Russia seizes over 8,700 assets worth $1.5 billion from corruption case

Since 2011, a total of 8,776 property assets worth more than 113.2 billion rubles ($1.5 billion) have been confiscated in favour of the state, but only 8% have been put into economic circulation.

The assets were seized due to a lack of proof of legal acquisition or their involvement in corruption-related offences, Caliber.Az reports, citing an audit by Russia’s Accounts Chamber.

The Accounts Chamber conducted an inspection of the Federal Property Management Agency (Rosimushchestvo) and its regional offices in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and the Moscow and Leningrad regions from April 1 to September 25. The audit focused on how confiscated land plots, buildings, premises, parking spaces, and ownership shares were being utilised.

As of July 1, 2025, nearly 9,000 real estate assets with a total value exceeding 113 billion rubles ($1.5 billion) have been transferred to the state, Accounts Chamber auditor Andrey Baturkin said.

Since 2021, only 240 confiscated assets — less than 4% of the total — have been privatised, and since 2023, another 224 assets (also under 4%) have been leased out.

“Federal budget revenues from the privatisation and leasing of this property amounted to 3.2 billion and 832.2 million rubles, respectively,” Baturkin noted.

The audit also pointed to systemic and legislative shortcomings that complicate the management of confiscated assets. It said the procedure for transferring corruption-related property from the Federal Bailiff Service to Rosimushchestvo remains poorly regulated, with assets often handed over under arrest or without full documentation.

Such issues delay the registration of state ownership and, in some cases, leave the property under third-party control.

The Accounts Chamber added that regional branches of Rosimushchestvo apply inconsistent registration practices, with some recording ownership before listing assets in the federal register and others doing the reverse.

These discrepancies, auditors warned, create legal uncertainty, increase the risk of asset loss, and undermine the reliability of state property records.

 By Jeyhun Aghazada