Meduza Publishing House published the book “People Behind the Fence” by journalist and researcher at the Kenan Institute Maxim Trudolyubov. This is the second updated and expanded edition of the monograph, first published in 2015. In his book People Behind the Fence, Maxim Trudolyubov tells in detail how the institution of private property developed in Russia, what historical processes influenced it, and what was happening with property in Europe at the same time. Meduza publishes part of one of the new chapters of the book – on the case of singer Larisa Dolina, which created an important precedent from a legal point of view.
The independence of the ordinary person and the dependence of the soldier
In June 2024, singer Larisa Dolina sold her five-room apartment in Moscow to businesswoman Polina Lurie. The famous hostess, who met the buyer, behaved courteously, agreed to reduce the price and talked about the comforts of life in Khamovniki. The deal went quite as standard, but when Lori asked Dolina about the timing of the move, the singer was surprised and said that she had no plans to leave the apartment. This was not planned, because the deal was fictional.
This is how the people to whom she transferred the money explained to her: 112 million rubles were received from the sale of the apartment, and another 175 million rubles from personal savings. Vale was confident he was helping law enforcement catch criminals. For several months, she received calls from Rosfinmonitoring and the FSB and said that the singer, a respected figure in the country, could lose all her money and property. Like, this is the downside of fame, there was a data leak, and now her properties could be re-registered illegally. I was prohibited from disclosing operational information, i.e. consulting with anyone. I was strongly advised to act urgently: sell the apartment fictitiously and quickly transfer the money to a safe account. She was promised that her money or ownership of the apartment would not be affected. Dolina was told that only this “operational combination” would help her preserve her property and help the authorities catch the intruders.
References to state power, isolation of the victim from alternative sources of information, increased urgency and threat, actions that create a sense of logical chain in the victim – all these are elements of social engineering, which scammers master well in Russia and the Russian-speaking space. Of course, not everyone falls into such a psychological trap, but it seems to work well.
The different scenarios of these cruel performances combine by imitating a situation that is effective, fair and cruel at the same time. Such manipulation is likely to be particularly effective in societies with high levels of respect for and fear of the state, as well as high levels of anxiety and expectations of powerful authorities. Victims doubt: in life they do not encounter an effective and just situation, but here an effective situation appears to them. Victims realize that invisible employees know a lot about them; But criminals say they only need this information to protect honest people. Scammers convince victims that government agencies can completely prevent the theft of their money. In addition, the security forces are able to prevent even greater problems: on behalf of an unexpected person, money can be transferred to finance terrorism or to help Ukraine. These are very harsh articles of the Russian Criminal Code. Because of these possibilities, some citizens turn into obedient executors of the manipulators’ will.
Interestingly, Larisa Dolina, who has an extensive network of contacts in government agencies, including, most likely, the security forces, also succumbed to this situation. After all, one phone call to someone she knew, the same Mikhail Barshevsky, whose lawyers eventually took Dolina’s case, could stop the whole scheme and save her money. But it is clear that the valley frankly complied with the demands of the imaginary security services and did not consult with anyone. She later used her connections – when she realized she had been deceived and tried to have the deal declared invalid. As it turned out, her relationships didn’t help her.
When a victim of fraud sells real estate and then attempts to contest the transaction, a conflict arises between protecting the aggrieved seller and protecting the good faith buyer. Paulina Laurie was not involved in the plot; She was a conscientious buyer: she found an apartment on one of the shared platforms and became interested in it. Despite this, she did not have many opportunities to protect her interests in court. In Russian practice, in most cases, the courts side with the seller. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not know how to help an honest buyer faced with a seller who was forced to sell the goods by deception. At the same time, the law protects citizens who have committed certain legally binding acts “without understanding the meaning of these acts or under the influence of a significant misconception” (Articles 177 and 178 of the Civil Code).
In March 2025, the Khamovnichesky District Court, specifically referring to Article 178, approved Dolina’s claim, and the Moscow City Court and the Cassation Body upheld this decision. The apartment was returned to Dolina. Lori’s demands for eviction and the application of bilateral compensation, i.e. the return of 112 million rubles, were rejected. If the cancellation of the transaction was expected, then most likely the refusal to return the money is not: the binary response is not always, but it is still often used. It was this refusal – as well as the presence of a famous figure in the case – that generated resonance.
National Circus
The story of the popular singer’s apartment turned out to be one of the most discussed public stories in recent years. In the context of the virtual ban on open political discussion, the dispute over the sale and purchase of an apartment in Moscow became an occasion to speak out about fundamentally political topics: equality before the law and the fact that the elite always protects its members. However, it is important to understand that the discussion was not entirely spontaneous and popular. State media strategists immediately took the matter into their own hands. This interest was supported by the largest media – the story was broadcast on all leading TV channels and popular talk shows and turned into an element of the national circus. In one of the radio programs, Dolina showed the passport of a fictitious employee of the Rosmonitoring company with a photo of British actor Tom Holland. The singer made conciliatory gestures, saying that Lori was also a victim of scammers and that she would definitely return the money to her.
