We need to make a distinction between criminal legal consequences and civil legal consequences.
Extradition is only applicable to criminal matters and depends on the specific treaty between country A and country B. If they don't have one then there can be no extradition. Similarly there are clauses that are common enough that they can be considered typical, for example, extradition will not be allowed by country A if:
- The action which country B considers criminal would not be a crime in country A.
- Country B has the death penalty for the crime and country A doesn't: country A will refuse to extradite unless enforceable assurances are given that the death penalty will not be sought.
- Country A considers that the defendant would not receive a fair trial.
- Country A considers that the charges are politically motivated.
For the particular case of Russia, the Russian constitution prohibits extradition of Russian citizens. Therefore, there is little to no incentive for other countries to negotiate an extradition treaty with Russia.
Civil matters are not subject to extradition treaties and a person in country B wronged by a person in country A can bring a lawsuit in country A or country B or country X, Y or Z if the activity is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of those countries. For example, consider a dispute between an Australian mining company with a French supplier using an American transport company to supply a mine located in South Africa - any or all of those countries could have jurisdiction.
Having brought and won the case in, say country A, the plaintiff needs to collect from the defendant. If the defendant has assets in country A, no problem (or at least just the usual problems), however, if all the defendants assets are in country B then the plaintiff needs to ask the courts of country B to enforce the decision made by the courts of country A.
This may be relatively straightforward or it may be fiendishly difficult.