- Статьи
- Society
- From the courtroom to here: courts have begun to overturn decisions on the "Valley scheme"
From the courtroom to here: courts have begun to overturn decisions on the "Valley scheme"
Russian courts have begun reviewing decisions to return apartments to former owners if they sold them under the influence of fraudsters, Izvestia found out. One of the first was the decision of the Court of Appeal in Kislovodsk. On December 22, he overturned the decision of the previous instance, according to which the pensioner who sold the apartment regained her home. Ownership was left to the buyer. The court separately cited the arguments of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which sided with Polina Lurie, the buyer of the apartment of singer Larisa Dolina. Experts note that the decision of the Supreme Court may serve as a precedent for curbing abuses by unscrupulous participants in the transaction. Details can be found in the Izvestia article.
How a pensioner sold an apartment
The legal dispute over the apartment, which is a pensioner from Kislovodsk Natalia Sh. sold at the behest of scammers, lasted more than two years. On December 22, 2025, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the previous instance, according to which the woman returned her home, and sided with the buyer.
According to investigators, in 2023, the pensioner, after seeing an advertisement on the Internet, decided to make money on investments. Natalia followed the link left by the scammers to the website and transferred them a total of about 600 thousand rubles. The attackers promised Natalia income from the sale of securities. To do this, the "manager" and his accomplice Volkov convinced the pensioner to take out three loans worth more than a million rubles. And then they convinced him to sell the apartment, "get quick money from the sale and invest it in stocks."
On January 11, 2024, the pensioner sold the apartment. On the day of the deal, she voluntarily underwent a psychiatric examination, which "confirmed her sanity and ability to freely express her will."
But then Natalia S. She appealed to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and filed a lawsuit in the Kislovodsk City Court, saying that she did not intend to sell the property, but signed the contract under the influence of scammers. In addition, at the time of the deal, the pensioner, according to her, "was ill, did not feel well."
The court of first instance found the fact of deception unproven and refused Natalia Sh. in contesting the transaction. But on appeal, the results of the examination were presented, according to which the woman had mental problems at the time of the sale of the disputed apartment. She allegedly suffered from dizziness, headaches, and increased anxiety "with decreased cognitive, critical, and predictive abilities." As a result, in January 2025, the court cancelled the apartment deal.
Another possessive
By that time, the apartment had been resold once more, and in March 2025, the new owner of the apartment, Kristina T., filed a cassation complaint. As a result, on December 22, the Court of Appeal returned ownership of the disputed apartment to the buyer. This happened just five days after the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the Dolina case. The SUN also sided with the buyer of the apartment, despite the fact that Larisa Dolina claimed that at the time of the transaction she was under the influence of fraudsters and believed that she was helping law enforcement agencies in some kind of operation.
The cases when pensioners sell their apartments and then try to return their housing, claiming that they were deceived, have become more frequent, Elena Suleymanova, senior associate at Mitra National Law Company, who defended Kristina T. in the Kislovodsk court, told Izvestia. She noted that even at the beginning of the case, the company's lawyers believed that they were among the first to encounter "grandmother's schemes" and reported them.
— These phenomena serve as one of the reasons for litigation, in which apartment owners try to return their housing, pointing out that they were deceived, but they trusted and did not understand the legal consequences of transactions or payments. Pensioners are often the initiators of such lawsuits. A similar situation has affected our client," she said.
Elena Suleymanova noted that the repeated forensic examination confirmed that Natalia Sh. "there were no formal mental disorders": she contacted the real estate agency for the sale of the apartment herself, acted consistently and even received insurance payments, which indicates an understanding of the significance of her actions.
"This was confirmed by witnesses who had direct contact with the elderly woman on the day of the transaction,— Elena Suleymanova added.
How judicial practice will change
The decision to refuse to return the apartment to the Kislovodsk pensioner Natalia Sh. It continues the legal trend outlined in the Supreme Court's ruling on the Dolina case. The key point in the clarification is that if the acquirer acted in good faith and did not know about the fraud against the seller, then the transaction cannot be invalidated on grounds of error.
"Now the courts will be more attentive to the arguments of buyers about their good faith and the arguments of sellers that they were mistaken or did not understand the significance of their actions," Elena Suleymanova believes.
The head of the law firm, Victoria Shabanova, explained to Izvestia that the court evaluates invalid transactions according to several criteria, among them the presence of deception or pressure.
— This requires evidence, preferably audio recordings, videos, correspondence, and testimony from others. Expertise plays a key role, which will show whether a person could understand the significance of their actions," she said.
Following the decision in the Dolina case, the courts began to side with the buyers more often. In December 2025, the Moscow court also refused to return the 72-year-old woman's apartment. And in Tula, in the same month, a pensioner who sold housing under the "Valley scheme" was herself accused of fraud.
But it's too early to talk about a complete reversal of the "grandmother's schemes" cases, says Yuri Pustovit, managing partner of the Yug Law firm.
— The essence of the RF Supreme Court's ruling in the Dolina–Lurie case is not that the RF Supreme Court closed some kind of fraudulent scheme. The point is that he raised the standard of proof for the plaintiff when challenging transactions, which was obscenely low before this definition. Now, the mere fact that the seller entered into a purchase and sale agreement under the influence of telephone fraudsters is not enough to challenge on these grounds, it is necessary to provide other, much more convincing evidence," the expert noted.
Yuri Pustovit noted that the ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is not provided as a basis for reviewing judicial acts in similar cases.
— The definition of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is not a law, it is made in relation to the specific circumstances of this case. However, it is likely that it will have a positive impact on the secondary real estate market and will force the courts to look more carefully into the circumstances of similar cases, he believes.
And judicial lawyer Lyubava Trofimova believes that the decision of the Supreme Court has put an end to the cases under the "Valley scheme." According to her, now, in case of challenging such transactions, the courts will side with the buyers.
— The Dolina Case has shaken up the secondary housing market. Many have started winning the courts, claiming that they were deceived by fraudsters," she said.
Valery Fadeev, Chairman of the Presidential Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights
Courts are usually guided by the practice of other higher instances, therefore, the definition of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is likely to be taken into account when making decisions, says Veronika Polyakova, a criminal lawyer.
Valery Fadeev, Chairman of the Presidential Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights, called the Supreme Court's decision on Larisa Dolina's apartment unexpected.
— Dolina will part with the apartment, that's clear, but there are still other people. Those decisions that have already been taken can be reviewed, if the statute of limitations has not been reached, the victims can apply to the courts, demanding a review of the case, taking into account the decision of the Supreme Court, " he told Izvestia.
But Valery Fadeev noted that "such cases have nuances": it may turn out that the seller's returned housing is the only one, and the only housing is not being taken away. In addition, the money earned for the apartment could already be spent or "transferred somewhere." The courts will have to make decisions on these issues on their own.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
