Unjust Enrichment in Russian Bankruptcy: Debt Discharge

Short answerAn unjust-enrichment claim participates in Russian bankruptcy under the ordinary rules for monetary claims. The claimant must prove an enrichment without a valid legal basis, identify when the obligation arose and use the correct route: creditor register, current claim or a separate dispute.

Prove the enrichment

A bank transfer alone is insufficient. The court examines the payment basis, the parties’ relationship and any counter-performance.

Timing controls status

Compare actual enrichment with the court’s petition-acceptance date; a later judgment does not reset it.

Discharge is fact-specific

For an individual debtor, Article 213.28 and the circumstances creating the debt are decisive.

Rules and sources checked on 21 October 2026. The examples below are hypothetical, not client cases or predictions of recovery.

What is unjust enrichment?

Article 1102 of the Russian Civil Code requires a person to return property acquired or saved at another person’s expense without a statutory or contractual basis. Examples include a mistaken payment, an advance without counter-performance or unpaid use of another person’s property. Article 1109 lists exceptions, so not every disputed receipt must be returned.

Issue	Evidence reviewed	Why it matters
Was there enrichment?	Money, property, saved expense and connection with the claimant	No claim exists without a proven economic benefit
Was there a legal basis?	Contract, statute, judgment, payment purpose and correspondence	The debtor may prove a lawful basis
When did the debt arise?	Actual acquisition or saving; separately record when a contractual basis ended	This controls register or current status
What is the amount?	Principal, income, interest and repayments	Each component must be calculated separately

Do not misclassify the dispute: contractual remedies are considered first where a contract governed the relationship. Unjust-enrichment rules apply independently or subsidiarily according to the facts.

Register claim or current claim

The relevant point is when the monetary obligation arose, not merely the later judgment date. A claim arising before the bankruptcy petition was accepted is generally filed in the creditor register. A claim arising later may be current. A calculation spanning both periods should be divided.

For a monetary unjust-enrichment restitution claim, paragraph 9 of Supreme Commercial Court Plenum Resolution No. 63 uses the actual acquisition or saving of property as the obligation date. A later demand or judgment does not replace it. Under paragraph 8, an advance paid before proceedings began does not become current merely because the contract was terminated later.

Hypothetical facts	Compare	Result on those assumptions
Mistaken payment received on 10 February; petition accepted on 1 March; judgment on 15 May	The money arrived before petition acceptance	Register claim; the May judgment does not make it current
A separate mistaken payment arrives on 10 April; petition accepted on 1 March	This is new enrichment, not continuation of an old debt	The monetary claim may be current
Advance paid on 10 February; petition accepted on 1 March; contract terminated on 10 April	The claimant provided performance before proceedings began	April termination does not make the monetary advance refund current

Three distinct dates: actual enrichment for bankruptcy classification, the recipient’s knowledge for interest, and petition acceptance for the register/current boundary. Do not substitute publication or the bankruptcy declaration for that boundary.

Reconcile principal and interest

List each receipt, its date, alleged basis, counter-performance, repayment and remaining balance. In a hypothetical example, 100,000 ₽ was received by mistake and 20,000 ₽ repaid: outstanding principal is 80,000 ₽. Calculate interest separately and account for the partial repayment date.

Under Civil Code Article 1107(2), Article 395 interest starts when the recipient knew or should have known that the monetary enrichment lacked a basis. Attach evidence of that date, such as a delivered demand explaining the mistake with supporting records. Earlier knowledge may also be proved; neither transfer nor judgment date applies automatically. Do not keep charging interest on the repaid part for later periods.

Present principal and interest separately, with balance-change dates and rates used. Check bankruptcy-stage restrictions and moratorium interest before extending an ordinary Article 395 calculation to a chosen end date.

Creditor workflow

Collect primary evidence

Obtain payment records, contracts and drafts, acts, correspondence, demand letters and proof that no counter-performance occurred.

Build the timeline

Record the transfer, failure or disappearance of the basis, repayments, bankruptcy publication and court dates.

Classify each component

Separate principal, interest and damages and determine the applicable bankruptcy status.

File by the correct route

Observe the deadline, serve the participants and attach a transparent transaction-by-transaction calculation.

Personal discharge

The label “unjust enrichment” does not automatically make the debt non-dischargeable. The general personal-discharge rule applies after asset realisation, subject to Article 213.28 exceptions. Fraud, unlawful conduct when the obligation arose, concealment of assets and other statutory facts may prevent discharge. The result depends on proven facts and the court’s order.

Current debt is a separate exception. A genuinely current monetary claim survives personal bankruptcy in its unpaid amount under Article 213.28(5). For an ordinary register claim, refusal-of-discharge grounds and other statutory exceptions must be checked separately.

A specific Supreme Court decision

In Decision No. 310-ES20-6956 of 3 September 2020, case No. A23-734/2018, the Supreme Court upheld discharge of an advance-refund debt awarded as unjust enrichment. It distinguished malicious evasion from inability to pay: prolonged non-payment alone was insufficient. This was a fact-specific decision, not a promise that every mistaken-payment debt will be discharged.

Documents

payment orders, receipts and bank statements;
contracts, drafts, invoices, acts and correspondence;
demand letter and delivery evidence;
principal and interest calculation by period;
EFRSB publications and bankruptcy court orders;
proof of service on the debtor and insolvency practitioner.

Also attach a chronological transaction reconciliation, evidence of the recipient’s knowledge, partial repayments, the petition-acceptance order and the selected filing route. Keep proof of timely filing and service.

FAQ

Is proof of a transfer enough?

No. It proves movement of money, but the legal basis and the parties’ relationship must also be examined.

Can interest be claimed?

Potentially, under Articles 1107 and 395, if the relevant period and the recipient’s knowledge are proved.

Is a separate judgment required first?

Not always. The bankruptcy court may determine the monetary claim unless another mandatory route applies.

Will the claim survive an individual’s bankruptcy?

An ordinary register claim may be discharged, subject to statutory exceptions and bad faith. A current claim survives in its unpaid amount under Article 213.28(5).

Does a later judgment make an old debt current?

No. Establish when the enrichment actually occurred and compare it with petition acceptance, rather than using the judgment date.

Must every mistaken receipt be returned?

Check the legal basis and Civil Code Article 1109 exceptions. For example, subsistence payments are protected under its stated conditions, and a proved gift or charitable purpose may change the result.

Official sources

Related guides: creditor register, current claims and Article 395 interest.

Need to classify and document a Russian bankruptcy claim?

Initial consultation

Unjust Enrichment in Russian Bankruptcy: Claims and Discharge