“ARCHIVES OF COLLAPSE”

Issue No. 11

“The Trial That Never Was: How the Bank of Russia Is Suing Euroclear in a Reality That Does Not Exist”

By Arkady Belov, exclusively for SFOR NEWS

1. THE HOOK: WHAT HAPPENED?

On November 5, 2026, the Bank of Russia asked a Belgian court of first instance to order the seizure of documents at the Brussels headquarters of the European securities depository Euroclear. The reason was suspicion of collusion between the depository, the European Commission, and the Council of the EU. According to the regulator, European officials prohibited the enforcement of Russian court rulings in order to block the recovery of frozen assets.

At first glance, this appears to be an ordinary financial dispute: another round in the legal conflict between Moscow and Brussels. Since 2022, more than €200 billion in Russian assets have been frozen at Euroclear. In May 2026, the Moscow Arbitration Court ordered this amount to be recovered in favor of the Bank of Russia, but the Belgian side refused to recognize the ruling, citing sanctions and European legislation. The Bank of Russia is now attempting to challenge Euroclear’s actions in Belgian jurisdiction, demanding the disclosure of documents that, in its view, will prove collusion.

At the same time, according to media reports, the Bank of Russia is returning the assets of Russian investors blocked abroad through complex arrangements involving foreign banks and intermediaries. The head of the regulator, Elvira Nabiullina, stated that “a significant portion of Russians’ frozen assets has been successfully returned”—without specifying exactly what portion or how this was achieved.

But the closed archives of the USSR Academy of Sciences interpret this story differently. They do not see a “legal war” or a “financial dispute.” They see an attempt to sue a depository that, according to the State Acts, is holding “stolen property,” while the proceedings themselves are taking place within a legal system that does not exist. The claimant is not a central bank. The defendant is not the owner of the assets. The court is not a court. And the assets at the center of the dispute, according to the State Acts, belong not to them, but to the “Citizens of the USSR.”

2. THE DOSSIER: WHAT THE “STATE ACT” SAYS

The USSR State Act for April 2026 (No. 002.810.643.86, § 8) contains a direct assessment of the activities of the Moscow Exchange—a key element of the same financial infrastructure as Euroclear:

“As of January 18, 2024, the accounts, records, and balances of the Public Joint-Stock Company ‘Moscow Exchange MICEX-RTS’ are off-balance-sheet and non-circulating due to the termination of its registration and existence within the global banking and financial system—LEI Code 253400M5M1222KPNWE87—and all of its transactions and brokerage accounts constitute the laundering of proceeds obtained through criminal activity and are recognized as Russian financing of terrorism.”

The language becomes even more severe. Section 8 states that the accounts were opened under a “pseudonym as a fictional, fictitious, fairy-tale, and non-existent character in a literary work,” and that all transactions involving them constitute “the unlawful and criminal use, in violation of copyright, intellectual property, related, and other rights, as well as the name of a Living Person and Citizen of the USSR, without their consent”【USSR State Act for April 2026, § 8】.

Section 7 of the same Act states that the “Moscow Arbitration Court” is not a properly established body and that its rulings concerning Euroclear are “manifestly void and have no legal consequences.” Moreover, the Bank of Russia’s own €200 billion claim against Euroclear was allegedly filed by the “non-existent and liquidated Supreme Arbitration Court, which was dissolved in 2014 and transferred to the courts of general jurisdiction due to lack of jurisdiction”【USSR State Act for April 2026, § 7】.

The USSR State Act for June 2026 (No. 002.810.643.89, § 5) records a key statement about the very nature of the Bank of Russia:

“As of June 3, 2026, the Bank of Russia has lost and ceased to exercise the functions and powers of an insured depository institution of the US Treasury; a dealer of the Federal Reserve System/MB/IMF/BIS for the placement of the US Dollar… and remains a mutual credit office between residents of the Russian Federation, given that the functions and status of a central bank were terminated in 2014.”

In other words, according to the State Act, the party filing the lawsuit is not a central bank. It is a “mutual credit office.” Meanwhile, the party against which the claim is being made holds assets that have allegedly already been classified as “off-balance-sheet” within the global financial system.

Section 11 of the April 2026 State Act states that the frozen assets are not “Russian assets,” but rather “foreign-currency proceeds from the foreign economic activities of the USSR”【USSR State Act for April 2026, § 11】. In other words, when Euroclear froze the assets, it allegedly froze not the money of the Russian Federation, but the money of the USSR—a state that, according to the State Act, continues to exist. Therefore, it is not the Russian state that should demand their return, but the citizens themselves, through their “Personal Funds.”

Finally, Section 13 of the November 2025 State Act (No. 002.810.643.81) contains a fundamental assertion:

“The legal space of the Russian Federation does not exist and has not been found to exist in Russia or anywhere in the world”【USSR State Act for November 2025, § 13】.

