In the given case, a citizen of the Russian Federation, the beneficial owner of a large production holding company, unwilling to fulfill his prior commitments intentionally transferred the existing business and personal assets to proxies and nominees. He also used foreign offshore companies, which became the parent companies in the holding company structure. The court declared the de jure owner bankrupt and introduced an observation procedure against him, and it appeared impossible to recover the assets. Further, a criminal case under Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was launched, but he was not charged.

Our team, together with the legal team developed an analytical plan, which resulted in the submission of a report to a foreign jurisdiction in the location of the opponent's parent companies.

It is important to note that most offshore jurisdictions have a common law system (English law). This law system has advantages in terms of creditor protection. For example, in the UK, a sufficient evidence base allows creditor to get a court order (Mareva injunction), according to which debtor's assets can be frozen globally, even without calling the defendant. Moreover, the court may issue similar orders against any person if there are sufficient grounds to believe that the person is a nominee of the assets.

In most common law countries, the court accepts and objectively evaluates almost any information that may be relevant to the case and the concealment of assets.

For three months, Intrace Group analysts collected information indicating the debtor's actual relation to the business and assets. As a result, the team submitted a large analytical report to the court of the offshore jurisdiction.

The court of the island state gave the opponents several months to disprove the evidence presented in the report. The defendant, realizing the weak chances of proving otherwise, agreed to negotiations and fulfillment of financial obligations.