Our team had successfully represented in court our client, a major US leasing company

Our lawyers had defended the interests of our client when a malicious lessee sold the leased asset to the third party. Despite the prohibition to sell the asset to the third parties imposed by the law, the judge (as an injunction order in the previous court case), and enforcement order to seize the leased asset. The lessor became aware of the sale of the equipment only at the moment of the seizure of the asset by the bailiff from the lessee.

The buyer, for apparent reasons, refused to return the leased asset stating that it is the rightful owner. Together with the lessee, they tried to delay the process of the lease asset recovery by contesting the actions of the bailiff citing:

• The asset is no longer a property of the lessee;

• The bailiff has no authority over the territory of the current location of the asset (the asset was moved to a different region);

• The interests of the third parties will be impaired.

The court, in its judgment, came to the following conclusions:

• The lessee does not acquire the ownership to the leased asset unless specific terms are conditions are met;

• The law and the contract prohibit the lessee from selling or disposing of the leased asset in any other way;

• Registration of the leased asset on the name of the lessee does not attest to its full ownership rights and merely allows it to use the equipment;

• The buyer should address its claims to the lessee.

Due to the introduction of a state of emergency in the country the proceedings were held on appeal via videoconference. We would like to note the well-coordinated and effective work of the West Kazakhstan regional court.