On 17 December 2025 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation adopted Judgement No. 46-П in accordance with Article 47.1 of the Federal Constitutional Law «On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation». The case on the review of constitutionality of Article 2 (paragraph 5), Article 126 (paragraphs 7, 9 and 10 of item 1), Article 213.11, (paragraphs 3 and 5 of item 2), Article 213.25 (paragraph 4 of item 5) of the Federal Law «On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)»; Article 47 (item 7 of part 1), Article 69.1 (part 4), Article 103 (part 1 and part 15) of the Federal Law «On Enforcement Proceedings»; Article 86 (part 3) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; Article 115 (parts 1, 3, 7 and 9) and Article 115.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; Article 31 (parts 1 and 2) and Article 32 (parts 2 and 3) of the Executive Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was considered in connection with the request of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
Factual Background
The request of the Supreme Court, filed with the Constitutional Court in the spring of 2025, aims to eliminate uncertainty regarding the procedure for lifting an arrest on property imposed in a criminal case to secure the enforcement of a sentence in the part concerning a civil claim on the property of a person declared bankrupt. The applicant also raises the issue of enforcing a criminal penalty in the form of a fine within the bankruptcy case.
The request directly concerns three cases. The bankruptcy of ZAO (ZAO - similar to CJSC) “Gema-Invest” – a former company of the “Gema” holding. In this case, the bankruptcy trustee unsuccessfully tried to lift the seizure imposed within the criminal case in order to sell the asset and allocate the funds to creditors. The second case is related to ООО (OOO – similar to LLC) “Mir Dorog”. The bankruptcy trustee intended to compel the bank to close the settlement account of the debtor company and transfer the balance of funds to the company's account. However, the credit institution refused to do so, citing the investigator's ruling on the seizure of funds, and this position was supported by the arbitral courts. The third case is related to Russian citizen Alla Churilova. In her case, the arbitral (commercial) court prioritized the payment of the fine imposed on her by the court's verdict over the claims of the creditors included in the register.
Position of the Court
Due to the various - often conflicting - claims of the parties to bankruptcy proceedings, the legislator should ensure the balance of their rights and interests. Bankruptcy proceedings are targeted at satisfying the claims of the insolvent debtor's creditors. The initiation of these proceedings precludes the uncontrolled and arbitrary actions that lead to a diminution of the debtor's assets and the infringement of creditors' rights. The order of satisfaction of the claims reflects their specific nature and is dictated by the need to protect the rights of the various categories of the creditors. Legislators may introduce the regulations that prioritize the satisfaction of the individual claims; however, no such rules have been established for the claims against the bankrupt debtor – who is a legal entity, arising from the resolution of a civil claim filed in a criminal case. General rules apply to it.
The Criminal Procedure Code does not classify an arbitration court's decision to declare a legal entity bankrupt as grounds for lifting a criminal arrest (attachment) on its property imposed to enforce a judgment in the part concerning a civil claim. Lifting a criminal arrest is permitted when it is no longer necessary. Although the Bankruptcy Law contains a provision stating that previously imposed arrests are lifted from the property of a debtor as of the date of the decision declaring it bankrupt, it does not unambiguously define the procedure for lifting a criminal arrest. The seized property of the debtor is often the primary asset from which creditors' claims can be satisfied. The lengthy timelines of criminal investigations delay the consideration of the bankruptcy case. Thus, maintaining a criminal arrest complicates, and sometimes completely precludes, the proper satisfaction of creditors' claims. In turn, the automatic lifting of the seizure upon the debtor being declared bankrupt would negate the significance of the arrest decision made in the course of criminal proceedings. This would hinder or even entirely preclude full compensation for harm to the victims, preventing them from obtaining compensation and securing their protection. The inability to lift the arrest would lead to the priority satisfaction of the civil claimants (in the criminal case) who are not participating in the bankruptcy proceedings.
Accordingly, the current regulation leads to the absolutisation of either the arrests imposed in a criminal case or the requirement to form the bankruptcy estate, which is achieved, among other ways, by lifting the arrests. There is no clear procedure in the legislation for resolving the issue of maintaining the arrests imposed in a criminal case on the property of a bankrupt legal entity. The challenged norms of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Bankruptcy Law do not ensure a balance of the rights and legitimate interests of the persons participating in the bankruptcy case, as well as the persons in whose interests the seizure was imposed within the framework of the criminal case.
The bankruptcy of an individual does not terminate criminal-legal and criminal-executive relations and does not release the convicted person from the responsibility. According to the procedure established by the norms of criminal legislation and the Law on Enforcement Proceedings, the inclusion of a claim for the recovery of a fine in any queue is not envisaged. This leads to the state effectively becoming a privileged creditor and satisfying its claims on an individual basis. Meanwhile, in accordance with the Bankruptcy Law, a fine is recovered as part of the claims of creditors included in the register of creditors' claims, in the third priority. This violates the requirement of legal certainty.
The contested provisions are not consistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation. They do not provide an adequate legal mechanism for release an arrest imposed in a criminal case to ensure the enforcement of a judgment in a civil claim against the property of a legal entity declared bankrupt, and they do not provide clarity regarding the priority of satisfying a claim for a criminal fine imposed as an additional penalty on a citizen declared bankrupt. The legislator should take the appropriate measures. Prior to this, courts should resolve the issues regarding the release of a criminal attachment based on the temporary regulation adopted by the Constitutional Court:
- after a legal entity is declared bankrupt, the arbitration court hearing the bankruptcy case, upon an application by the bankruptcy trustee or any of the bankruptcy creditors, shall, in the manner established for considering discrete disputes, rule to include in the register of creditors' claims the claims of the person who filed a civil suit in the criminal case, in connection with which the seizure was imposed. This ruling may be made regardless of that person's consent;
-upon an application by the bankruptcy trustee, the seizure is lifted within the criminal proceedings by the court before which the criminal case is pending or to which it is to be submitted based on the jurisdiction established by the Criminal Procedure Code, with the participation of the official who petitioned for the seizure, the prosecutor, the bankruptcy trustee who filed the said application, and the person who filed the civil suit in the criminal case, in connection with which the seizure was imposed. The court may deem it necessary for other persons to participate in considering this issue;
-the court may rule to maintain the seizure on part of the bankrupt legal entity's property to an extent sufficient to satisfy the justified claims of the victim (the person who filed the civil suit in the criminal case), if, having considered the amount of these claims, the significance of the contribution of the seized property to the bankruptcy estate, and other circumstances, it concludes that, based on the corresponding ruling of the arbitration court in the bankruptcy case, the person harmed by the crime will be classified as a third-priority creditor and will be fully or largely deprived of the possibility of satisfying their claims within the bankruptcy proceedings;
-if it is impossible (based on the composition of the property under seizure) to physically segregate a part on which the seizure could be maintained, the seizure is lifted, and the court ruling simultaneously imposes an obligation on the bankruptcy trustee to transfer to the court's deposit an amount determined as a portion of the proceeds from the sale of this property;
-the arbitration court handling the bankruptcy case of the legal entity whose property was seized within the criminal case has the right to suspend the proceedings until the criminal judgment enters into legal force or until amendments deriving from this Judgment are introduced.
The criminal fine imposed as an additional punishment is recovered as part of the claims of creditors included in the register of creditors' claims, in the third priority.
Press Service of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation