The article examines the issues of distinguishing a fraudulent transaction from fictitious and sham transactions. The expediency of studying a transaction in general as one of the complex legal structures in the science of civil law is substantiated. The relevance of studying a fraudulent transaction as a new one for the practice of law enforcement of a transaction committed with the aim of causing harm to the creditor is emphasized. The author suggested that challenging a fraudulent transaction proceeds from a violation of the principle of good faith, which is difficult to disagree with. The key features of distinguishing a fraudulent transaction from fictitious and sham transactions are identified, namely: the essence of a fraudulent transaction is established; the signs of a fraudulent transaction are defined in accordance with the practice of the Supreme Court; a substantive characteristic of a fictitious transaction is provided; The essence and features of a fictitious transaction are clarified. A general characteristic of a fictitious transaction is given, where it is clarified that a fictitious transaction does not intend to create a legal consequence, unlike a fraudulent transaction. It is determined that the type of fictitious transaction is fraudulent. A fictitious transaction is characterized as one that aims to hide another transaction that was actually committed by its parties. A fictitious transaction, as indicated in the article, does not aim to create a certain legally significant result, which, on the contrary, takes place during the commission of a fraudulent transaction. It is concluded that a fictitious transaction, unlike a fraudulent transaction, is not characterized by the goal of creating a certain legally significant result. In such a case, the parties agree on other legal consequences that are important for them than those that are determined by their expression of will in the fictitious contract. It is emphasized that the separation of transactions committed to the detriment of the creditor into a separate group of fraudulent ones is an important step towards the development of Ukraine as a legal state, and creates the prerequisites for the legislative mechanism of the legal consequences of the application of the fraudster’s construct.
Read full abstract