Under Russian civil law, a foreign creditor pursuing asset recovery may seek to challenge transfers made by a debtor before or after proceedings commence — but the analysis differs materially depending on whether the challenge is brought within insolvency proceedings or through a standalone civil action. At the interim relief stage, understanding which legal pathway is available is often the factor that determines whether a freezing application will succeed.
Russian civil legislation distinguishes between two principal routes for challenging potentially fraudulent transfers. Outside insolvency, a creditor may seek to void a transaction under the general provisions of the Civil Code governing transactions concluded to the detriment of creditors. Within insolvency proceedings, Russian insolvency legislation provides a dedicated framework for avoidance actions, offering broader grounds and longer look-back periods. The interim relief available to a creditor — and the standard the court will apply when assessing a freezing application — depends directly on which route is engaged and at what stage the application is made.
At the freezing and interim relief stage, the practical challenge for foreign creditors is evidentiary. Russian arbitrazh courts apply a well-established two-part test: the applicant must demonstrate both a prima facie case on the underlying claim and a real risk that enforcement of any future judgment will be frustrated. Where the creditor can show a pattern of asset disposals — transfers to connected parties, undervalue transactions, or encumbrances placed on key assets shortly before or after the dispute arose — courts are more likely to grant interim measures. Evidence of such transfers, gathered through Rosreestr property searches, corporate registry analysis, and transaction tracing, forms the analytical foundation of any freezing application. That said, Russian courts retain broad discretion and interim measures are not routinely granted; the threshold in practice is higher than in many Western European jurisdictions.
For foreign creditors who have identified suspicious transfers, the recommended step is to instruct Russian counsel before filing any claim, so that the fraudulent transfer analysis can be prepared alongside the interim relief application — the two must be presented together to have the strongest prospect of success.
For advice on asset tracing and interim relief strategy in Russia, visit our Asset Tracing & Recovery practice page or make an enquiry directly.
Make an enquiry — info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76
— Elizaveta Razina Senior Lawyer, Practice Lead — IP Enforcement, Vetrov & Partners vetrovpartners.com/razina/
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.