Transit Payments in a Group of Companies in Russia

 

September 17, 2022

BRACE Law Firm ©

Making transit payments is a highly popular financing tool within a group of companies. Such operations are not prohibited per se; however, in several cases, making such payments entails significant legal risks. Primarily, this concerns cases where such operations are carried out for unlawful purposes.

Let us consider the main legal risks associated with transit payments, as well as ways to avoid and minimize these risks.

Which Payments Are Transit Payments?

Transit payments may be classified as illegal in the event of the feigned or sham nature of the obligations underlying such payments, where such payments are of a "transit" nature for their recipient. A transit payment may effectively return to its original owner directly or indirectly (through third parties legally or actually related to such person).

Thus, the transit movement of funds may be formalized by a transaction entered into only for appearances, or to conceal another transaction without the intent to create the corresponding legal consequences, to mislead others regarding the nature of the legal relations arising between the parties. Based on Article 170 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Civil Code), transactions of market participants entered into with the intent to create externally legal grounds for transferring funds or other property, including for the legalization of proceeds from crime, depending on the circumstances of the case, may be qualified as sham or feigned transactions. The sham or feigned nature of a transaction lies in the fact that one or several of its parties lack the intent to achieve the stated results. The declaration of will of the parties to a sham transaction does not coincide with their main actual intention. Furthermore, concealing the true meaning of the transaction is in the interests of both parties. By entering into a transaction only for appearances, the parties correctly execute all documents but seek to create not real legal consequences, but rather the appearance thereof. Therefore, the fact of such discrepancy between the declaration of will and the actual will of the parties is established by the court by analyzing the factual circumstances confirming the reality of their intentions [1].

Payments may be qualified as transit payments regardless of which obligations they formalize. Most frequently, such obligations are loan agreements. However, transit payments may also be carried out under other agreements: supply, contracting, etc. In essence, a transit payment may be formalized by any legal relationship. Common to all is the lack of reality of the economic operation. Due to the fact that the parties strive to ensure the most reliable document flow possible, the loan agreement structure is used due to its simplicity.

The following signs of transit operations can be distinguished:

• Performance of transit movement of funds within a group of persons.
• Performance of an operation under a transaction regarding which the true meaning of such transaction is distorted (distortion of will).
• Actual participation in the operation by entities other than just the parties to the transaction.
• Sequential performance of operations with funds regarding several companies (funds are transferred between several companies within a short period).
• One (or several participants in the operations) does not possess the funds regarding which the movement is carried out and has no control over such funds.
• Absence of real economic relations and counter-considerations between the participants in the operations.
• Lack of obvious economic substance.
• Absence of the ability of one of the parties to perform the corresponding operation, including due to financial condition.

When qualifying a payment as a transit payment, all or only some of the indicated signs may be present.

Thus, in one of the reviewed cases, the court noted that there was a free movement of funds within an interconnected group of persons. In particular, a sum of money received in the account of one person was redistributed among themselves by transfer to the accounts of other persons; that is, the receipts were essentially of a transit nature [2].

At the same time, the transit nature of operations is always committed by a person (several persons) who have no legal basis for possessing such funds. For example, in one court case, the court indicated that the disputed payments actually passed through the firm in transit and represented the distribution by the general contractor of money from the municipal customer among all persons performing the work (the general contractor and subcontractors). The transit nature of the settlements indicated that the disputed funds did not belong to the debtor. The firm could not count on receiving targeted budget funds into its ownership for work it did not perform. The courts indicated that budgetary appropriations, the alienability of which is limited by virtue of the targeted purpose of the funds, are not the debtor's property. The corresponding funds could not be directed to settle other accounts payable. Funds transferred from special accounts in accordance with the municipal contract against works performed by the defendant cannot be qualified as the debtor's income [3].

The purpose of making transit payments in a group of companies is the redistribution of funds within the group of companies while creating the appearance of the reality of an economic operation. Subsequently, the created apparent operation may be used either for the purpose of recovering funds under a non-existent obligation, or (the most frequent case) for inclusion in the register of creditors' claims upon the bankruptcy of the latter, or is used for unlawful purposes, or to create the appearance of a normal turnover of non-cash funds [4].

