Housing · Road accident defence · Bankruptcy and transactions · Water damage
Anonymised situations from the bureau’s files. These accounts describe our approach to defence; no final outcome is claimed where it has not been confirmed.
The municipality’s duty to provide the client with social housing was preserved. The appellate court granted narrower relief than the first-instance court; the cassation court left that decision unchanged. Actual provision of accommodation is not claimed.
Read the outcome and its limits →The initial charges cited Articles 264(4)(b) and 125. The defence examined vehicle engineering evidence and challenged causation. The court considered only Article 125 and imposed a RUB 50,000 fine.
Read about the defence →The client learned of the court payment order only after ₽36,500 had been debited from their accounts. The creditor relied on a ₽15,000 microloan, but the client stated that they had not applied for or signed the loan agreement and had received no money. The bank statement reviewed showed no credit of that amount.
What needed checking. The payment order incorrectly stated the client’s place of birth. The address supplied by the creditor appeared in documents only after the alleged loan date. These discrepancies do not in themselves cancel the order, but require investigation of how the borrower was identified, where the money was sent, and which telephone number, email address, IP address and verification code were used.
Urgent legal work. We prepared objections to the payment order, reasons for missing the deadline, a request for the court file, an application to the bank and a demand that the creditor disclose the loan application and disbursement documents. At the same time, we prepared a series of applications to credit reference bureaus, the police and the Bank of Russia.
After cancellation of the order. If the money has already been transferred to the creditor, restitution following enforcement and repayment of the debited amount must be sought. The loan agreement itself and the credit record are challenged separately.
Why delay matters. A court payment order is issued without a hearing or summons to the parties. A person may discover it only after their funds have been frozen or debited. This situation requires coordinated action involving the court, bank, creditor, credit record and law enforcement authorities, rather than a single document.
Get urgent legal assistance →A boundary approved by a public authority became the basis for a claim seeking to reduce the area of the client’s land plot.
Legal work. Alongside the property dispute, the lawfulness of the administrative act was challenged. Separate administrative proceedings were initiated, and the issue was raised that the property dispute could not be determined before the act was reviewed.
During tax supervision, the issue arose of potentially reclassifying civil-law relationships as employment relationships.
Legal work. Analysis of the substance of the relationships, the contractors’ independence and the conditions under which the work was performed. The position rests on the actual performance of the agreements.
The Moscow Region Bar Association recognised Levon Petrosyan in its “We Are Proud” category for securing an acquittal. The circumstances of the case and the client’s details are not disclosed.
Original source — Moscow Region Bar Association ↗In a corporate bankruptcy case, the insolvency administrator sought to hold former managers and other persons liable for the company's debts. The court examined the transactions and the reasons for the company's financial difficulties. Contracts and work completion records supported the commercial basis of the disputed payments. The alleged diversion of the business was not established. The court dismissed the subsidiary liability application in that dispute. The outcome depended on the evidence in the particular case.
Several individuals were ordered to pay substantial damages in a bankruptcy-related dispute. On appeal, the court examined the alleged conduct, evidence of loss and causation. The appellate court found the evidence insufficient, reversed the lower court's ruling and dismissed the damages claim. This outcome concerned damages and must be distinguished from separate subsidiary liability proceedings.
In a separate dispute, the court assessed each respondent individually. For one former manager, it considered the short period in office, tax debts arising before the appointment and the lack of evidence that his conduct caused the insolvency. The application against that respondent was dismissed. The court reached a different conclusion for other respondents. A short term in office does not by itself provide immunity from liability.
An insolvency administrator challenged a series of apartment sales. The appellate court examined payment records and valuation evidence. It reversed the lower court's ruling: proceedings concerning one transaction were terminated following withdrawal of the claim, while the remaining claims were dismissed. Payment evidence and the circumstances of the purchase were central to the dispute; registration of title alone did not resolve the issues.
An anonymised example from the bureau’s practice: preparing a pre-action demand and claim, partial success at first instance and issues raised on appeal.
The claim succeeded in part at first instance; the appellate outcome is not confirmed by the available materials.
