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.
THE SUPREME COURT CLARIFIED WHEN A PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF CREDITORS IN THE EVENT OF BANKRUPTCY OF ONE OF THE SPOUSES.
In an unexpected precedent, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation clarified the conditions under which a marriage contract remains legal, even if one of the spouses becomes bankrupt. In the case under discussion, the spouses signed a contract in 2017, consolidating the regime of separate ownership not only for current, but also for future assets. After Dmitry's bankruptcy in 2023, Legion Bank tried to challenge this contract, saying that it was created to hide property from creditors, and insisted on its cancellation.
The bank's claims were based on the fact that the spouse, after signing the contract, bought a share in the Energomash‑RZA company, a plot near Moscow and a Skoda car – allegedly with the funds of her husband, who by that time could no longer service the debts of his companies.
In the first court, the bank's claims were satisfied, but the appeal objected: the disputed assets were acquired with the woman's personal funds and loans, and the contract itself was concluded five years before the bankruptcy. That is, it goes beyond the three-year "suspicious" period.
The bank was not satisfied and filed a cassation, but the SUN sided with his wife. The judge at the economic board stressed that the official ownership regime had not changed to the detriment of the debtor, and the creditor had not lost anything. The husband's debt was a personal responsibility, and the matter did not concern the spouse's property. In addition, the contract was concluded long before the bankruptcy, and the three-year deadline has already passed. Thus, the agreement remained in force.
Lawyers note that the decision of the Supreme Court strengthens the legal protection of bona fide marriage contracts. However, if there is evidence of a deliberate redistribution of property, for example, if the spouse participates in asset management, the contract may be declared void. The main guideline for creditors is to prove that separation was a way to withdraw assets.
As a result, the Supreme Court confirmed that the separation regime is carried out legally and does not violate the rights of banks, if the legislative deadlines are met, the sources of income are provable and there is no malicious intent.
Photo: Freepik
The bank's claims were based on the fact that the spouse, after signing the contract, bought a share in the Energomash‑RZA company, a plot near Moscow and a Skoda car – allegedly with the funds of her husband, who by that time could no longer service the debts of his companies.
In the first court, the bank's claims were satisfied, but the appeal objected: the disputed assets were acquired with the woman's personal funds and loans, and the contract itself was concluded five years before the bankruptcy. That is, it goes beyond the three-year "suspicious" period.
The bank was not satisfied and filed a cassation, but the SUN sided with his wife. The judge at the economic board stressed that the official ownership regime had not changed to the detriment of the debtor, and the creditor had not lost anything. The husband's debt was a personal responsibility, and the matter did not concern the spouse's property. In addition, the contract was concluded long before the bankruptcy, and the three-year deadline has already passed. Thus, the agreement remained in force.
Lawyers note that the decision of the Supreme Court strengthens the legal protection of bona fide marriage contracts. However, if there is evidence of a deliberate redistribution of property, for example, if the spouse participates in asset management, the contract may be declared void. The main guideline for creditors is to prove that separation was a way to withdraw assets.
As a result, the Supreme Court confirmed that the separation regime is carried out legally and does not violate the rights of banks, if the legislative deadlines are met, the sources of income are provable and there is no malicious intent.
Photo: Freepik
02.07.2025
