RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
07/04/2026
Tuesday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
7 April 
2021 World Health Day
2020 World Health Day
2014 The proclamation of Donetsk People's Republic
2014 The proclamation of Donetsk People's Republic
1994 An information about .ru domain appeared in the international database of national domains
1994 An information about .ru domain appeared in the international database of national domains
7 April
2021 World Health Day
2020 World Health Day
2014 The proclamation of Donetsk People's Republic
2014 The proclamation of Donetsk People's Republic
1994 An information about .ru domain appeared in the international database of national domains
1994 An information about .ru domain appeared in the international database of national domains
THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE REALITY OF CRYPTOCURRENCY TRANSACTIONS IN A BANKRUPTCY CASE
The manager applied to the court for invalidation of the money transfer transaction in favor of the defendant (case no. A19-25494/23).
The courts of two instances refused to satisfy the application, concluding that there were no grounds for declaring the transaction invalid.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, noting that the courts, concluding that the defendant had concluded a deal to sell cryptocurrencies and fulfilled his obligation to transfer the goods to the buyer, had not actually verified the equivalence of the counter-provision of the transaction.
The court noted that the courts' references to the debtor's absence of overdue debt at the time of the disputed payments could not be considered justified, taking into account the circumstances established by the courts of the debtor's conclusion of credit agreements, the debt for which was subsequently included in the register of creditors' claims of the debtor. Also, the judicial acts do not contain an assessment of the specific evidence presented in refutation of the financial manager's argument about the gratuitousness of the transaction. Digital currency (cryptocurrency) is an object of civil rights, and therefore, it could be accepted as a means of payment.
The cassation stressed that the phone screen shots presented in the case file did not contain an indication of the address of the Internet page. And the case file does not provide evidence that it is the defendant who is registered as a user on cryptocurrency exchanges, that a user's personal account is opened in his name, through which all transactions are performed.
In addition, it follows from the screenshots that the defendant sold the cryptocurrency to an unidentified person, whose personal information is not provided, evidence that this person acted in the interests of the debtor is not provided, as well as evidence that it was the debtor who was provided with services, and he received execution for the transferred funds.
Photo: Freepik
The courts of two instances refused to satisfy the application, concluding that there were no grounds for declaring the transaction invalid.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, noting that the courts, concluding that the defendant had concluded a deal to sell cryptocurrencies and fulfilled his obligation to transfer the goods to the buyer, had not actually verified the equivalence of the counter-provision of the transaction.
The court noted that the courts' references to the debtor's absence of overdue debt at the time of the disputed payments could not be considered justified, taking into account the circumstances established by the courts of the debtor's conclusion of credit agreements, the debt for which was subsequently included in the register of creditors' claims of the debtor. Also, the judicial acts do not contain an assessment of the specific evidence presented in refutation of the financial manager's argument about the gratuitousness of the transaction. Digital currency (cryptocurrency) is an object of civil rights, and therefore, it could be accepted as a means of payment.
The cassation stressed that the phone screen shots presented in the case file did not contain an indication of the address of the Internet page. And the case file does not provide evidence that it is the defendant who is registered as a user on cryptocurrency exchanges, that a user's personal account is opened in his name, through which all transactions are performed.
In addition, it follows from the screenshots that the defendant sold the cryptocurrency to an unidentified person, whose personal information is not provided, evidence that this person acted in the interests of the debtor is not provided, as well as evidence that it was the debtor who was provided with services, and he received execution for the transferred funds.
Photo: Freepik
07.04.2026
