In modern conditions of intensifying enforcement proceedings and increasing creditor awareness regarding the protection of their rights, the issue of declaring fraudulent transactions invalid has become more relevant than ever.
A fraudulent transaction (Latin: in fraudem creditorum) is an action by a debtor aimed at alienating or concealing property for the purpose of evading the fulfillment of monetary obligations to creditors. The distinguishing feature of such transactions is the abuse of right and the violation of the principle of good faith in civil turnover.
New judicial practice for 2023–2025 demonstrates the Supreme Court’s steady position on the need to protect the creditor even in cases where the debtor executes the transaction before a lawsuit is filed or property is seized. In the Supreme Court’s resolution of March 13, 2025, in case No. 159/5846/23, the court clearly stated: “the absence of a ban or seizure does not exclude the qualification of a transaction as fraudulent, since the key factor is specifically the dishonest use of civil rights.” This means that when considering cases, the key factor is not the moment the transaction was concluded, but its purpose—to avoid satisfying the creditor’s rights.
The courts’ approach to gratuitous transactions between debtors and related parties is also indicative. For instance, if a donation or transfer of a share in joint property occurs after a debt has arisen, courts declare such actions invalid regardless of whether recovery procedures have been initiated. The Supreme Court emphasizes: “it is specifically the extra-bankruptcy challenge that must guarantee the interests of the creditor by returning the property to the debtor for subsequent foreclosure.”
This practice underscores that the legal construct of a fraudulent transaction is a universal means of responding to attempts to evade debt obligations. At the same time, it is an important instrument for ensuring the rule of law, good faith, and a balance of interests between parties in private law.
For creditors, this opens new opportunities for protecting their interests, while for debtors, it establishes clear boundaries for lawful conduct.
