The Ministry of Economic Development did not back the Ministry of Justice’s plan to restrict the actions of debt collectors, banks, and microfinance organizations (MFOs) with links to unfriendly countries operating in Russia. This stance was reported by RBC, which cited the ministry’s written reply to the draft presidential decree under consideration. The document underscores that the proposed ban would be assessed in the context of broader economic policy and the state’s approach to cross-border financial activity, and it suggests that the inquiry into the decree is part of a wider diagnostic process rather than a decisive regulatory move.
From the Ministry of Economy’s response to the Justice Ministry’s draft, the action is described as having “no obvious impact” on safeguarding the rights of Russians who owe money. The reply also notes that existing restrictions already limit the outflow of financial resources abroad by non-residents from countries designated as unfriendly. This point places the proposed regulation within a framework of current controls designed to manage international financial flows and protect national economic interests, while inviting further examination of any incremental benefits or risks.
“The effect of the proposed regulation on the level of legal protection afforded to citizens during debt collection is not clear,” the Ministry of Economy emphasized in its assessment. The language reflects an emphasis on evidence-based evaluation, recognizing that any regulatory change should demonstrably improve remedies available to debtors or lenders without introducing unintended consequences for the financial sector or for consumers. In this context, the ministry signals a cautious stance, prioritizing clarity of impact over rapid regulatory action.
In January, the Ministry of Justice drafted a decree aimed at prohibiting any actions intended to collect and reclaim overdue debts by debt collectors, banks, and MFOs with significant foreign participation or with governance linked to countries that have imposed sanctions on the Russian Federation. The document targets creditors with substantial foreign capital involvement or management influence and includes entities that reorganized their jurisdiction to a so-called unfriendly status after March 1, 2022. The aim appears to be to shield Russian financial interests from cross-border practices perceived as hostile or detrimental to domestic stability, while addressing concerns about aggressive collection tactics.
The Ministry of Justice justified the initiative as a protective measure for Russian interests and a means to lower social tensions that can accompany debt disputes. In its response, the Ministry of Economy argued that citizens’ claims against debt collectors are presently governed by the law on the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of individuals when conducting activities aimed at recovering overdue debts. The ministry asserted that violations would entail penalties, including the potential suspension or prohibition of operation for offending companies, thereby reinforcing the regulatory framework already in place. This exchange highlights the tension between safeguarding consumer rights and ensuring a balanced, predictable environment for financial service providers.
The Ministry of Economic Development added that any final determination on the decree would come after consultations with other relevant government departments. This indicates a collaborative, interagency approach to evaluating regulatory measures that affect the financial sector and citizens alike, reflecting the government’s broader strategy of coordinated policy design in matters touching on debt collection, consumer protection, and international finance.
At the start of February, Russia saw the first case of violations in debt repayment by collectors receive attention in public discourse, signaling increased scrutiny of debt collection practices. This development underscores the ongoing policy debate surrounding how debt recovery should be conducted, what safeguards are appropriate for debtors, and how such practices intersect with international financial relationships. The episode serves as a reference point for policymakers considering future regulatory adjustments and enforcement priorities.
Earlier in the year, there were discussions about the rights of Russian collectors to employ robotic or automated tools in debt collection, a topic linked to the modernization of enforcement methods and the potential impact on debtors. The conversations reflect a broader tendency to explore how technology can streamline or complicate collection processes, raise concerns about automation’s effect on fairness, and shape regulatory expectations for service providers operating within the country.