Using a facsimile signature (a signature stamp) is a common business tool for speeding up document workflows. Questions about facsimiles most often arise when signing contracts, acceptance certificates, VAT invoices and other primary documents. However, the legal regulation of this tool in Russia is fragmented, and court and tax practice show heightened attention from the Federal Tax Service and give rise to a number of significant risks: from disputes with counterparties to refusals of tax deductions and tax sanctions (additional tax assessments, fines and penalties).

Legal regulation of facsimile use

A facsimile may be used in the cases and in the manner provided for by law, other legal acts or agreement of the parties (Article 160(2) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

Although the law contains no express permission to use a facsimile in contracts and other documents with counterparties, case law holds that a facsimile is nevertheless permissible, but only where the parties have expressly agreed to it (Resolution of the Arbitrazh Court of the Central District No. F10-6305/21 of 19.01.2022).

At the same time, there are documents on which a facsimile may not be used: powers of attorney, payment documents and other documents with financial consequences (Letter of the Ministry of Taxes and Duties No. 18-0-09/000042 of 01.04.2004; Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court of 26.11.2025 in case No. 33-30934/2025), as well as documents in state and municipal procurement (Letter of the Ministry of Economic Development No. D22-839 of 11.06.2010).

Case law treats the following as documents that may be signed this way:

• contracts and supplementary agreements (if the parties agree to the use of a facsimile);
• insurance and medical policies;
• letters of thanks, certificates of honour and awards for work and study;
• invitations, notices and notifications;
• staff ID cards;
• patents;
• internal documents of the organisation: reports, letters, etc.

Key risks

Using a facsimile involves not only formal restrictions but also significant legal consequences.

1. Tax risks:

• VAT invoices signed with a facsimile do not give the right to a VAT deduction (Ruling of the Supreme Court No. 307-ES21-10502 of 16.07.2021; Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court No. 4134/11 of 27.09.2001);
• Expenses for corporate income tax purposes supported by documents with a facsimile may not be recognised and may be excluded from the tax base (Letter of the Ministry of Finance No. 03-11-11/45946 of 10.06.2021);
• Additional tax assessments, fines and penalties are possible, as the Federal Tax Service may treat documents signed with a facsimile as not submitted.

Such violations are usually identified during desk or field tax audits.

2. The risk of documents being treated as unsigned:

If the use of a facsimile has not been agreed by the parties in advance, there is a risk of:

• the contract or supplementary agreement being found not to have been concluded, which may make it impossible to recover payment under the transaction, result in amounts received being treated as unjust enrichment and require the documents to be executed again;
• subsequent corporate disputes (for example, if the CEO disputes having consented to the document being signed), which often require significant money and time.

At the same time, the use of a facsimile does not in itself automatically make a transaction invalid if it has actually been performed and neither party initiates a dispute (Resolution of the Arbitrazh Court of the East Siberian District of 03.02.2022 in case No. A58-7571/2020).

3. The risk of automatic acceptance of works/services:

Contracts often provide that if the customer does not sign an acceptance certificate within the set period, the certificate is deemed signed and the works/services accepted. Using a facsimile to sign certificates may have the following consequences:

• a higher risk of unauthorised use of the facsimile by unauthorised employees or third parties, which may lead to certificates being signed without the works actually being checked;
• if the customer does not object in time, the automatic acceptance clause gives rise to an obligation to pay.

4. Evidentiary risks:

Courts may refuse to accept documents signed with a facsimile as admissible evidence if the parties have not expressly provided for the use of a signature stamp (Resolution of the Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal No. 09AP-6394/24 of 01.04.2024 in case No. A40-174330/2022).

C Cases recommendations

Given established practice, the use of a facsimile requires proper legal regulation in contractual and internal documentation. The C Cases team recommends:

• expressly providing for the use of a facsimile in the contract or a separate agreement;
• defining a closed list of documents on which a facsimile may be used, where permissible, and excluding documents with financial consequences (acceptance certificates, VAT invoices, payment documents);
• not using a facsimile on documents to be submitted to the Federal Tax Service;
• controlling access to the signature stamp and setting internal rules for its use;
• giving priority to handwritten signatures or qualified electronic signatures for significant transactions and contentious situations;
• taking into account the risk of documents not being accepted as evidence when building a case in court.

Conclusion

A facsimile can be used in business as a tool for streamlining document workflows, but only if the established restrictions are observed and the parties have expressly agreed to it. Established court and tax practice shows heightened attention to such documents and, as a result, a higher level of associated risk. Without proper contractual documentation and internal controls, using a facsimile may have adverse legal consequences, including additional tax assessments, difficulties of proof and disputed obligations.

If you use or plan to use a facsimile and need to assess the related risks to set up your document workflow correctly, the C Cases team can offer a solution tailored to your needs and the specifics of your business.

Sources

1. Civil Code of the Russian Federation;
2. Letter of the Ministry of Finance No. 03-11-11/45946 of 10.06.2021;
3. Letter of the Ministry of Economic Development No. D22-839 of 11.06.2010;
4. Letter of the Ministry of Taxes and Duties No. 18-0-09/000042 of 01.04.2004;
5. Ruling of the Supreme Court No. 307-ES21-10502 of 16.07.2021;
6. Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court No. 4134/11 of 27.09.2001;
7. Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court of 26.11.2025 in case No. 33-30934/2025;
8. Resolution of the Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal No. 09AP-6394/24 of 01.04.2024 in case No. A40-174330/2022;
9. Resolution of the Arbitrazh Court of the East Siberian District of 03.02.2022 in case No. A58-7571/2020;
10. Resolution of the Arbitrazh Court of the Central District No. F10-6305/21 of 19.01.2022.