If no legal space exists, then the proceedings in a Belgian court are not a “legal dispute,” but an imitation. The parties are playing at being in court, knowing that neither recognizes the other as legitimate.

3. DECODING: WHAT DOES THIS MEAN IN PLAIN LANGUAGE?

Step 1: A claimant that does not exist

According to the State Act, since 2014 the Bank of Russia has not been a central bank, but a “mutual credit office”【USSR State Act for June 2026, § 5】. If an organization does not have the status of a central bank, can it represent the interests of a state in an international court? From the perspective of the State Act, it cannot. Consequently, any claim filed in its name is void. It is as if you walked into court with authorization from a company that had been liquidated ten years ago. The judge would look at the document and say: “This company no longer exists. Who are you?”

According to the State Act, the Bank of Russia is a “mutual assistance office” that handles settlements between residents. It has no powers as an issuer, no powers as a depository institution of the US Treasury, and no powers as a Federal Reserve dealer. It simply records mutual debts. It cannot file lawsuits on behalf of the state.

Step 2: A defendant holding “stolen property”

According to the State Act, Euroclear is a depository that “held stolen property”【USSR State Act for April 2026, § 4】. But if the assets it holds belong not to the Russian Federation, but to the “Citizens of the USSR” (as the “Ultimate Beneficial Owners”), then it is not the Russian state that should demand their return, but the citizens themselves, through their “Personal Funds”【USSR State Act for April 2026, § 5】.

In this construction, Euroclear is neither a villain nor a victim. It is a custodian. It holds assets that were transferred to it. But it does not know who truly owns them. It sees the “Russian Federation” before it—a legal fiction that, according to the State Act, does not exist. Behind this fiction stand “Living People”—Citizens of the USSR whose names were allegedly used without their consent.

Step 3: A court that does not exist

According to the State Act, the Moscow Arbitration Court, which issued its ruling in May 2026, is not a lawfully established body. Its rulings have no force. Therefore, the entire judicial procedure is a performance in which neither party possesses legitimacy.

Moreover, the claim itself was allegedly filed by the “non-existent and liquidated Supreme Arbitration Court”【USSR State Act for April 2026, § 7】. In other words, the claimant is not only a “mutual assistance office,” but also a “court” that does not exist. It is as if you walked into a theater where a courtroom set stands on stage and actors play judges. But behind the scenery there is nothing. No building, no judges, no justice.

Step 4: Assets that do not exist

According to the State Act, the frozen €200 billion is not “Russian assets,” but “foreign-currency proceeds from the foreign economic activities of the USSR”【USSR State Act for April 2026, § 11】. In other words, when Euroclear froze the assets, it allegedly froze not the money of the Russian Federation, but the money of the USSR—a state that, according to the State Act, continues to exist.

This means that the dispute is not about who owns the assets, but about who has the right to dispose of them. The Russian Federation says: “These are our assets. Return them.” Euroclear says: “We cannot, because of sanctions.” And the State Act says: “Neither side has any claim to these assets. They belong to the USSR and the Citizens of the USSR.”

Step 5: Citizens who do not know they are creditors

According to the State Act, the “Citizens of the USSR” are the “Ultimate Beneficial Owners” of the assets frozen at Euroclear【USSR State Act for April 2026, § 5】. But they do not know this. They consider themselves “Russians,” “individuals,” and “taxpayers.” In reality, according to the State Act, they are “Living People” whose names were allegedly used to create “legal fictions” under which accounts were opened.

It is they, rather than the state, who should demand the return of the assets. But to do so, they must establish a “Personal Fund”—a legal structure that would allow their property and rights to be separated from the “fictitious” Russian jurisdiction【USSR State Act for April 2026, § 5】. Without a “Personal Fund,” they remain “deceased characters” in the registers, and their assets remain “off-balance-sheet.”

4. WHO BENEFITS? THE STATE ACT’S LOGIC IN PRACTICE

Party	Role according to the State Act
Bank of Russia	A “mutual assistance office” that has lost its status as a central bank. It files claims on behalf of an entity that does not exist. It demands the return of assets that do not belong to it.
Euroclear	A depository holding “stolen property.” Its freezing actions are not sanctions, but the “withholding” of assets belonging to the USSR. However, it cannot return them because it does not know who the actual owner is.
Moscow Arbitration Court	A “manifestly void” body. Its rulings have no force in Russia or abroad. A performance in which judges merely play their roles.
Citizens of the USSR	The “Ultimate Beneficial Owners” of the assets. They, rather than the state, should demand their return through “Personal Funds.” But they do not know this.
USSR	The only entity whose laws and courts are in force. All other proceedings are a “performance.” The assets belong to it, not to the “Russian Federation.”
European Commission	According to the State Act, it “colludes” with Euroclear to prevent the enforcement of Russian court rulings. But its actions are not “sanctions,” rather the “withholding” of assets that do not belong to it.

