For debts under 30 thousand rubles, bailiffs would be barred from taking a debtor’s property. This stance is reflected in the draft law drafted by the Ministry of Justice and reported by RAPSI. The proposal aims to tighten the rules on asset seizures so that ordinary households facing smaller debts are not left with losing essentials to satisfy enforcement orders. The change would focus enforcement on liquid assets and larger obligations, while shielding minimal sums from forced collection.
“The plan calls for a prohibition on property seizure when enforcing documents that require up to 30,000 rubles, with the only exception being funds held in banks and other credit institutions used to satisfy the debt”, the publication notes. This framing suggests that non-cash funds stored on accounts could still be directed toward debt repayment, but physical assets would mainly remain untouched for debts within this threshold. The emphasis is on ensuring that a minimal debt burden does not disrupt a debtor’s basic living situation while still allowing creditors to recover funds through bank balances when appropriate.
Under current rules, the law already bans property seizure for debts under 3,000 rubles. The new bill extends a greater protective margin, effectively increasing the minimum debt level at which property can be seized. The shift indicates a policy choice to reduce the risk of eviction from housing or loss of essential possessions when the debt amount is relatively small, while still keeping leverage available for larger debts through asset and balance seizures.
The bill also outlines how funds can be seized from bank accounts and the procedure for directing these funds to banks, along with additional details on enforcement penalties for sums under 30,000 rubles. It seeks to create a more structured framework for handling smaller debts, clarifying the steps that enforcement agencies must follow and the safeguards that protect debtors from overreach. The changes propose a more predictable, transparent process that creditors can rely on when recovering smaller amounts without triggering drastic asset loss for the debtor.
News from December 14 shows Russia collecting child support payments from the account of the second spouse for a child from the first marriage. This note highlights how enforcement tools can be used specifically to ensure that child support obligations are met, while also pointing to the ongoing balancing act between protecting dependents and preserving the debtor’s financial stability. It serves as a reminder that enforcement policies can have wide-ranging effects on family finances and inter-spousal obligations alike.
On December 7, reports stated that payments from pensions could be directed via a debit card to settle debts. The move illustrates how payment methods are evolving within enforcement schemes, allowing some sums to flow through more flexible channels while still meeting the legal requirements of debt recovery. The development underscores a shift toward using modern payment rails to manage smaller debts efficiently without forcing immediate asset liquidation.
Earlier, a Moscow bailiff faced accusations following a dispute at a reception, underscoring the intense pressure and scrutiny that enforcement officials can encounter in routine operations. This incident reflects the broader context in which debt collection and enforcement activities unfold, including concerns about conduct, fairness, and the impact on individuals going through financial stress. It highlights the need for oversight and clear rules that protect both creditors and debtors during enforcement proceedings.