Friendship on credit: how to repay a debt and not be known as a greedy person
A social paradox: in Russia, a creditor demanding the return of his own funds risks being branded a goon and a greedy man, while the debtor traditionally enjoys the status of a victim of circumstances. Unwillingness to transfer personal relationships to the financial plane and the desire to "be good for everyone" lead to the fact that demanding your money back is considered bad form. How to protect your funds without destroying your friendship is in the "Izvestia" article.
False shame and financial slavery
"""""" Sometimes a person is unable to refuse another person's request to lend money because of a social scenario ("the good ones always help"), fear of judgment ("you're greedy") or loss of relationships ("they don't communicate with greedy people")," says Anna Guseva, a psychologist and senior lecturer at the Department of Psychology at Synergy University. But the average borrower sincerely believes that they are obligated to meet him halfway, and perceives the refusal as an insult.
— Asking for a favor almost never causes shame in a person who asks for a loan. And those who refuse suffer from feelings of guilt, because refusal is often perceived as improper behavior. Since childhood, we have been taught to help others — this makes it awkward when it comes to rejection. Various credit and pseudo—charitable organizations actively use the incentive "it's right to help, but it's a shame to refuse" as an element of manipulation. And when a person is used, he actually falls into slavery," the expert warns.
There are people who trade by borrowing money and not paying it back, warns the editorial interlocutor. They envelop a potential creditor in advance with love, tenderness, and care, gradually subjugating them. For eternal debtors, borrowed money is not an obligation, but a way of existence. They do not experience shyness and remorse, the psychologist believes.
— The rule works against these "professionals": if a person has not repaid the first debt, then you can not give a second time. Not because you're greedy, but because you respect yourself. And you also help a carefree person to get out of a state of immaturity and infantilism. Kindness is not a resource for endless consumption," Guseva emphasizes.
Of course, there are people who repay debts on time and are very grateful for the help, she admits. Most of the time, they are very ashamed to ask for a favor. And such people are extremely scrupulous, so they give everything to the last penny.
Why do creditors hesitate to remind you of the debt
People often can't get their own money back for years because it's "inconvenient" for them to remind the debtor about it, even if they had to borrow the last thing they had.
— When we lend, we unknowingly conclude an unspoken agreement: "I'm good, I helped." And when we ask for it back, it's as if we ourselves are in the position of a debtor, and this destroys the image of "good". There are thoughts: "I have to feel sorry for him, it's hard for him, for some reason he can't give it away right away..." comments Anna Guseva.
A reminder of debt, according to a practicing psychologist, is perceived as an accusation of oneself: "I'm bad, I demand!" A painful situation develops: a person has done a good deed, helped out a friend, but worries more than a borrower who has assumed obligations. However, the reminder of duty is not aggression, but the restoration of personal boundaries, she emphasizes.
— The position of a confident creditor should be like this: "I gave you the money because I trusted you, and now I'm asking you to return it because I respect our agreements." It is necessary to speak without excuses, without apologies for the trouble — you get your own back. And when you clearly understand this, it's not a shame to remind you of the dates you agreed on," the "Izvestia" interlocutor notes.
In order not to suffer and worry, the expert advises to distinguish between your own problems and others. She recalls the concept of "separation of responsibilities" that exists in psychology.
— Its essence is simple: every situation has an author. If a person asks you for money, then the problem with the money is his and only his. And your only problem is whether to give him the money or not. But once you've done that, you're also responsible for the relationship and for the refund," the specialist explains.
In order not to take on an additional burden of problems, one should not solve another person's financial issues at the cost of one's own peace of mind, Guseva believes, pointing out that this is not indifference, but simply a healthy distance.
It happens, however, that it is almost impossible to refuse — otherwise you will have to ruin relations with your loved ones. If they are important, then as an alternative, the psychologist advises you to help without financial risks — to suggest dealing with loans or making a budget correctly.
— If you are alone and responsible for finances only to yourself, this is one story. But if you have taken money from the family budget, then the obligations and the emotional background fall on the whole family. Accordingly, before lending money, be sure to consult not only with your partner, but also with your children, even if they are small, the specialist urges.
Well-known wisdom says: friendship does not lose count. And if we are talking about an amount that we would not like to lose, it makes sense to issue a receipt.
— Anything can happen to any person at any time, but you will have a document in your hands according to which the obligations will fall on the relatives of the debtor. Therefore, a receipt is a perfectly healthy position in today's conditions," Guseva is convinced.
Such a document protects one party from losing money, and the other from unreasonable claims. If a person categorically refuses to fix a debt in this way, then this is an alarming signal.
What evidence will be useful in court?
The legal force of debt evidence depends on their ability to confirm two key facts: the conclusion of a loan agreement (agreement on terms) and the actual transfer of money, explains "Izvestia" lawyer Ekaterina Krasnova. The Court evaluates all confirmations in aggregate, and none of them is absolutely valid unless supported by others.
— A simple written receipt is the main and strongest evidence for the court. It confirms both the transfer of money and the terms of the loan. It is impossible to challenge a receipt for lack of money (referring to the fact that the money was not transferred) through witnesses — only by way of a counterclaim with written evidence," the specialist notes.
According to her, a notarized loan agreement has increased evidentiary value, since the notary confirms the authenticity of the signatures and the legal capacity of the parties.
— But there is one important point here: the notary's contract itself does not confirm the transfer of money, unless the notary has recorded their transfer separately. In this case, you also need a receipt for funds, — warns the interlocutor of the editorial office.