The transit of funds exists when their movement is mediated by interconnected economic operations within a group of related persons and a return to their initial sender occurs — to the beneficiary or a person controlled by them, i.e., circular financing occurs along a chain to the final recipient, creating an artificial turnover of non-cash funds in the absence of real financial and economic activity [5].

The main element characterizing a transit payment is the distortion of the will of the parties performing the operation. The declaration of will of the parties to a sham transaction does not coincide with their main actual intention. Furthermore, concealing the true meaning of the transaction is in the interests of both parties. By entering into a transaction only for appearances, the parties correctly execute all documents but seek to create not real legal consequences, but rather the appearance thereof. Therefore, the fact of such discrepancy between the declaration of will and the actual will of the parties is established by the court by analyzing the factual circumstances confirming the reality of their intentions.

At the same time, the creation of an externally flawless document flow does not testify to the existence of a real legal relationship and obliges the courts to investigate the essence of the legal relationship [6]. By entering into sham or feigned transactions, their parties, being interested in concealing the true motives of their behavior from third parties, as a rule, correctly execute all business papers but do not strive to create real legal consequences corresponding to those indicated in the documents compiled by them.

Thus, in one of the reviewed cases, the courts, qualifying transit payments, proceeded from the fact that the signing of a loan agreement by the parties and the transfer of funds cannot be recognized as sufficient for qualifying the disputed legal relations as loan relations. If there are doubts about the reality of the existence of an obligation under a transaction in a situation where the parties to the dispute are interested in concealing the actual purpose of the transaction, the court is empowered to investigate the issue of the discrepancy between the will and the declaration of will regarding the civil legal consequences usually generated by such a transaction, including by assessing the consistency of the evidence presented, its compliance with established business practice, the presence or absence of convincing explanations for the reasonableness of the actions and decisions of the parties to the transaction, etc. [7].

If there are circumstances obviously indicating the sham nature of the transaction, or arguments of a party to the dispute regarding sham nature, establishing only those circumstances that indicate formal execution of the transaction is clearly insufficient.

Transit movement of funds formalized by a loan agreement may represent a transaction entered into only for appearances, or to conceal another transaction without the intent to create the corresponding legal consequences, to mislead others regarding the nature of the legal relations arising between the parties [8]. Thus, the transit transfer of funds formalized by loan agreements, if not associated with the creditor actually incurring expenses (for example, if the creditor receives the funds transferred as a loan under loan agreements in the absence of evidence of performance of the obligation to repay the loan), may testify to the formal nature of the transfers, having as their exclusive purpose, for example, the establishment of dominating control in bankruptcy proceedings.

If the behavior of a market participant falls outside the scope of the standard behavior of a commercial organization as a reasonable participant in civil turnover striving to obtain maximum profit, the burden of proving its good faith shifts to this market participant. The presumption of good faith should not be applied by the court in this case [9].

The above approach is due to the fact that in a group of persons, as a general rule, the integration of its constituent links, including individual entrepreneurs and other individuals, is assumed not only through a common management policy and the presence of a common strategy but also through the pooling of financial resources and capital. In such a situation, an outside party is limited in collecting evidence regarding the issue of specifically whose funds within the group of persons were used to make a particular payment or repay a loan, whereas it will not be difficult for affiliated creditors, upon the presentation of well-founded objections by other disinterested participants in the process, to refute said doubts and disclose the order of economic interaction within the group, prove the financial independence of a particular subject of the group, as well as the purposes of performing financial operations, since they are the ones who must possess all evidence of their legal relations [10].

This approach is fully implemented within the framework of considering bankruptcy cases. However, it appears that it should also apply outside this category of cases.

Circumvention of legislation by participants in civil turnover for unlawful purposes related to the commission of illegal financial operations may serve as grounds for concluding that the transaction is invalid [11]. Furthermore, even the reality of obligations under a transaction does not exclude the right of the court to refuse to satisfy claims based on the transaction if the purpose of its commission was to circumvent prohibitions and restrictions established by legislation on combating the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime and the financing of terrorism, legislation on banks and banking activities, currency legislation, and other legislation.

It is also necessary to highlight the criteria for transit operations from the perspective of banking legislation. The consequence, if a bank establishes an operation as a transit operation, will be the suspension of bank account operations.

