A pillory for alimony defaulters: a public registry is designed to officially shame debtors

The registry of alimony debtors, which is being launched on May 25, has caused a wave of discussions even at the project stage. On the one hand, the initiative is aimed at strengthening control over parents who evade child support, on the other hand, it raises concerns about the protection of personal data, reputational consequences and the possibility of errors when included in the list. As the authors of the innovation assure, the measure is purely social: information will be open only on truly malicious defaulters, and an appeal mechanism is provided. However, critics point out potential risks: a public stigma can become a tool of pressure not only on unscrupulous citizens, but also on those who ended up in the registry by mistake.

The registry will include those who systematically evade alimony payments, as well as those who have already been held accountable for these violations. The data will be publicly available until the debt is repaid. It will be separately indicated if the person is wanted. The director of the Federal Bailiff Service (FSSP) Dmitry Aristov reported the day before that 190 thousand entries have already been entered into the registry. And he added: "We wish men never to end up in it." Although, according to official statistics, about 17% of alimony payers are women.

From the point of view of lawyers and financial analysts, the emergence of the registry is a step forward in the digitalization of the enforcement system, but there are nuances. The founder of the Kredcheck service, Elman Mekhtiev, emphasizes that the system is not immune to errors, but legal mechanisms have already been provided for this: “To appeal the erroneous inclusion of a person in the register of debtors for alimony, you can apply to the territorial office of the Federal Bailiff Service of the Russian Federation (FSSP) and present documents confirming that he is not a debtor. Such documents may include those that will allow you to identify the applicant and verify the erroneousness of the information entered in the registry, or documents that make it possible to verify the absence of alimony debt. Cases of “duplicate” debtors in enforcement proceedings are very well known, and the FSSP has long had a procedure for appealing such errors.”

One of the main questions is how much such a register can affect the debtor's life in everyday and financial terms. Especially access to employment and banking products. According to Mekhtiyev, the information in the register can indeed influence the decision of the employer or creditor, but within the framework of existing practice: "Since the register will be public, potential employers and professional creditors will be able to have access to the data. Such information can influence the decision of the HR service, but it is unlikely to have a significant impact on the credit rating, since information about the existence of enforcement proceedings has long been taken into account by financial institutions when assessing the solvency of the applicant. Another matter if the creditor additionally decides, based on some of its values, that it does not want to deal with such borrowers. In this case, the so-called "reputational pressure" works more than the real restriction of access to financial services."

Another important aspect is the project's compliance with the requirements of the law on personal data. According to Mekhtiyev, formally everything is within the law: "It is assumed that only a limited list of personal data will be publicly available, which, in accordance with the law, can be used without the consent of an individual for the purpose of ensuring the execution of judicial acts."

The legal community is generally taking the initiative calmly. Polina Gusyatnikova, Senior Managing Partner of the law firm PG Partners, believes that the registry is rather an attempt to finally call to conscience those who shirk their responsibilities: “From a legal point of view, I personally have no objections to such an initiative. If a person does not do what he or she is required to do by law, why should it remain a secret? Maybe at least this will help some defaulters remember that they have children whom they are required to support by law.”

In her opinion, there is no threat of data leakage: "I think that all the nuances here will be thought out in accordance with the current legislation, so there is no need to worry about any leaks. We currently have a FSSP database, in which you can also find debtors for alimony. In essence, it is proposed to create something similar, only a slightly more expanded version."

She is also sure that errors are possible, but the system allows them to be quickly corrected: "If such an error suddenly occurs, it can be corrected. To do this, you will need to contact the FSSP and reconcile payments. If it turns out that there is no debt, the information will be cancelled."

At the same time, the lawyer emphasizes that the majority of non-payers are not those who cannot pay objectively, but those who do not want to: "As my judicial practice shows, most often alimony is not paid by those who really cannot, due to some life circumstances, but by those who do not want to do this. Various tricks are used - from concealing income to providing false documents. And most often, disputes over alimony involve not astronomical amounts, but the basic subsistence minimum, on which it is actually impossible to live."

Finally, the mechanism of further sanctions under discussion is of particular interest. In the future, defaulters may be restricted in access to state and social services. There are no specific laws yet, but the idea is in the air. Elman Mekhtiyev clarifies: “There are no such restrictions at the moment, but if reputational pressure is insufficient, legislators may propose introducing restrictions on receiving services that are not vital, or, for example, prohibiting the use of digital analogues of government services if there are “offline” options. That is, it will not be possible to quickly and conveniently obtain a certificate through the Unified Portal of State and Municipal Services (EPGU), if on such a list, but only those that can be obtained after a personal appearance at the MFC.”

Thus, the new system of the alimony defaulter registry becomes not only a tool for recording violations, but also a mechanism of social pressure. Publicity, reputational losses, inconvenience in accessing services - all this should, according to the authorities, encourage debtors to reconsider their behavior. But in matters where the rights of the child and the rights of the citizen are at stake, accuracy and protection from abuse are especially important. Otherwise, even the right idea can give rise to a lot of grievances, social problems and lawsuits.