Following amendments to Russian civil procedure and enforcement practice that took effect through the courts across 2025 and into 2026, foreign creditors pursuing state-related entities in Russia face a materially different procedural environment than existed even two years ago. The rules governing tracing bank accounts and financial flows — specifically the disclosure of account information, the scope of enforcement orders, and the procedural protections available to state-related counterparties — have been reshaped through a pattern of appellate decisions and evolving enforcement agency practice. This update analyses what changed, which foreign creditors are most directly affected, and what practical steps are available to maintain the viability of a recovery claim.
For most of the past decade, the prevailing approach among Russian arbitrazh courts was to treat tracing requests — applications by a judgment creditor to compel disclosure of a debtor's bank account details and financial flows — as standard procedural measures available broadly across debtor categories. State-related entities occupied an ambiguous position. In principle, they were subject to general enforcement rules. In practice, courts and bailiffs applied informal deferrals, construed procedural immunity arguments broadly, and frequently accepted administrative delay as a valid obstacle to disclosure orders.
The shift that has consolidated through 2025 and 2026 reflects two converging developments. First, Russian arbitrazh courts at appellate level have increasingly distinguished between entities with full state immunity — which remains confined to foreign states and a narrow range of international organisations — and domestic state-related entities, including state corporations, unitary enterprises, and companies with majority state participation. The latter category is, as a general rule and under the prevailing interpretation, not entitled to invoke immunity as a ground for resisting standard tracing and enforcement measures. Courts have been more willing to confirm this position in written decisions, providing a clearer basis for creditors to challenge procedural obstruction.
Second, the Federal Bailiff Service has revised its internal guidance on handling enforcement proceedings against entities classified as state-related. The practical effect has been a reduction in the informal tolerance that previously allowed such debtors to delay disclosure by invoking budgetary process requirements or treasury settlement procedures. Where a creditor holds an enforceable judgment, the expectation — consistent with the current approach — is that account information requests will be processed within standard statutory timelines rather than subject to extended administrative accommodation.
What has not changed is the underlying complexity. Entities that operate through treasury accounts — particularly federal and regional unitary enterprises funded through budget allocations — remain subject to a parallel enforcement regime under Russian budgetary legislation. Tracing bank accounts against such entities requires identifying which accounts fall outside the budgetary settlement system and are therefore available to general enforcement. This distinction is operationally important and is not resolved by the appellate clarification alone.
"[Quote text]" — Elizaveta Razina, Senior Lawyer, Practice Lead — IP Enforcement & Asset Tracing, Vetrov & Partners
For foreign creditors assessing the viability of tracing bank accounts and financial flows against a Russian state-related counterparty, the classification of that entity — and the accounts it holds — is the critical first step. Make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76
The practical significance of these developments varies by creditor type and by the nature of the state-related entity on the other side of the claim.
Foreign trade creditors — companies that supplied goods, services, or IP licences to a Russian counterparty that is a state unitary enterprise or a subsidiary of a state corporation — are the group most immediately affected. These creditors frequently encounter enforcement difficulties at the account-identification stage: the entity holds multiple accounts, not all of which are reachable under general enforcement, and the historical practice of informal deferral has eroded the practical value of standard bailiff requests. The 2026 appellate clarification provides a stronger procedural basis for insisting on disclosure within statutory timelines and for challenging refusals through the arbitrazh court.
Foreign institutional creditors — including investment funds and banks holding Russian-law obligations from state-related issuers — face a different set of considerations. Where the debt instrument is a ruble-denominated obligation governed by Russian law, tracing financial flows may be the most viable means of identifying assets reachable under an enforcement order, particularly where the debtor entity does not hold commercial real estate or moveable property in a form amenable to standard enforcement. The updated court practice on immunity delimitation is directly relevant to this creditor class.
Foreign creditors who hold foreign arbitral awards — recognised in Russia through the ICAC or through the state court recognition procedure — should note that the enforcement environment for awards against state-related entities remains distinct from the general enforcement track. Recognition proceedings are a prerequisite; once an award is recognised and converted into an enforceable Russian court order, the tracing procedures discussed here become available. However, the timeline from recognition to active account tracing typically extends to several months in practice, and creditors who have not yet initiated recognition should account for this in their recovery planning.
