Our experience

The section provides information and projects for which the clients' consent to their impersonal placement on the site was obtained. Information of experience in criminal law practice is not available, because it is strictly confidential and protected by law.

July 2018

Unscrupulous actions with real estate are prevented.

The client, defendant on the claim of ex-husband’s mother, appealed to our company for the protection of her interests. According to the claim, the ex-husband’s mother demanded to void the deal with the real estate, which was acquired at the expense of Defendant’s father.


Despite the existence of a confirmed fact that the real estate was acquired at the expense of Defendant’s father, the ownership of this real estate was registered to the ex-husband’s mother of the Defendant. Moreover, the Claimant previously issued a power of attorney to the Defendant to commit any actions and deals with this real estate. The Defendant, exercising the power of attorney rights, realized this real estate, of what the Claimant was aware. Later, in the claim, the Claimant tried to prove the fact of ownership of the property and the allegedly unscrupulous actions of the Defendant. During the litigation, our lawyers managed to prove the groundlessness of the stated requirements and the ownership of the Defendant’s property, and to preserve the disputed deal.

June 2018

Lawyers of the «RI-Consulting» Company have achieved the termination of the buy and sell agreement and recovery of money from the seller.

The client, during the civil proceedings, appealed to our company for the protection of her interests in the trial. The civil proceedings arising from the legal relations regulated by the Consumer Right Protection Law, was complicated by the fact that the Client, at the conclusion of the buy and sell agreement, was misinformed about an agreement on non-market conditions and a loan was imposed on her.


Same civil proceedings, considered in the same court under similar circumstances, were not considered in the claimants’ favor. As a result of the competent work of lawyers, it was possible to prove the fact of solicitation, non-market conditions and non-compliance with the safety requirements of the goods transferred under the buy and sell agreement (cosmetics of inadequate quality). As a result of expertise, it was also possible to prove the fact of imposing services, the discrepancy of the goods transferred under the buy and sell agreement to safety requirements. From the defendant recovered money in full, a penalty and a fine, the agreement is terminated.

The interests of an elderly Client, misinformed by unscrupulous participants of the legal market, are protected, funds for services of inadequate quality are recovered in full.

The client, an elderly woman (born in 1929), came to the company with a question about the protection of her interests in court trial.

The interests of the Client were represented by our company pro bono.

The Client in 2016–207 was misinforned by the illiterate and wrong advice of a third-party law firm conducting an “aggressive” PR campaign to attract clients. The Cient paid more than 250,000 rubles to the unscrupulous company, however, she did not receive proper legal assistance and, in fact, was misinformed by the unscrupulous actions of our legal colleagues – lawyers. Lawyers of our company managed to prove the fact of service failure and to recover from unscrupulous lawyers money, which was paid by the Client.

Requirements to our Client were reduced by more than 70 million rubles.

The client was approached by a bank for the debts collection on a previously issued loan, penalty and fines for the non-fulfillment of obligations in time. The timely and high-quality work of our company’s lawyers allowed us to achieve a reduction in the claimant’s requirements to our client from 517 million rubles to 447 million rubles. The decision of the first instance is confirmed by the decision of the appeal instance.

In the inclusion in creditor’s register in a bankruptcy case, amounting to more than 1.5 billion rubles, was refused.

The creditor appealed to the court with a request to include in the creditor’s register with the claims for the amount exceeding 1.5 billion rubles. The claims were based on non-existent documents and debtor’s obligations executed before the introduction of the insolvency (bankruptcy) procedure. The correct strategy of the protection of the Debtor’s interests enabled the creditor to reject his claims in full.

In the same case, another creditor appealed a claim for the inclusion in the creditor’s register for penalty for untimely obligations fulfilled by the debtor in the amount of more than 4 million rubles. The work of our lawyers allowed us to reduce the claims to 40 thousand rubles and include these requirements for the creditor’s register.

The application for review of the judicial act issued against our Client will be considered due to newly discovered facts.

A court decision was issued against the client (confirmed by three instances) in accordance with which damages in the amount of more than 220 million rubles are should be recovered from him. The client appealed to our company after the last judicial act issued by the FAS MO. The lawyers of our company analyzed the materials of the case and revealed the facts that are newly discovered facts and testify, in our opinion, that the Client is not at fault of the losses caused. A statement was prepared for the review of the judicial act due to newly discovered facts. However, the court of first instance refused to review. We have filed an appeal against this decision. The court of appeal accepted the stated arguments and canceled the desicion of the first instance court, pointing out the facts indicating the presence of newly discovered circumstances and returned the case to the first instance for the review on the merits. This is the first judicial act in the last 2 years rendered in favor of our Client.

