administrator had not requested documentation from a Georgian citizen and such requirements had not been stated, and requesting documentation from the defendant would lead to the unenforceability of the judicial act.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, drawing attention to the fact that the administrator argued that the defendant had submitted written objections to the case file at a time when the originally approved bankruptcy trustee had already been relieved of his duties, and the new one was approved later, respectively, could not provide reasoned objections and additional evidence, apply to the court for assistance in obtaining evidence.
As the manager points out, from a certain date until the date of declaring the debtor bankrupt, the Unified State Register of Legal Entities contained information that the defendant is the sole executive body of the company, meanwhile, stating in objections to the statement that he took measures to dismiss the general director of the Company, did not provide any evidence of sending letters to the founder of the debtor (correspondence), appeals to the tax authority with a statement, including about the unreliability of information about him. In addition, the manager argues that, referring to the measures taken to dismiss, the defendant, on behalf of the Company from September to December, conducted activities on behalf of the debtor, purchased goods (alcoholic beverages).
At the same time, the district court notes that it did not receive a proper assessment by the court of appeal of the bankruptcy trustee's argument that the defendant, referring to the transfer of documentation to a Georgian citizen, did not provide explanations of where and how the transfer of documentation took place (in particular, the power of attorney states that a Georgian citizen permanently resides in a foreign country), in addition, the manager pointed out that the submitted copy of the power of attorney for a Georgian citizen does not have a seal, does not contain complete information about the latter's identity, moreover, Bankruptcy proceedings were initiated against the debtor's participant and the company was liquidated.
The bankruptcy trustee claimed that the foreign citizen had not entered the territory of the Russian Federation, and it was difficult to identify him. In the court of appeal, the manager also asked to take into account the response from the border control that the Georgian citizen had not crossed the border in the relevant year.
At the same time, rejecting this argument, the Court considered that this response did not indicate that the said citizen could not cross the border in any other way, not only through border control, not crossing the border at another time and not being on the territory of the Russian Federation. Meanwhile, the manager refers to the fact that the Border Control Unit, from which information was requested by the court, is the body responsible for crossing the border of the Russian Federation, and not only in relation to border control, which was not taken into account by the court.
Photo: Freepik
The courts of the first and appellate instances, with reference to the defendant's explanations, established that in January 2025 the powers of the debtor's director general were removed from the defendant, and therefore, on January 31, 2025, the defendant transferred all documents of the company to a citizen of Georgia under the act of acceptance and transfer of documents.
In refusing to satisfy the claims of the administrator, the courts proceeded from the fact that evidence had been provided confirming the transfer of documentation in full, the administrator had not requested documentation from a Georgian citizen and such requirements had not been stated, and requesting documentation from the defendant would lead to the unenforceability of the judicial act.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, drawing attention to the fact that the administrator argued that the defendant had submitted written objections to the case file at a time when the originally approved bankruptcy trustee had already been relieved of his duties, and the new one was approved later, respectively, could not provide reasoned objections and additional evidence, apply to the court for assistance in obtaining evidence.
As the manager points out, from a certain date until the date of declaring the debtor bankrupt, the Unified State Register of Legal Entities contained information that the defendant is the sole executive body of the company, meanwhile, stating in objections to the statement that he took measures to dismiss the general director of the Company, did not provide any evidence of sending letters to the founder of the debtor (correspondence), appeals to the tax authority with a statement, including about the unreliability of information about him. In addition, the manager argues that, referring to the measures taken to dismiss, the defendant, on behalf of the Company from September to December, conducted activities on behalf of the debtor, purchased goods (alcoholic beverages).
At the same time, the district court notes that it did not receive a proper assessment by the court of appeal of the bankruptcy trustee's argument that the defendant, referring to the transfer of documentation to a Georgian citizen, did not provide explanations of where and how the transfer of documentation took place (in particular, the power of attorney states that a Georgian citizen permanently resides in a foreign country), in addition, the manager pointed out that the submitted copy of the power of attorney for a Georgian citizen does not have a seal, does not contain complete information about the latter's identity, moreover, Bankruptcy proceedings were initiated against the debtor's participant and the company was liquidated.
The bankruptcy trustee claimed that the foreign citizen had not entered the territory of the Russian Federation, and it was difficult to identify him. In the court of appeal, the manager also asked to take into account the response from the border control that the Georgian citizen had not crossed the border in the relevant year.
At the same time, rejecting this argument, the Court considered that this response did not indicate that the said citizen could not cross the border in any other way, not only through border control, not crossing the border at another time and not being on the territory of the Russian Federation. Meanwhile, the manager refers to the fact that the Border Control Unit, from which information was requested by the court, is the body responsible for crossing the border of the Russian Federation, and not only in relation to border control, which was not taken into account by the court.
Photo: Freepik
12.02.2026
