The founder of one of the Russian companies contributed 0.1 BTC as a contribution to the authorized capital, proving one important moment.
A significant event took place in Russia: According to media reports, the founder of one of the commercial organizations, opened in the form of an LLC, received approval from the Federal Tax Service (FTS) to contribute 0.1 Bitcoin (BTC) as a contribution to the charter capital.
Under the law, such a contribution can be made eithermoney, or property (including intangible assets), which in the latter case need to be evaluated. The fact that to assess the contribution in the form of a share in bitcoin required to use the service of a third-party organization, seems to be a routine procedure in this case. Thus, de facto, at least in one case, it became clear that the country's authorities are ready to consider bitcoin as property.
By the way, the courts of Russia have already heard cases,related to the division of jointly acquired property between former spouses, when at the same time there were accumulations in bitcoins. The main difficulties in such processes arise in connection with the features of the functioning of the cryptocurrency itself.
It can be noted that the lack of directregulation of cryptocurrencies, and bitcoin in particular, in Russia leads to the fact that the courts can sometimes use the custom of business circulation. Or, as an option, the analogy of the law in making a decision in which it is necessary to conclude on such digital assets, or they may not apply them.
Although the precedent rule does not apply in Russia,the issuance by the courts of decisions in which cryptocurrencies are de facto considered as “other property” means that the cryptocurrency phenomenon becomes so important that it cannot be ignored. At the same time, the recent case of the introduction of bitcoin in the authorized capital can be considered as a big step towards the cryptocurrencies of the country.
However, it once again reminded ofthe need for Russian lawmakers to work out amendments to all laws, and not just to adopt a separate law on digital assets, the consideration of which has so far “hung” in the State Duma.