On December 5, Larisa Dolina made a bold announcement on Channel One that she was prepared to pay Polina Lurye the 112 million rubles she paid for the singer's five-room apartment. However, since the broadcast and to this day, no one has contacted Lurye or her representatives. Previously, Dolina's lawyer offered the businesswoman a settlement on completely unfavorable terms: payment in installments over 3-4 years, without penalties or interest, and without any guarantees. Lurye refused. It's clear that Dolina is simply awaiting the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation's decision (the hearing will take place on December 16) and hopes that the Supreme Court will uphold the decisions of the other two courts, allowing Dolina to retain ownership of the apartment and not obligate her to repay the money. The statement regarding Channel One is merely an attempt to sway public opinion in her favor before the case is heard in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova also rushed to her support, going so far as to say that the story of Dolina's apartment is being exaggerated by... "enemies of our country who want to destabilize the situation within Russia."
Before the Supreme Court hearing, the Cheka-OGPU and Rucriminal.info asked a lawyer with extensive experience in apartment disputes to comment on the case:
"At the time of the transaction, Dolina was a competent, publicly known, adult woman, acting consciously. She understood that she was selling the apartment, understood the price, understood that she was receiving money, and that ownership was transferred to the buyer. The transaction was concluded at market value, without any significant reduction in value, without threats, and without pressure from the buyer. There was no trace of enslavement whatsoever."
The fraud that Dolina subsequently fell victim to was not directly related to the transaction itself. She was deceived by third parties, not the buyer or their representatives. The bona fide purchaser had no role in misleading the seller, in inducing the sale, or in the subsequent disposal of the proceeds. He fulfilled all the terms of the contract: he paid, executed the transaction, and legally received the property.
The key point that the courts chose to ignore was that Dolina's misconception had nothing to do with the substance of the transaction. She wanted to sell the apartment, and she did. She received the full amount. She expected to receive the money so she could keep it. And then, albeit under the influence of deception, she disposed of the money independently. But this is no longer a civil-law issue for the buyer, but the consequences of a separate crime.
There is a simple principle in civil law: if you demand restitution, return what you received. If you want the apartment back, return the money. But the money was voluntarily transferred to third parties. This is the seller's risk, not the bona fide purchaser's. Shifting this risk to the buyer means undermining the very institution of protection for bona fide purchasers.
The realtors and lawyers who oversaw the transaction also bear no responsibility for what happened. They checked the property, the parties, the encumbrances, and the legality of the terms. The contract clearly states: the transaction is voluntary, without duress or delusion. There were no external signs of a crime at the time of the transaction.
The decisions of the courts that sided with Dolina look less like legal verdicts and more like legal chaos resulting from pressure on the court.