For the purposes of carrying out a banking operation to suspend client accounts, the Bank of Russia highlights the following as criteria for transit operations:

• Crediting of funds to the client's account from a large number of other residents from accounts opened in banks of the Russian Federation, with subsequent debiting;
• Debiting of funds from the account occurs within a period not exceeding 2 days from the date of their crediting;
• Carried out regularly (as a rule, daily);
• Carried out over a long period (as a rule, at least 3 months);
• The client's activity, within the framework of which funds are credited to the account and debited from the account, does not create tax payment obligations for its owner, or the tax burden is minimal;
• From the account used for the indicated operations, payment of taxes or other mandatory payments to the budget system of the Russian Federation is not carried out or is carried out in insignificant amounts not comparable to the scale of the account owner's activity [12].

Thus, a common criterion for transit payments is the fact that a transfer of funds occurs over which the transit company has no rights, and ultimately, the funds return to the final beneficiary.

Group of Persons in the Qualification of Transit Payments

Undoubtedly, defining the circle of persons who would fall under the definition of a "group of persons" or "group of companies" is crucial for the correct qualification of transit operations. The legislative definition of a group of persons is contained in various regulatory acts governing specific legal relations.

1. Group of persons in antitrust legislation [13]. A group of persons is recognized as a set of individuals and/or legal entities corresponding to one or more of the following signs:

• A business entity and an individual or legal entity, if such individual or such legal entity has, by virtue of its participation, more than 50% of the total number of votes;
• A legal entity and an individual or legal entity performing the functions of the sole executive body of this legal entity;
• A business entity and an individual or legal entity, if such individual or such legal entity is entitled to give this business entity binding instructions;
• Legal entities in which more than 50% of the quantitative composition of the collegiate executive body and/or the board of directors (supervisory board, fund council) consists of the same individuals;
• A business entity and an individual or legal entity, if, upon the proposal of such individual or such legal entity, the sole executive body of this business entity (business partnership) is appointed or elected;
• A business entity and an individual or legal entity, if, upon the proposal of such individual or such legal entity, more than 50% of the quantitative composition of the collegiate executive body or the board of directors (supervisory board) of this business entity is elected;
• An individual, their spouse, parents (including adoptive parents), children (including adopted children), full and half-brothers and sisters;
• Persons, each of whom falls into a group with the same person based on any of the indicated signs, as well as other persons falling into a group with any of such persons based on any of the indicated signs.

2. Interdependent persons in the sphere of tax relations. By virtue of Article 105.1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, to recognize the mutual dependence of persons, the influence that may be exerted by virtue of the participation of one person in the capital of other persons, in accordance with an agreement concluded between them, or in the presence of another possibility for one person to determine decisions made by other persons, is taken into account. Moreover, such influence is taken into account regardless of whether it can be exerted by one person directly and independently or jointly with their interdependent persons:

• Organizations in the event that one organization directly and/or indirectly participates in another organization and the share of such participation exceeds 25%;
• An individual and an organization in the event that such individual directly and/or indirectly participates in such organization and the share of such participation exceeds 25%;
• Organizations in the event that the same person directly and/or indirectly participates in these organizations and the share of such participation in each organization exceeds 25%;
• An organization and a person having the authority to appoint (elect) the sole executive body of this organization or to appoint (elect) at least 50% of the composition of the collegiate executive body or the board of directors (supervisory board) of this organization;
• Organizations whose sole executive bodies or at least 50% of the composition of the collegiate executive body or the board of directors (supervisory board) are appointed or elected by the decision of the same person;
• Organizations in which more than 50% of the composition of the collegiate executive body or the board of directors (supervisory board) consists of the same individuals jointly with interdependent persons;
• An organization and the person exercising the authority of its sole executive body;
• Organizations in which the authority of the sole executive body is exercised by the same person;
• Organizations and/or individuals in the event that the share of direct participation of each preceding person in each subsequent organization exceeds 50%;
• Individuals in the event that one individual is subordinate to another individual by official position;
• An individual, their spouse, parents (including adoptive parents), children (including adopted children), full and half-brothers and sisters, guardian (trustee), and ward.

Common to all categories named above is the interconnectedness of the indicated persons, as well as the ability of the beneficiary to give guiding instructions to other members of the group. At the same time, in practice, courts may now combine into a group of persons not only legally interconnected persons but also persons who avoid showing a legal connection but meet the criterion of the ability to influence decisions made by the company and/or if such a person is the ultimate beneficiary. A group of persons acts within the framework of a common economic interest and pursues a single goal, which, regarding transit payments, is usually unlawful.

