It was translated using Google Translate

The advantage of self-settlement of the debt dispute and self-collection of debt is the relative low cost, the lack of the need to pay for services. However, among the minuses are the following:

1) lack of experience working with debts, which leads to unreasonably large expenditures of time and effort, and often to adverse results;

2) financial losses arising from the time costs specified in clause 1, because often you do not get back the money taken by you on a loan for which you pay interest, or you have to lend to replenish working capital, while your money is free Your debtor enjoys;

b) “linkage” in the conflict, when the creditor’s personal negative takes precedence over common sense;

c) the absence of a change of parties to the conflict. No matter how much the debtor respects (feared, etc.) the creditor, he gets used to it like a “rat to poison”, knows when and what actions to expect from him and how to react to it.

The overwhelming majority of creditors go through the stage of independent resolution of debt disputes. If, despite all their efforts, the conflict comes to a standstill, other options for resolving it are being taken. The success of the repayment of the debt usually depends on which way the creditor turns to.

Formal (judicial) resolution of a debt conflict

This method of resolving a debt conflict is not cheap (court fees, services of lawyers) and, as a rule, unpromising. Appeal to the court is justified only in the following cases:

a) the debtor has easily tradable assets (liquid assets, accounts) that can be seized upon filing a lawsuit;

b) the statute of limitations expires and credit and debt relations must be prolonged.

In other cases, going to court does not make sense. With a positive court decision and in the absence of the debtor’s desire to pay off the debt, the creditor is faced with a performance procedure that clearly shows the toothlessness of our current law.

Appeal to criminal structures

This favorite way of resolving credit and debt disputes of the 90s today has significantly lost its position. And although the fear for their own life and health, as well as their loved ones, certainly have not lost their relevance, against the background of the widespread decriminalization and strengthening of the positions of law enforcement agencies, the debtor has new and, most importantly, effective protection against crime. This way is not suitable for creditors who do not want to be further in an unambiguous relationship with informal structures, have problems with the law, as well as creditors who value their own reputation.

Appeal to official law enforcement agencies

This way of resolving credit and debt disputes can be divided into official and unofficial treatment.

In the first case, the creditor, as a rule, submits an official application to the appropriate structure to institute criminal proceedings or to conduct an investigation into fraud. The weak link in this path is the difficulty of imputing guilt. Practice shows that it is impossible to prove the intent of the debtor, who recognizes the fact of the debt, and not the refund, explains the temporary difficulties. As a result, the creditor receives an official paper refusing to institute criminal proceedings with a recommendation to go to court, and the debtor, confident in his own impunity, continues to drive him “by the nose”.

If the lender is inclined to informally contact the relevant law enforcement agencies, he should understand that, despite all the known advantages, the unofficial activity of official structures to resolve private economic disputes is suppressed by the security services of the respective structures. Many debtors resort to this lever of counteraction to the pressure exerted on them.

Contacting Debt Management Organizations

This option of resolving credit and debt disputes seems to be the most preferable for most difficult situations. Organizations specializing in resolving credit and debt disputes, as a rule, have connections with various law enforcement agencies and an administrative resource. In addition, extensive experience in this service sector guarantees the implementation of innovative approaches to resolving debt disputes.

Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of creditors come to this option of resolving debt conflicts only after the situation completely gets out of control, after both have worked on the issue, which makes debt work extremely difficult.

So, all these ways of resolving credit and debt disputes have their pros and cons, their strengths and weaknesses. Before deciding in favor of one of them, the lender should weigh the pros and cons, take into account the psychological type of the debtor, analyze its strengths and weaknesses, and, not following the emotions, make the only right decision.