In advising foreign law firms on Russian asset-tracing mandates over recent years, a recurring procedural question surfaces early in almost every matter: what evidentiary weight will a Russian court assign to corporate registry information obtained by a foreign creditor acting without local counsel? A ruling handed down by Russia's supervisory court in the first half of 2026 has directly addressed that question, and the answer carries practical consequences for any firm coordinating cross-border asset recovery that touches Russian corporate structures.
The proceedings arose from an attempt by a foreign creditor to locate and freeze assets held through a chain of Russian legal entities. At the pre-enforcement stage, the creditor's foreign advisers had sourced corporate registry extracts directly from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities (EGRUL) through the Federal Tax Service's public portal, without instructing Russian counsel and without formal authentication of the retrieved data under Russian procedural rules. Those extracts were then presented to a Russian arbitrazh court in support of an application for interim measures — specifically, a prohibition on asset disposal pending resolution of the underlying claim.
The court of first instance declined the application. The appellate instance upheld that refusal on narrow procedural grounds, without resolving the underlying evidential question. When the matter reached the cassation level and was subsequently elevated to supervisory review, the higher court took the opportunity to issue guidance with broader application.
The central legal question was this: are EGRUL extracts obtained through a public access mechanism, without certification or notarial confirmation, and without the involvement of a party with procedural standing in the Russian proceedings, admissible as a basis for interim measures in Russian civil and commercial courts?
The supervisory court declined to treat the raw digital extracts, submitted directly by the foreign party, as sufficient evidentiary foundation for the interim relief sought. The court's reasoning rested on two related grounds.
First, the court held that, while EGRUL data is publicly accessible, its procedural use in support of an interim measures application requires that the data be obtained and introduced into the record by a participant in the proceedings with established standing under Russian civil procedure. A foreign party submitting materials directly — particularly where the Russian representation formalities had not been completed — could not satisfy that standing requirement.
Second, and of broader significance, the court addressed the issue of extract currency. EGRUL data on the public portal reflects a snapshot that may be days or weeks behind the live register at the moment of filing. The court noted that interim freeze applications are, by their nature, time-sensitive; a stale extract that does not capture recent re-registrations, director changes, or share transfers may affirmatively mislead the court as to the asset position being frozen. The court indicated that, for interim measures purposes, registry data should be sourced at the time of filing and introduced through counsel with knowledge of its limitations.
The court remitted the matter for reconsideration, with the original interim measures application to be re-examined with properly introduced and current registry evidence.
"This ruling is significant less for what it prohibits than for what it clarifies: Russian corporate registry searches, when used to ground interim relief, are procedural acts requiring counsel involvement — not merely a research step a foreign party can complete independently." — Elizaveta Razina, Senior Lawyer, Practice Lead — IP Enforcement, Vetrov & Partners
For partners at foreign firms coordinating Russian asset-tracing work, the ruling's practical implications divide into two categories: evidentiary procedure and timing.
On evidentiary procedure, the ruling confirms a position that experienced Russian practitioners have long applied in practice, but which had not previously received clear supervisory endorsement. Corporate registry searches conducted for the purpose of supporting an interim measures application — or any application that turns on the present ownership, control, or asset composition of a Russian entity — need to be conducted through local counsel who is already (or simultaneously being) enrolled as a party representative in the Russian proceedings. The introduction of that evidence into the record is itself a procedural act, not merely an administrative one.
For firms that currently send clients to the public EGRUL portal as a first step in asset scoping, this ruling counsels an adjustment: EGRUL searches remain a useful preliminary tool for assessing the landscape, but the moment those results are intended for use before a Russian court, local counsel involvement is required at the point of retrieval and filing, not merely at the point of advocacy.
On timing, the ruling's emphasis on extract currency has immediate consequences. EGRUL data used in an interim measures context should reflect the register as at the date of the application — or as close to it as is practically achievable. The standard practice at Vetrov & Partners for asset-tracing mandates is to obtain fresh registry extracts immediately prior to filing, with a timestamped record of retrieval. This approach is now directly supported by the court's reasoning.
For foreign counsel, the ruling also underscores the value of instructing Russian local counsel at the intelligence-gathering stage, not only once a claim is being formulated. The question of what corporate registry searches will support a future application is one that benefits from early-stage input from counsel who understands both the registry's architecture and Russian procedural requirements for evidence introduction.
For firms advising foreign creditors with Russian counterparties, establishing a confirmed local counsel relationship before interim measures become urgent is the more practical approach to protecting the client's position.
If you are coordinating an asset-tracing matter with a Russian dimension — make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76
Q: What does this ruling change?
A: The ruling does not create a new procedural prohibition but provides the first clear supervisory endorsement of a position practitioners had applied in practice without explicit high-court authority. Russian corporate registry data — specifically EGRUL extracts — when used in support of an interim measures application, must be obtained and introduced into the record by counsel with procedural standing in the relevant Russian proceedings. Foreign parties submitting such data directly, without Russian representation in place, face a material risk that the court will decline to treat those materials as admissible evidential foundation. The ruling also addresses currency: extracts must reflect the register as at the time of filing, which is especially significant where share transfers or restructuring may have occurred recently.
Q: What should foreign companies do in light of this decision?
A: Foreign companies and their advisers should treat EGRUL corporate registry searches as procedurally connected to the litigation strategy from an early stage. If there is any prospect that registry data will be relied upon before a Russian court — whether for interim measures, enforcement, or related proceedings — that data should be sourced by locally instructed Russian counsel at the time of filing, with a timestamped retrieval record. Using the public EGRUL portal for initial orientation is reasonable; treating those results as court-ready evidence without counsel involvement is not, following this ruling. Foreign law firms coordinating Russian asset-tracing mandates should confirm local counsel instructions before the interim measures question becomes live, rather than at the point when urgency is already a factor. Early instruction enables counsel to conduct registry searches in a form that satisfies procedural requirements from the outset.
Vetrov & Partners is a Russian boutique law firm established in 2009, recognised by Pravo-300 for eight consecutive years and listed as a trusted adviser by the German Consulate General in Novosibirsk.
The firm's asset tracing and recovery practice advises foreign creditors, international law firms, and institutional recovery specialists on locating and preserving Russian assets across corporate, real estate, and financial asset classes. The practice covers corporate registry analysis, interim measures, enforcement proceedings, and cross-border coordination with instructing counsel. With over 1,000 matters handled since inception, the team provides direct partner involvement on every engagement.
Enquiries: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp / Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76 | t.me/vitvetcom
This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice under Russian or any other applicable law. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Vetrov & Partners is a Russian-qualified law firm. For matters governed by foreign law or requiring local admission in another jurisdiction, we collaborate with trusted counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@vetrovpartners.com.
— Elizaveta Razina Senior Lawyer, Practice Lead — IP Enforcement, Vetrov & Partners vetrovpartners.com/razina/