Goals and Examples of Transit Movement of Funds

Obviously, the ultimate goal of making transit payments is some unlawful purpose.

Let us consider the most common ones.

1. Laundering of proceeds from crime. The increasing scale of transit operations suggests that the possible actual goals of such operations may be the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime, financing of terrorism, and other illegal goals.

In the event that, based on an analysis of available documents and information, an operation under a transaction arouses suspicion in the credit organization that it is being carried out for the purpose of legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime or financing of terrorism because the credit organization cannot confirm the unambiguity of the conclusion regarding the obvious economic substance or obvious legal purpose of such operation under the transaction, the credit organization implements the right to refuse to execute the resident client's order to perform the funds transfer operation based on Clause 11, Article 7 of Law No. 115-FZ [14]. The criteria by which the Bank qualifies a payment as a transit payment are indicated above.

Factors individually or collectively influencing the bank's decision to refuse to execute a client's order to perform an operation may also include, in particular, the following: the client systematically and/or in significant volumes performs operations containing signs indicating the unusual nature of the transaction, as named in the bank's instructions.

The final decision on the classification or non-classification of an unusual operation (transaction) as suspicious is made by an authorized employee based on all information at their disposal (including external and legally available sources of information, including mass media and documents characterizing the status and activity of the client performing the operation, as well as the client's representative, beneficiary, and beneficial owner).

Based on an analysis of the submitted documents, Sberbank of Russia formed a negative opinion, according to which the conducted operations were recognized as suspicious since the plaintiff did not confirm the source of origin of the funds received in the account [15]. As PJSC Sberbank of Russia indicated, the specified documents do not allow determining the nature of the origin of the funds received in the account, and also do not explain the economic substance of the operations performed or an obvious lawful purpose, as required by Federal Law No. 115-FZ.

2. Creation of artificial indebtedness. The transit movement of funds formalized by loan agreements may represent a transaction entered into only for appearances, or to conceal another transaction without the intent to create the corresponding legal consequences, to mislead others regarding the nature of the legal relations arising between the parties.

Thus, if there are circumstances indicating the sham nature of the transaction, or arguments of a party to the dispute regarding sham nature, establishing only those circumstances that indicate formal execution of the transaction is clearly insufficient. Taking into account that the fictitiousness of a transaction lies in the fact that the parties do not have the goal of achieving the stated results, the declaration of will of the parties to the transaction in question does not coincide with their internal will, and establishing the fact that the parties did not actually intend for the emergence, modification, or termination of civil rights and duties usually generated by such a transaction is sufficient to qualify the transaction as void.

As a rule, when performing operations to form accounts payable, there is affiliation between the creditor and the debtor. In one of the acts of judicial practice, the courts established the affiliation of the debtor and the creditor, in connection with which the court determined that a stricter standard of proof is applicable to the latter's claims than to an ordinary creditor in a bankruptcy case. Such a plaintiff, in the court's opinion, must exclude any reasonable doubts regarding the reality of the debt, since the commonality of economic interests, among other things, increases the probability of the creditor presenting externally flawless evidence of performance of an essentially fictitious transaction with the unlawful purpose of subsequent distribution of the bankruptcy estate in favor of a "friendly" creditor and reducing, in the interests of the debtor and its affiliated persons, the number of votes attributable to the share of independent creditors, which does not meet the standards of good faith exercise of rights [16].

As follows from the legal position set forth in the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated May 25, 2010 No. 677/10, the transit movement of funds formalized by loan agreements may represent a transaction entered into only for appearances, or to conceal another transaction without the intent to create the corresponding legal consequences, to mislead others regarding the nature of the legal relations arising between the parties. The transit transfer of funds formalized by loan agreements, if not associated with the creditor actually incurring expenses (for example, if the creditor receives the funds transferred as a loan under loan agreements in the absence of evidence of performance of the obligation to repay the loan), may testify to the formal nature of the transfers, having as their exclusive purpose the establishment of dominating control over insolvency (bankruptcy) proceedings [17].

Transit Operations in Bankruptcy

Most frequently, transit operations are encountered on the eve of a debtor's bankruptcy. Such operations are used to create artificial indebtedness and for inclusion in the register of creditors of the debtor to obtain control over the latter. Given the specifics of considering bankruptcy cases, if independent creditors cast doubt on such an operation, the court is tasked with verifying the validity of such creditor's arguments.

