“Vedomosti” published a study by the Gaidar Institute’s Center for Evidence-Based Expertise examining the extent to which different methods of facilitating real estate transactions help protect buyers from fraud.
The analysis of court cases demonstrated that the involvement of a notary does not provide more reliable protection compared to banks, real estate agents, or specialized online services.
CEBE experts used the random sampling method to examine 298 court cases heard between 2023 and 2026. In all cases, buyers or sellers sought to invalidate real estate purchase agreements that had been concluded under the influence of telephone scammers.
According to the study, among 48 transactions certified by notaries, the court refused to rescind the contract in only 19 cases—about 40%. By comparison, when transactions were facilitated by banks, the corresponding figure was 62%; by real estate agents, 60%; and by specialized online services, 78%.
Separately, the experts analyzed legal disputes regarding claims for damages against notaries. Of the 213 cases reviewed, the courts denied the claims in 74% of the cases. As the study’s authors note, it is difficult to recover damages because it is necessary to simultaneously prove the notary’s fault, the unlawfulness of their actions, and a causal link between those actions and the resulting losses.
The study’s findings were published amid an ongoing debate over the introduction of mandatory notarization for residential real estate transactions. According to CEBE calculations, if such a measure was extended to the entire secondary real estate market, the additional costs to citizens could amount to approximately Rb49.5 bn per year. At the same time, the total losses from fraud in the housing market are estimated at approximately Rb4 bn.
“Our analysis shows that mandatory notarization alone is not a universal solution to the problem of fraud in the real estate market. Before making decisions about expanding the mandatory involvement of notaries, it is important to assess not only the potential benefits of such a measure, but also its actual effectiveness, the cost to citizens, and existing alternative protection mechanisms. Any legislative changes must be based on data, not on isolated high-profile cases,” concluded Ekaterina Papchenkova, director of the Center for Evidence-Based Expertise at the Gaidar Institute.