The fallout from a high-profile property dispute in Russia is resonating far beyond Moscow – and it carries a clear warning for buyers in Azerbaijan.
At the center of the case is Russian singer Larisa Dolina, whose apartment sale was later voided by a court after she claimed she had been deceived by intermediaries and never intended to sell the property. Although the buyer, Polina Lurye, paid the full purchase price – 112 million rubles – through a formally registered transaction, the court ruled that the apartment should be returned to Dolina. The money, however, was not returned to the buyer.
The decision left Lurye without both the apartment and her funds – a legal paradox that has sparked widespread concern among property lawyers across the region. Under the court’s reasoning, Dolina herself was also deemed a victim, and the buyer was instructed to pursue reimbursement from the fraudsters involved – individuals who, in practice, are often impossible to locate.
Dolina later stated she would return the money voluntarily, in installments. But legal experts note that such assurances carry no binding force. The case has now reached Russia’s Supreme Court, with a final ruling expected on December 16.
A regional warning
While the dispute unfolded in Russia, its implications are directly relevant to Azerbaijan’s real estate market, where buyers continue to face risks tied to informal intermediaries, questionable powers of attorney, and weak enforcement mechanisms.
Cases involving the sale of the same apartment to multiple buyers, or developers “reserving” one unit for different clients, remain a recurring problem – particularly in the primary housing market. In many instances, buyers rely on reputation, personal connections, or verbal assurances rather than formal safeguards.
Legal analysts warn that Azerbaijan could, in theory, see a scenario similar to the Dolina case. A seller may later claim coercion, deception, or psychological pressure and seek to invalidate a completed sale. If a court accepts those arguments, the buyer’s right to recover paid funds can become uncertain – and litigation may drag on for years.
The danger of informal intermediaries
One of the most persistent vulnerabilities in Azerbaijan’s property sector is the widespread use of unofficial brokers. These intermediaries often operate without licenses, carry no legal liability, and disappear once disputes arise. When contracts fail to clearly define a broker’s role and responsibility, the financial risk falls almost entirely on the buyer.
Experts emphasize that the most effective way to reduce exposure is structural – not personal.
Property transactions, they argue, should be conducted not only through notaries, but also through banks. Direct cash payments to sellers remain the most dangerous option. By contrast, escrow accounts or letters of credit ensure that funds are released only after legal conditions are met – and provide a clear financial trail if disputes emerge.
Independent legal review prior to any transaction, specialists add, is no longer optional but essential.
“Courts should protect good-faith buyers”
Commenting on the case to Musavat, prominent Azerbaijani lawyer Akram Hasanov said similar situations are already playing out domestically.
“The Russian court, in my view, reached the wrong conclusion,” Hasanov said in remarks to Yeni Musavat. “There is a legal concept of a good-faith buyer. If someone checks the state registry, confirms ownership, signs the contract before a notary, and pays the seller – the law should protect that buyer.”
Hasanov argued that unless collusion with fraudsters can be proven, stripping a buyer of both property and payment violates basic legal principles. “Otherwise, any completed transaction can later be undone,” he said.
He described a case he is currently handling in Azerbaijan involving a buyer who purchased an apartment below market price after being told the seller urgently needed funds. The buyer allowed the sellers to remain temporarily and paid rent, only to later face a court claim that the sale was actually a disguised loan arrangement.
Despite winning in lower courts, the buyer ultimately lost on appeal after the transaction was declared invalid – without documentary proof. A criminal investigation has since been launched against the seller’s son for alleged fraud involving multiple victims.
“If the Supreme Court does not reverse the ruling,” Hasanov said, “the sellers keep the apartment, while the buyer may never recover his money. Unfortunately, these schemes are becoming increasingly active.”
A clear lesson
The broader lesson, lawyers say, is straightforward: trust alone is not a legal safeguard. In real estate – where life savings are often at stake – financial transparency and institutional oversight matter more than reputation, urgency, or personal assurances.
In that sense, the Dolina case is less an anomaly than a warning.
