ABUSE OF RIGHT IN THE FIELD OF MICROFINANCE ACTIVITIES IN THE CONTEXT OF DIGITALIZATION OF FINANCIAL SERVICES AND ASPECTS OF JUDICIAL PROTECTION OF BORROWERS
Back to articles of current journal| PDF: |  |
Author(s): | Klyandina T. F., |
| Number of journal: | 3(76) | Date: | September 2026 |
| Annotation: | This article examines contemporary forms of abuse of right by microfinance organizations, credit organizations, and professional debt collectors amid the digital transformation of the Russian financial market. The relevance stems from the dynamics of the microfinance market and the absence of a comprehensive civil law analysis of abuses in digital consumer lending, which necessitates the development of uniform criteria for assessing creditors’ good faith. The aim is to identify principal models of creditors’ bad-faith conduct, establish their correlation with imperative legislative restrictions, and formulate criteria enabling courts to distinguish between good-faith exercise of civil rights and abuse of right. The research hypothesis posits that in the context of digital fraud, the burden of proving the borrower’s genuine intent must be substantially shifted to the professional market participant. Analysis of seventeen judicial acts from 2017 to 2026 reveals that creditors systematically transfer digital environment risks to consumers. Particular attention is devoted to borrower identification via simple electronic signatures, assignment of claims to non-professional collectors, imposition of ancillary services, banks’ inaction upon signs of digital fraud, utilization of outof- court and simplified debt collection without confirmation of claims’ indisputability, and procedural abuses, including state fee evasion schemes. The study emphasizes the inadmissibility of disregarding the borrower’s actual intent in remote transactions. The findings may be used to refine law-enforcement practice and mitigate unfair lending risks. While limited by fragmented judicial statistics, this research paves the way for future studies on international experience and the development of methodological guidelines for regulating remote banking services. | ||
| Keywords: | microfinance organizations, abuse of right, consumer loan, simple electronic signature, assignment of claims, good faith, protection of borrowers’ rights, digital fraud, remote banking services, remote identification of the borrower, maximum debt cap on consumer loan, redistribution of identification risks |
||
| For citation: | Klyandina T. F. Abuse of right in the field of microfinance activities in the context of digitalization of financial services and aspects of judicial protection of borrowers. Biznes. Obrazovanie. Pravo = Business. Education. Law. 2026;3(76): 210—218. DOI: 10.25683/VOLBI.2026.76.1741. |
||