A digital footprint can also help a defrauded creditor — screenshots of the discussion of debt in messengers are recognized by the court, but with reservations. The main risk is challenging the integrity of the correspondence. The court may not accept the screenshots if they do not show the entire dialogue and it is impossible to determine who owns the number, the lawyer draws attention to.
Therefore, there is now a trend towards notarizing screenshots (protocol of inspection of evidence), she clarifies. In this case, the screenshots become full-fledged evidence. And the messages themselves often confirm only the recognition of debt, but not its initial occurrence. But it is important to take into account that the inspection protocol and certification are expensive, it is necessary to contact a notary in advance and find out the price, the expert points out.
It is important to know that if the creditor sent a bank transfer to the debtor and accompanied the financial transaction with a comment "in debt", this will not eliminate the problems.
— The transfer confirms the movement of money, and the comment is a written proof of the loan nature. However, this is a unilateral action. If the recipient claims that it was a gift or payment for the goods, the sender will have to prove the opposite. A translation with a comment is a good auxiliary proof, but it is better to back it up with a receipt," Krasnova is convinced.
But the audio and video recordings of the conversation, contrary to popular belief, are the weakest evidence due to procedural difficulties. In order for the recording to be accepted in court, according to the lawyer, it is necessary to indicate when, by whom and under what conditions it was made (art. 77 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).
— Courts often recognize such recordings as unacceptable, especially if the recording was conducted covertly or violates the rights of the interlocutor. It can only serve as an addition to other evidence, but not as a substitute," the expert says.
An auxiliary proof is also considered to be a bank statement on cash withdrawal. By itself, it only confirms that the citizen has withdrawn money from his account, but not that it was transferred to a specific person in debt.
"However, the courts have the right to demand such documents in order to verify the reality of the loan — to confirm that you actually had the funds at the time of transfer," the Izvestia interlocutor clarifies.
The value of the statement increases dramatically if it is comparable in amount and date with other evidence (correspondence, testimony). Therefore, correspondence is the most important evidence in such cases.
""Judicial practice proceeds from the fact that phrases like "I'll return it later," "I'll give it back on Friday," and messages indicating the amount or details are regarded as an admission of debt," the lawyer continues.
From the point of view of the law, in this case it is important to establish a chronology of events indicating a real loan: here the creditor withdrew the money, here the debtor wrote a message when he would return and what amount. And all this should be notarized.
"But even the notarization, again, confirms only the fact and content of the correspondence, but not the identity of the number to the defendant — the court will evaluate this in conjunction with other evidence,— concludes Krasnova, emphasizing that the probability of success directly depends on the amount of evidence.
Where to apply to repay the debt
The lawyer advises contacting the police only if there are signs of fraud (Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The main criterion is the intent to steal, which arose before receiving the money.
— That is, the borrower initially did not intend to repay the debt and deceived you. For example, he used forged documents, took out several loans without intending to pay, and hid his lack of financial opportunity," explains Ekaterina Krasnova.
She draws attention to the fact that non—repayment of a debt in itself is a civil dispute, not a crime. For example, if the borrower simply lost his job or got sick, then this is not fraud, and the police will refuse to initiate proceedings. By the way, criminal liability under Part 1 of Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation occurs with damage in excess of 10 thousand rubles, with a smaller amount — administrative.
— You should always go to court, regardless of whether there are signs of fraud. A parallel appeal to the police does not interfere with a civil lawsuit, and sometimes helps to obtain additional evidence," the lawyer claims.
The specialist suggests how to act to the deceived creditor:
— step 1 — pre-trial claim. It is necessary to send the borrower a written request for repayment of the debt (by a valuable letter with an inventory of the attachment and a notification), specify the amount, the basis (receipt / contract), the deadline for voluntary repayment (for example, 10-30 days) and warn about the court. This is not necessary for the court, but it disciplines the debtor and records an attempt to resolve the issue peacefully.;
— step 2 — judicial recovery. If the money is not returned, you can go to court. The path depends on the amount and the existence of a dispute;
— Step 3 — enforcement proceedings. After receiving the writ of execution (or court order), it must be submitted to the Federal Bailiff Service. Bailiffs will forcibly collect the debt: they will write it off, withhold it from their salaries, and seize property.
When collecting evidence and going to court, you should hurry up: the statute of limitations in such cases is three years. Moreover, the burden of proving the transfer of money in debt lies precisely with the creditor. If the deceived citizen provides convincing evidence that he is right, then it is the borrower's turn to prove, for example, that the funds were not transferred or were a gift.
How not to become a criminal
Ekaterina Krasnova draws attention to the key legal principle: the existence of a real debt does not give the right to actions not provided for by law. Demanding a refund is not extortion in itself, but it can be considered extortion if it is accompanied by illegal pressure. For example, a creditor turns to friends for help, and the conversation with the debtor is conducted in the language of power.
— If you ask friends or acquaintances to "talk" with the debtor, they act in your best interests. All responsibility for their illegal methods may fall on you as the organizer," the lawyer warns.
And illegal methods of pressure are criminalized, she emphasizes. Depending on the circumstances, the involvement of third parties in debt collection falls under several articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.:
— Article 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation ("Extortion"). Demanding a debt under threat of violence, destruction of property, or spreading shameful information;
330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation ("Arbitrariness"). Unauthorized seizure of property against a debt (for example, taking car keys) contrary to the established procedure is the most common outcome for creditors;
—119" of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation ("Threat of murder or serious injury to health") and Article 172.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation ("Illegal activity for the repayment of overdue debts of individuals") are separate compounds for those who extort money.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