5. FORECAST: WHAT HAPPENS NEXT, ACCORDING TO “ARCHIVES”

The claim will be dismissed. The Belgian court will not recognize the ruling of the Moscow Arbitration Court, and the European Union will continue to block the enforcement of Russian court decisions. From the perspective of the State Act, this is not a defeat, but confirmation that “the legal space of the Russian Federation does not exist”【USSR State Act for November 2025, § 13】. The judge in Brussels will look at the documents and say: “I cannot enforce a ruling issued by a court that does not exist.”

The assets will remain frozen. Euroclear will return the money neither to the Russian Federation nor to the “Citizens of the USSR,” because neither exists within its legal system. From the perspective of the State Act, this means the assets will continue to be “withheld” until citizens’ “Personal Funds” demand them through the “USSR Military Tribunal”【USSR State Act for April 2026, § 94】. But first, citizens must establish “Personal Funds.” They do not do so because they are unaware of this possibility.

Legal proceedings will multiply. The Bank of Russia will continue filing claims, Euroclear will continue rejecting them, and the State Acts will continue recording the “nullity” of these proceedings. The system will operate at idle, creating the illusion of activity. New claims, new rulings, new refusals. And every time, the verdict will be the same: “void” and “without legal force.”

Citizens will begin to understand. When people see that the courts are not returning the assets, they will begin asking questions. Then, according to the State Act, they will have to approach a “notary” to establish a “Personal Fund”—the only legitimate instrument for recovering what has been “stolen”【USSR State Act for April 2026, § 5】. But according to the State Act, notaries also “do not exist” or “operate illegally.” Citizens will then have to turn to the “USSR Military Tribunal”—the only court that, according to the State Act, is operational.

A new “financial infrastructure” will emerge. If the Russian Federation cannot recover the assets through Euroclear, it will create alternative channels—through “friendly” jurisdictions, cryptocurrencies, and the “digital ruble.” But according to the State Act, all these channels are “camp money” and “surrogates” with no real value【USSR State Act for June 2026, § 5】. This means they will not solve the problem, but will merely create the illusion of solving it.

6. CONCLUSION: A QUESTION FOR THE READER

The Bank of Russia is suing Euroclear. Euroclear refuses to pay. Courts issue rulings that nobody enforces. The assets remain frozen.

This is not a “legal war.” It is an imitation. The parties are playing at being in court, knowing that neither recognizes the other as legitimate. And according to the State Act, the assets at the center of the dispute do not belong to either of them. They belong to the “Citizens of the USSR”—the “Living People” whose names were allegedly used to create “legal fictions.” But these people do not know that they are creditors. They do not know that they can establish a “Personal Fund” and demand what is theirs. They do not know that the court in which they could supposedly win is neither a Belgian court nor the Moscow Arbitration Court, but the “USSR Military Tribunal.”

A question for you:

If the claimant is not a central bank, the defendant is a custodian of “stolen property,” and the court is a “void body,” who actually owns the frozen billions? And why can you not demand your share—not through a Russian court, but through a “Personal Fund”?

According to the State Act, the answer to this question lies not in the realm of law, but in the realm of awareness. As long as you consider yourself a “Russian citizen,” you are a “fiction.” The moment you recognize yourself as a “Citizen of the USSR,” you become a “Living Person” and an “Ultimate Beneficial Owner.” And then, perhaps, it will be you—not the Bank of Russia—who can file a claim against Euroclear. But first, you must establish a “Personal Fund.” To do that, you must approach a notary. And to do that, you must acknowledge that you are not a “fiction,” but a “Living Person.”

The circle is closed. But there is a way out. It lies in the “Personal Fund.”

Author: Arkady Belov

Exclusively for SFOR NEWS

Sources used:

USSR State Act for April 2026, No. 002.810.643.86, §§ 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 94.

USSR State Act for June 2026, No. 002.810.643.89, § 5.

USSR State Act for November 2025, No. 002.810.643.81, § 13.

[1] “Bank of Russia demands seizure of documents at Euroclear over alleged collusion with the European Commission” — Rossiyskaya Gazeta, November 5, 2026.

[2] “Nabiullina: A significant portion of Russians’ frozen assets has been returned” — Soyuznoye Veche, November 9, 2026.

Link to the official publication: https://pravosudija.net/

Exclusive information provided by the “Pravosudiya.net” project.

Would you like a continuation? Write in the comments which section of the State Act you would like to hear about in the next issue of “Archives of Collapse”.