There has been a widespread trend as the initiation of civil or arbitration proceedings by
interested parties solely for the purpose of giving visibility to the legality of the possession
of funds or their recovery in the judicial practice of recent years. To prevent such cases, the
courts have begun to involve in bodies of the Federal Service for Financial Monitoring. This
creates a certain layer of problems, the main of which is the determination of the procedural
status of such a body. The author shows the fallacy of participation of financial control bodies
as third parties without independent claims. Alternative forms of participation of such
body and special means of reaction of court to the facts of violation of financial discipline
are offered. The mere possibility of using the process as a means of giving visibility to the
legality of financial transactions gives rise to a negative attitude, but this is complicated
by the external staging of the dispute, which is a serious problem for the court (given the
limited procedural means available to it and taking into account the consolidated position
of the parties). The bodies of the Federal Service for Financial Monitoring appear here as
some external factors, as instance, designed to complete belonging to the court’s authority.
The article assesses the legitimacy of involvement in the dispute of the authority for the
purpose of preventing violations of financial discipline by the parties to the process.
Keywords: private definition; civil procedure; arbitration procedure; third persons without
independent claims; bodies of the Federal service for financial monitoring; fictitious process;
imaginary process; re-enactment proceedings.