He forbade himself, allowed himself: the Russians changed their minds to live without loans

The ban was set automatically. And now the Russians began to massively abolish their own self-prohibitions. The innovation didn't work?

Ban can't be allowed

The service of voluntary self-prohibition on loans earned on “State Services” on March 1, 2025. The Russians rushed to take advantage of the new opportunity with such enthusiasm that they were offered not to ban themselves loans, but to write off existing ones.

According to the United Credit Bureau, more than 27 million Russians filed applications for self-prohibition. Impressive number. It turns out that millions of people have decided that the most reliable way to avoid borrowing money is to deprive themselves of this opportunity in advance.

However, 12.4% of the previously imposed bans have already been lifted. The reasons studied the financial aggregator “I will choose.ru”, interviewing more than three thousand people.

It turned out that 32% of respondents who explained the reasons for the refusal of self-prohibition cited unforeseen expenses for which there was not enough of their own savings. About one-third are willing to drop the restriction for a major planned purchase, mortgage or car. A total of 38% of respondents thought about lifting self-ban during the year. In other words, prohibiting yourself from taking loans was easier than living without them. Life has refused to obey financial literacy.

The government allowed us not to trust ourselves

In general, self-prohibition was not invented in order to cultivate frugality. Its main task is to protect a person from fraudsters who may try to apply for a loan in his name. If there is a corresponding ban in the credit history, the bank or microfinance organization must take it into account when issuing a loan.

But it turned out to be a very interesting psychological experiment. Millions of adults, able-bodied citizens, volunteered to tell the state system, "I don't trust myself." Please make sure I don't do anything stupid.” And after a while, some of them came back with a new request: "No, now I trust myself again." Return the opportunity to borrow money.” And all this is carefully recorded in the credit history.

In my opinion, the most interesting thing here is not even the number of bans lifted, but our amazing attitude to our own decisions. We don’t trust banks too much, we fear scammers, we doubt the future. As it turns out, we prefer to keep ourselves under control. Although, of course, not everyone who lifted the ban changed his mind on his own whim. Sometimes circumstances are stronger than promises.

Why People Need to Open a Credit Door

Lawyer Maria Arkhipova offers to look at what is happening not only as a funny story about human inconsistency. In her opinion, the mass discussion of the abolition of self-prohibitions may indicate a much more serious problem – the lack of a financial cushion.

- If a person voluntarily limited the possibility of obtaining loans, but later is forced to give up this protection in order to pay for necessary goods, services or other expenses, this may indicate his financial vulnerability.

In other words, a person can promise himself no longer to borrow money. But if you suddenly need expensive treatment, a broken refrigerator, or an urgent repair of the car he drives to work, one promise is not enough.

However, Arkhipova cautions against hasty conclusions:

- It cannot be said that all abolitions of self-prohibitions are caused by the deterioration of the material situation. Some citizens remove restrictions for planned purchases or refinancing of debts.

And here we see another interesting detail. It turns out that some Russians are going to cancel the self-prohibition for the sake of a mortgage or car loan, although this is not always necessary. According to the lawyer, the self-prohibition does not apply to mortgage loans, loans secured by a vehicle, as well as to educational loans defined by law with state support.

That is, a person can solemnly remove protection from himself for the sake of a mortgage, although no one has forbidden him to mortgage.

You can change your mind. Not instantly

Fortunately, the legislator provided that a person is able to change decisions not only under the influence of life circumstances, but also under the pressure of fraudsters. Therefore, self-prohibition can not be lifted and immediately get a regular consumer loan.

As the lawyer explains, the cancellation of the restriction does not begin to act immediately, but on the second calendar day after entering the relevant information in the credit history. This pause is needed so that the person has time to think again with his head. Especially if he just called an unknown citizen, introduced himself as a security officer of the bank and said that to save money it is urgent to take a loan. Here it is very useful that there is at least some time gap between desire and opportunity.

- If the creditor concludes a contract with violation of the requirements established by law in the current self-prohibition, he has no right to demand the fulfillment of obligations under such a contract, the expert draws attention.

But if a citizen independently canceled the ban, waited for the cancellation to come into force and legally received a loan, the money will have to be returned on a general basis. Along with interest.

What if there's not enough money?

Especially dangerous is the situation when a person removes a self-prohibition in order to repay old debts with new ones. This is no longer buying a refrigerator or even repairing a car, but trying to get out of the debt hole with another shovel. In such circumstances, there are other mechanisms: credit holidays under the conditions stipulated by law, negotiations with the bank on debt restructuring.

Self-prohibition protects against certain risks of credit fraud, but its abolition does not solve the problem of income shortfall and may lead to an additional debt load.

Well, self-prohibition turned out to be a good tool of protection against fraudsters. But a completely useless remedy against sudden spending, low incomes, and lack of savings.

And yet there is something very Russian about this story. First, we asked the government to protect us from banks. Then from your own weakness. And now we ask to return to us the right to decide when, how much and from whom to borrow. And tomorrow, maybe we won't do it again.

This is how we are all sudden and unpredictable