RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
20/05/2026
Wednesday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
20 May 
1970 Vladimir Zelensky became the president of Ukraine.
1970 The proclamation of the Republic of Cuba, the evacuation of the American troops.
1970 Vasco da Gama became the first European to arrive in India, sailing around Africa.
20 May
1970 Vladimir Zelensky became the president of Ukraine.
1970 The proclamation of the Republic of Cuba, the evacuation of the American troops.
1970 Vasco da Gama became the first European to arrive in India, sailing around Africa.
THE MOVEMENT OF FUNDS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN A RECEIPT
The creditor applied to the court for the inclusion of claims in the debtor's register (case no. A56-107704/24).
In granting the application, the courts of two instances established that, as evidence of the transfer of funds, a receipt for the receipt of funds and a package of documents confirming the financial ability of the citizen to provide a loan were presented in the case file.
Concluding that the creditor has the financial ability to provide a loan in the stated amount, the courts, taking into account the transfer of cash to the debtor, proceeded from the evidence provided in the case file of the receipt of funds by the citizen on promissory notes; the bank's response on transactions with cash, as a result of which funds were received; information on the sale of real estate – contracts.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, pointing out that the submitted apartment purchase and sale agreements, due to the significant gap between the dates of their conclusion and the loan, are critically regarded as the source of the borrowed funds. The real estate sale agreement was issued later than the date of the disputed loan and could not confirm the financial viability of the citizen. The conditions contained in them cannot sufficiently confirm that the settlements under these agreements actually took place and were carried out in such a way that the citizen had the opportunity to accumulate sufficient cash by a certain date to issue a loan.
For the objects sold, only in respect of one contract, a receipt is provided for the receipt by the citizen of funds for a certain amount. There is no other evidence of actual calculations in the case.
The courts have not evaluated the arguments of the company that three loan agreements have been drawn up between an entrepreneur and a citizen: a loan agreement, according to which the citizen transferred funds to the entrepreneur as a loan for a certain period; a loan agreement, according to which the citizen transferred funds to the entrepreneur as a loan for another period; a loan agreement, according to which the citizen transferred the entrepreneur receives money as a loan for the third term.
The contracts are of the same type, and the grounds for their creation (February 2024) and execution (March-April 2024) relate to approximately the same period. In all cases, the contracts provided for the transfer of funds in cash, receipts were issued as confirmation of the granting of loans, and notaries' executive inscriptions were used to take recovery measures. The lender did not file any claims with the court of general jurisdiction.
The separation of claims and their consideration in different separate disputes allowed artificially creating conditions for the verification of the lender's financial ability to provide funds to be carried out separately for each contract. The courts also failed to evaluate the company's argument that there was no evidence that the debtor had spent the disputed funds.
At the same time, the creditor's arguments that the funds were transferred for the repair and reconstruction of real estate owned by the entrepreneur are not supported by the case materials.
In connection with the explanations that the loan was intended for the repair and reconstruction of real estate owned by the debtor, the company indicated the existence of a loan agreement in force in the same period between the entrepreneur and the bank. Under the terms of the agreement, the bank has opened a credit line for the borrower with a certain issue limit. The term of the credit line is a certain period. The purpose of the loan is to purchase and/or create fixed assets (including construction, reconstruction, and modernization of capital construction facilities).
The loan was issued in installments, for specific purposes specified in the applications, and confirmed by contracts and accounts of the entrepreneur's contractors; an additional agreement was drawn up for each tranche. The mortgage (pledge) of real estate was the security for the fulfillment of obligations under the loan agreement. The fact that the borrower has spent the funds provided can be traced to the bank account.
In turn, the information on the same account and other bank accounts of the entrepreneur does not indicate that the funds were deposited in cash starting from 02/08/2024. Thus, the debtor's need to finance the renovation of real estate, which has already been carried out at the expense of bank loans, as well as receiving funds from a citizen are not confirmed by the case materials.
The stated circumstances, along with information about the affiliation of the parties (the creditor and the debtor are shareholders of the company), contrary to the conclusions of the courts, do not confirm the reality of the loan agreement.
Photo: Freepik
In granting the application, the courts of two instances established that, as evidence of the transfer of funds, a receipt for the receipt of funds and a package of documents confirming the financial ability of the citizen to provide a loan were presented in the case file.
Concluding that the creditor has the financial ability to provide a loan in the stated amount, the courts, taking into account the transfer of cash to the debtor, proceeded from the evidence provided in the case file of the receipt of funds by the citizen on promissory notes; the bank's response on transactions with cash, as a result of which funds were received; information on the sale of real estate – contracts.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, pointing out that the submitted apartment purchase and sale agreements, due to the significant gap between the dates of their conclusion and the loan, are critically regarded as the source of the borrowed funds. The real estate sale agreement was issued later than the date of the disputed loan and could not confirm the financial viability of the citizen. The conditions contained in them cannot sufficiently confirm that the settlements under these agreements actually took place and were carried out in such a way that the citizen had the opportunity to accumulate sufficient cash by a certain date to issue a loan.
For the objects sold, only in respect of one contract, a receipt is provided for the receipt by the citizen of funds for a certain amount. There is no other evidence of actual calculations in the case.
The courts have not evaluated the arguments of the company that three loan agreements have been drawn up between an entrepreneur and a citizen: a loan agreement, according to which the citizen transferred funds to the entrepreneur as a loan for a certain period; a loan agreement, according to which the citizen transferred funds to the entrepreneur as a loan for another period; a loan agreement, according to which the citizen transferred the entrepreneur receives money as a loan for the third term.
The contracts are of the same type, and the grounds for their creation (February 2024) and execution (March-April 2024) relate to approximately the same period. In all cases, the contracts provided for the transfer of funds in cash, receipts were issued as confirmation of the granting of loans, and notaries' executive inscriptions were used to take recovery measures. The lender did not file any claims with the court of general jurisdiction.
The separation of claims and their consideration in different separate disputes allowed artificially creating conditions for the verification of the lender's financial ability to provide funds to be carried out separately for each contract. The courts also failed to evaluate the company's argument that there was no evidence that the debtor had spent the disputed funds.
At the same time, the creditor's arguments that the funds were transferred for the repair and reconstruction of real estate owned by the entrepreneur are not supported by the case materials.
In connection with the explanations that the loan was intended for the repair and reconstruction of real estate owned by the debtor, the company indicated the existence of a loan agreement in force in the same period between the entrepreneur and the bank. Under the terms of the agreement, the bank has opened a credit line for the borrower with a certain issue limit. The term of the credit line is a certain period. The purpose of the loan is to purchase and/or create fixed assets (including construction, reconstruction, and modernization of capital construction facilities).
The loan was issued in installments, for specific purposes specified in the applications, and confirmed by contracts and accounts of the entrepreneur's contractors; an additional agreement was drawn up for each tranche. The mortgage (pledge) of real estate was the security for the fulfillment of obligations under the loan agreement. The fact that the borrower has spent the funds provided can be traced to the bank account.
In turn, the information on the same account and other bank accounts of the entrepreneur does not indicate that the funds were deposited in cash starting from 02/08/2024. Thus, the debtor's need to finance the renovation of real estate, which has already been carried out at the expense of bank loans, as well as receiving funds from a citizen are not confirmed by the case materials.
The stated circumstances, along with information about the affiliation of the parties (the creditor and the debtor are shareholders of the company), contrary to the conclusions of the courts, do not confirm the reality of the loan agreement.
Photo: Freepik
12.05.2026