The interests of a father with many children who duly fulfills his obligations, are protected, the unmotivated claim of this children’s mother is rejected.

Mother of the children of our Client applied to the Client with the claim of alimony for her and for minor children. The amount of alimony was above and the financial status of the Client and previously provided to their children’s standard of living and welfare. In total, the Claimant stated that over 500 thousand rubles should been collected from the client and that a sum of alimony should be fixed for each of the three children in the amount of 40 thousand per month, so in total amount of 120 thousand rubles. Claims of the Claimant are reduced to a reasonable amount, alimony are set at a living wage. The decision of the court of first instance is confirmed by decision of the court of appeal.

Counterfeit goods are not payable.

Our company represents the interests of a company producing machinery used on railways. We became aware of the fact of the supply of counterfeit goods in the Republic of Crimea (machinery similar to those which produced by our client, but produced by another manufacturer). The supplier who supplied the counterfeit goods appealed to the court to the buyer for the recovery of payment. Our petition for the involvement of our client in the court litigation as a third party was granted. After familiarization with materials of the case and the machinery supplied, we initiated an examination by an expert (in pretrial order), the results of the examination are presented in the case file. In addition, the client’s technical specialists determined that, along with the goods, falsified accompanying documents for the goods (documents transferred with counterfeit goods were made similar to those of our client). The court appointed a forensic examination. The results of the examination allowed to prove the presence of signs of counterfeit supplied goods. Satisfaction of claims submitted by an unfair supplier is denied.

May 2018

Lawyers of the «RI-Consulting» Company recovered money from the defendant and obtained a refusal to satisfy the counter-claim for rescission of a contract.


In 2014, the Client (the claimant in the case) and his former business partner (the defendant in the case) concluded a supply contract (cereal crops with a condition on volumes depending on the harvest of such crops), which was later updated to the loan agreement due to its non-performance.

Показать ещё

В интересах клиента было подано исковое заявление о взыскании денежных средств по договору займа. Ответчиком по делу было подано встречное исковое заявление о признании соглашения о новации недействительным. Рассмотрение дела длилось с марта 2017 года. В процессе были проведены несколько экспертиз. Судом требования нашего клиента удовлетворены в полном объеме, в удовлетворении встречного искового заявления  — отказано.

Юристы нашей компании добились отказа в удовлетворении требований, предъявленных нашему Клиенту, о взыскании денежных средств по расписке.

Суды двух инстанций поддержали позицию, сформированную нашими специалистами, об отсутствии оснований для удовлетворения требований Истца о взыскании денежных средств.

Юристы департамента гражданско-правового консалтинга  добились снижения требований к Клиенту более чем в 4 раза от суммы заявленной в иске.

Контрагент Клиента обратился в суд с требованием о взыскании с Клиента суммы неустойки за несвоевременное выполнение обязательств по договору. Сумма требований составляла более 17 млн рублей (сумма несвоевременного исполненного обязательства со стороны Клиента составляла более 60 млн рублей и более 2х лет просрочки исполнения). В результате судебной работы требования снижены до 4 млн рублей.

Интересы миноритарного кредитора защищены от недобросовестных действий мажоритарного кредитора в процедуре банкротства.

Требования Клиента о включении в реестр требований кредиторов рассматривались более 1 года. Затягивание вопроса о включении требований в реестр требований кредитора были связаны с недобросовестными действиями мажоритарного кредитора, оспаривавшего все судебные акты. Клиент своевременно направил требования о включении в реестр требований кредиторов Должника. В апреля 2017 года заявление было удовлетворено и требования включены в реестр. В августе 2017 года, в апелляционном инстанции, определение суда первой инстанции отменено и клиенту отказано во включении в реестр требований кредиторов. В кассационном порядке постановление апелляционной инстанции отменено, дело возвращено в первую инстанцию. После кассационной инстанции Клиент обратился в нашу компанию. Юристами РИ-консалтинг проведен  правовой анализ документов, являющихся основаниями требований, подготовлена позиция, которую суд первой инстанции поддержал и требования клиента вновь удовлетворены в полном объеме.