By virtue of the provisions of Article 100 of the Bankruptcy Law [18], when considering a creditor's claim in an insolvency (bankruptcy) case, the arbitration court verifies its validity and the presence of grounds for inclusion in the register of creditors' claims of the debtor. At the same time, during the consideration of the validity of the creditor's claim, evidence of the incurrence of indebtedness is subject to verification in accordance with the substantive legal norms regulating the obligations unfulfilled by the debtor.

As explained in Paragraph 26 of Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 35, the verification of the validity and amount of creditors' claims is carried out by the court regardless of the presence of disagreements regarding these claims between the debtor and persons entitled to submit corresponding objections, on the one hand, and the creditor submitting the claim, on the other hand. When establishing creditors' claims in a bankruptcy case, courts should proceed from the fact that only claims for which sufficient evidence of the existence and amount of indebtedness has been presented may be recognized as established. When assessing the reliability of the fact of the existence of a claim based on the transfer of cash funds to the debtor, confirmed only by its receipt or a slip to an incoming cash order, the court must take into account, among other things, the following circumstances: did the financial position of the creditor (taking into account its income) allow it to provide the debtor with the corresponding funds; is there satisfactory information in the case file on how the received funds were spent by the debtor; was the receipt of these funds reflected in accounting and tax records and reporting, etc. [19].

A lender, declaring the inclusion of indebtedness under loan agreements in the register of creditors' claims, is obliged, among other things, to substantiate the economic expediency of providing funds to an affiliated person on a repayable basis. Thus, by virtue of the specifics of bankruptcy cases, if there are doubts about the lawfulness of the claim, according to the procedural rules of evidence, the applicant is obliged to prove the validity of the claim with admissible evidence.

Upon suspicion of affiliation of the parties to the dispute, the creditor presenting a claim to the debtor, applying the stricter standard of proof of good faith exercise of rights, must exclude any reasonable doubts regarding the reality of the debt, since the commonality of economic interests, among other things, increases the probability of presenting externally flawless evidence of the existence of indebtedness. In particular, the court may impose on such a person the obligation to disclose reasonable economic motives for the transaction or motives for behavior in the process of performing an already concluded agreement. An application for inclusion in the register of creditors' claims of a claim of a person affiliated with the debtor based on its performance of the debtor's obligation to an external creditor is not subject to satisfaction if the affiliated person received reimbursement for what was performed based on an agreement with the debtor.

At the same time, the existence of such an agreement is presumed if the free movement of assets within the group is established. The obligation to refute this presumption lies with the affiliated creditor [20].

Considering a specific case, the court concluded that no explanations were given regarding the grounds for intra-group movement of funds, it was not confirmed that the settlement operations mediating the movement and circulation of assets under loan agreements were executed in accordance with their true economic substance and conditioned by reasonable economic goals, and the transit nature of operations for the transfer of funds was not refuted; in connection with which the court refused to include the indebtedness in the register of creditors' claims [21].

Establishing the circumstances of the transit movement of funds in a group of persons excludes the possibility of recognizing the creditor's claims as valid. By entering into sham transactions, parties affiliated with each other, interested in concealing the true motives of their behavior from third parties, as a rule, correctly execute all business papers but do not strive to create real legal consequences corresponding to those indicated in the documents compiled by them. Therefore, if there are objections regarding the sham nature of the agreement within the framework of a bankruptcy case, the court should not limit itself to checking the documents submitted by the creditor for compliance with formal requirements established by law. The court needs to determine whether sufficient evidence of the existence of actual relations under the agreement has been presented.

At the same time, an affiliated creditor has no obstacles to presenting the court with a full set of additional evidence within the sphere of control of the group to which it belongs, eliminating all reasonable doubts regarding the sham nature of the transaction. If an affiliated creditor does not present such evidence, it is considered that it has refused to refute the fact indicated by its procedural opponents with reference to specific documents.