But society did not treat the artist as a victim of a brutal crime, but rather as “our own person” to the authorities. The authorities themselves did not intervene in such an interpretation of events. He showed no sympathy for the 70-year-old singer, who honestly lost her money. The spread of stories about apartments sold according to the “grandmother’s scheme” also played a role. News began to spread through the media and Telegram channels about elderly people declaring in the courts the invalidity of transactions for the sale of their apartments – citing the fact that they fell under the influence of scammers. In some cases there were no real scammers at all. This problem is not widespread – in one conversation of affected apartment buyers from all over the country there were only 400 people – but it is an ongoing conspiracy with elements of a meme. In this story circulating in the media and in everyday conversation, there are always two characters: a cunning seller who feigns helplessness (“Granny”), and a defenseless buyer, often a hard-working young man, who turns out to be the latter.
In Dolina, the public imagination saw that “grandmother” who was trying to defraud an honest buyer – and of course the man from television, the symbol of wealth and access to power. More than 90% of participants in one study cited the need to protect a good-faith buyer, not the seller, even if they are being duped by scammers. Another media poll showed that more than 90% of participants condemned the singer. As expected, the title of People’s Artist and the fame of a familiar face on the screen turned out to be not equal to authority and respect.
In December 2025, the Supreme Court heard the case in record time, in a public hearing, and with unprecedented media attention. Just three months ago, the Supreme Court was headed by former Prosecutor General Igor Krasnov, a representative of the new generation of power, a man who had a reputation as a “star” of the apparatus. Such a quick and transparent process would not have happened without the Kremlin’s approval. Without the approval of the Kremlin there would not have been such an extraordinary decision: the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation completely abolished the previous practice, overturning the decisions of lower courts and recognizing the ownership of the apartment in the name of Polina Lurie. The court noted the need to protect a good faith buyer – even if the seller is the victim of fraud. Dolina’s eviction case was referred for a new study, and it was recommended that she voluntarily vacate her home.
The Supreme Court stated that seller misunderstanding is not an unlimited category, rather there are limits. The Supreme Court decision notes that Article 178 itself, on which the initial decisions regarding the apartment in Khamovniki were based, states that a misunderstanding about the motives for a deal is not an important enough factor to declare the deal invalid. Moreover, a buyer who is not associated with fraudsters and who has fulfilled all the requirements of the law is subject to protection. Thus, the court interpreted the reasons for the invalidity of the deal in a restrictive manner and put the rights of the new owner at the forefront. Damages caused by criminals should be recovered from them, and not transferred to a bona fide participant in civil transactions. This decision clearly indicates for the first time the priority of protecting the honest buyer over the expanded application of fault and deficiency rules.
The discussion and decision of the Supreme Court demonstrated the consensus of the people and the authorities, and perhaps it was a real consensus. It is not difficult for the community to reach a consensus when it comes to supporting the “common person” who is in conflict with a representative of the elite, and about ensuring ownership of city apartments. The latter is especially important given the importance that Russians attach to the apartment as the basis of their independence and well-being. An apartment in Russia is the most important fact of biography, material evidence that a person was able to build a life and create the foundation for the future. This, as we remember from previous chapters, is part of a long history with peasant plots of land turned into apartments during Soviet times. To doubt the strength of the bargain to which such importance is attached is to doubt the strength of the whole plan of life.
These aspirations are clearly known and understood by the authorities, which is why the state media participated extensively and the operation was carried out loudly. In the discussion about the apartment in Khamovniki, many observers saw a hidden protest, an opportunity, without fear of persecution, to express their attitude towards the regime. But it turns out that the loud discussion was actually just a movement towards the authorities. Society and the authorities “agreed” that apartment ownership is as reliable an institution as possible in Russia.
This is an unwritten contract, under which the government pledges to maintain the possibility of concluding fair transactions and the relative stability of formal law. The protection of citizens from arbitrary interference by persons with ties to civil society is guaranteed, but with some reservations. There is no such thing as complete immunity: if a private person’s property is important to a powerful player, it can be confiscated, although such cases should remain rare. The same applies to political disloyalty: public opposition to war or authority can lead to penalties, including confiscation, but this will be the exception rather than the rule. At the same time, the state does not make commitments to provide favorable real estate loans, a favorable economic environment, or digital privacy. Society implicitly accepts the terms of the bargain, essentially agreeing to limited autonomy in exchange for relative predictability. It seems that it is precisely the demonstration of this autonomy that has become the most important task in the history around the valley.