Creditors pursuing regional-level state entities — municipal enterprises, regional development corporations with state participation — should be aware that circuit-level practice is not uniform. The Siberian and Ural federal districts have in certain cases applied the immunity delimitation principles from appellate guidance; however, first-instance courts in some circuits continue to exercise procedural caution when the respondent is a locally significant employer or a regionally prominent entity. Local counsel engagement at the enforcement stage — not only at the litigation stage — remains important.
Creditors who delay initiating enforcement proceedings risk losing priority in circumstances where the debtor entity restructures or transfers assets through administrative reorganisation — a mechanism available to state-related entities under Russian legislation. If you hold an enforceable judgment or arbitral award against a Russian state-related counterparty, early account tracing is material to recovery prospects. Make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76
The 2026 developments provide a stronger procedural foundation for tracing bank accounts and financial flows against state-related entities, but they do not eliminate the operational complexity of the exercise. The steps set out below reflect what is typically required to move from a judgment or award to an active enforcement position against this class of debtor.
The first priority is entity classification. State-related entities in Russia fall across a spectrum — from fully state-owned federal unitary enterprises to partially state-owned joint-stock companies with minority private shareholding. The procedural rules that apply to account tracing, the accounts that are reachable, and the immunity arguments the debtor may legitimately raise all depend on where on this spectrum the counterparty sits. Misclassification at the outset leads to misdirected enforcement applications and wasted procedural cycles.
The second step is account identification. Russian creditors and their counsel routinely use the Federal Bailiff Service's formal request mechanism and the arbitrazh court's disclosure powers to compel banks to confirm account existence and current balances. For state-related entities, this process requires identifying which accounts are held at commercial banks — and therefore reachable under general enforcement — as distinct from accounts held within the Federal Treasury system, which are subject to the budgetary enforcement regime. Both tracks may need to be pursued in parallel.
The third consideration is timing. Where there is credible information that the debtor entity is undergoing administrative restructuring — a merger with another state entity, a change in legal form, or a transfer of functions — the window for effective tracing narrows materially. Under Russian civil procedure, enforcement measures can be challenged or suspended pending restructuring completion. Moving promptly is therefore not a procedural nicety; it is a substantive recovery consideration.
Finally, foreign creditors should assess whether their claim falls within the scope of any bilateral investment treaty or intergovernmental agreement between Russia and their home jurisdiction. For EAEU and CIS member state creditors, additional instruments may be relevant to enforcement against state entities and should be considered alongside the standard domestic enforcement route.
Q: What specifically changed in Russian court practice on tracing bank accounts against state-related entities in 2026?
A: The principal development is a consolidation of appellate court decisions distinguishing between procedural immunity — which continues to protect foreign states and a narrow class of international organisations — and the general enforcement exposure of domestic state-related entities, including state corporations, unitary enterprises, and majority state-owned companies. Under the prevailing approach, these entities are not entitled, as a rule, to resist standard account tracing and financial flow disclosure measures on immunity grounds alone. Separately, the Federal Bailiff Service revised its internal guidance on processing enforcement measures against this category of debtor, reducing the informal tolerance for extended administrative delay. The combined effect is a procedural environment that is more receptive to creditor-initiated tracing applications, though entity classification and account-type analysis remain prerequisites to effective enforcement.
Q: Which types of foreign creditor are most affected by these changes in Russian enforcement practice?
A: Foreign trade creditors holding enforceable Russian court judgments against state unitary enterprises or state corporation subsidiaries are most immediately affected, because account tracing is frequently the primary avenue for recovery where the debtor holds limited commercial assets. Foreign institutional creditors with ruble-denominated obligations from state-related issuers similarly benefit from the clearer immunity delimitation, since financial flow tracing may identify the only reachable assets. Creditors holding recognised foreign arbitral awards gain access to the same tracing mechanisms once recognition is complete, though the recognition-to-enforcement timeline should be factored into recovery planning. Foreign creditors dealing with regional or municipal entities should note that circuit-level application of the 2026 guidance has not been uniform, and that local enforcement counsel — as distinct from litigation counsel — may be needed at the execution stage.
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 & Recovery practice advises foreign creditors — including trade creditors, institutional investors, and award-holders — on the identification, tracing, and enforcement of assets held by Russian entities, including state-related counterparties. With over 1,000 matters handled since inception, the team brings direct partner involvement to each engagement, from entity classification through to active enforcement proceedings before Russian arbitrazh courts.
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 & Asset Tracing, Vetrov & Partners vetrovpartners.com/razina/