Moreover, when establishing the affiliation of creditors and the debtor within the framework of a bankruptcy case, proving the fact of commonality of economic interests in a bankruptcy case is admissible not only through confirmation of legal affiliation (in particular, the persons belonging to one group of companies through corporate participation) but also factual affiliation. The absence of direct legal affiliation between the parties to transactions, without taking into account other circumstances of the case, does not mean the absence of signs of interest on the part of the defendant in relation to the debtor and other parties to transactions, given that the presence of legal affiliation does not exclude the need to take into account factual affiliation, which manifests itself through the behavior of persons in economic turnover and, in particular, in the conclusion of transactions between themselves and their subsequent execution on terms unavailable to ordinary (independent) market participants [22].

Ways to Avoid and Minimize Legal Risks of Qualification of Payments as Transit Payments

Since making transit payments is not prohibited per se under Russian legislation, and such payments become unlawful only when pursuing an illegal goal, if transit operations are carried out in a group of companies, the following conditions must be met to minimize negative consequences:

• Reality of the transaction. The operation must have evidence of its performance by the parties.
• Absence of an unlawful purpose, whether it be cashing out funds or the illegal accumulation of accounts payable.
• Presence of economic justification for operations. It should be noted that relations between affiliated companies, in the presence of a real economic goal for performing operations, will allow including indebtedness in the register of creditors' claims during bankruptcy [23].

Compliance with the indicated criteria will, in essence, mean that the payment was not a transit payment.

Thus, when establishing a group of persons within the framework of a bankruptcy case, courts view the composition of such a group more broadly than within the framework of individual areas of law, combining into a group of persons not only those persons who have legal ties but also those who formally do not have such ties. The nature of transit payments is generally unlawful and pursues illegal goals, whether they are related to the formation of artificial indebtedness, tax evasion, or violation of the requirements of Law No. 115-FZ.

________________________________

References

[1] Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated May 25, 2010 No. 677/10.

[2] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Central District dated March 19, 2021 No. F10-342/2021 in case No. A35-6127/2019.

[3] Ruling of the Supreme Court of the RF dated July 11, 2022 No. 308-ES20-8515 in case No. A32-55433/2017.

[4] Ruling of the Supreme Court of the RF dated July 16, 2020 No. 306-ES19-2986.

[5] Ruling of the Supreme Court of the RF dated May 14, 2019 No. 307-ES16-3765, Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the East Siberian District dated July 14, 2021 in case No. A74-5805/2018.

[6] Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 11, 2017 No. 305-ES17-2110.

[7] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Central District dated March 23, 2022 No. A35-6127/2019.

[8] Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated May 25, 2010 No. 677/10.

[9] Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 30, 2016 No. 305-ES16-1409 in case No. A40-31186/2014.

[10] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Volga District dated September 13, 2019 No. F06-33223/2018 in case No. A55-27273/2017.

[11] Clause 9 of the Review on Specific Issues of Judicial Practice Related to the Adoption by Courts of Measures to Counteract Illegal Financial Operations, approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on July 08, 2020.

[12] Letter of the Bank of Russia dated December 31, 2014 No. 236-T "On Increasing the Attention of Credit Organizations to Specific Operations of Clients".

[13] Art. 9 of Federal Law No. 135-FZ dated July 26, 2006 On Protection of Competition.

[14] Federal Law No. 115-FZ dated August 07, 2001 On Counteracting the Legalization (Laundering) of Proceeds from Crime and Financing of Terrorism.

[15] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Urals District dated May 27, 2020 No. F09-2766/20 in case No. A76-15288/20+19.

[16] Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 26, 2017 No. 306-ES16-20056, dated September 11, 2017 No. 301-ES17-4784.

[17] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the East Siberian District dated September 24, 2019 No. F02-4751/2019 in case No. A19-6903/2018.

[18] Federal Law No. 127-FZ dated October 26, 2002 On Insolvency (Bankruptcy).

[19] Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated June 22, 2012 No. 35 "On Certain Procedural Issues Connected with the Consideration of Bankruptcy Cases".

[20] Rulings of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 21, 2022 No. 305-ES21-15871, dated February 03, 2022 No. 307-ES19-23448.

[21] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the West Siberian District dated August 18, 2022 No. F04-872/2019 in case No. A45-39362/2017.

[22] Rulings of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 15, 2016 No. 308-ES16-1475, dated May 26, 2017 No. 306-ES16-20056. [23] Ruling of the Supreme Court of the RF dated September 04, 2020 No. 305-ES20-5457(2) in case No. A40-36086/2019.