DIA strips customers of troubled banks
The Deposit Insurance Agency has launched a large-scale campaign to seize money from the population. Subpoenas have already been received by clients who withdrew money from their accounts shortly before the revocation of the license from the bank.
They accuse everyone of the same thing – prove that you have not used the preemptive right to receive money. Simply put, you, when withdrawing your money, did not know that the bank had problems. In principle, such actions by the DIA are contrary to its main function – guaranteeing the return of deposits to the population.
Note that the first trials of individuals and legal entities have already passed, moreover, with disappointing results for investors. Customers are losing out on a massive scale; case review is like a conveyor belt.
So one of the former investors of the Military Industrial Bank, who was defeated in court, must return the DIA about 5 million rubles. He withdrew this money from the account on the eve of revoking the license from the bank. According to the state corporation, the transaction should be declared invalid, and the client should return all the money to the bankruptcy estate. It seemed to the servants of Themis that the man had no good reason to withdraw funds from the account.
Meanwhile, according to the victim, he needed money for treatment, since he has oncology. The contributor explains that he has to undergo expensive examinations and treatment. “You don’t think about any revocation of a license when it comes to the issue of life and death,” says the victim.
And this is not the only case. DIA has already won a lawsuit against the Charity Fund for Assistance to Social Protection of High-Risk Professional Groups, which pays compensation to affected combatants and veterans of hot spots.
Another lawsuit was held against legal entities, where the defendants again lost everything. According to one of the lawyers, the meeting was attended by a representative of the Tomilinsky Electronic Plant, a state-owned enterprise in the Moscow Region. In early September, as part of its normal business operations, the plant transferred about 2 million rubles from its account in VPB to other banks.
After the provisional administration was introduced in the credit organization, work at the bank generally got up. As a result, the plant lost about 2 million rubles of payment from contractors. Only with the help of the courts did the legal entity manage to be placed among the creditors of the third stage, making it possible to return at least part of the money that went to salaries and taxes.
Thus, the client receives a double penalty in rubles. At first, the DIA did not allow a payment of 2 million rubles, and a year after the license was withdrawn, the bank requires the court to give state corporations another 2 million rubles. Given that the plant uses money from the budget, such a transfer of funds can lead to big problems.
Lawyers for the victims asked the courts questions about why the Central Bank, knowing that the bank was already not viable, allowed to deposit money into accounts?
Lawyers note that the court does not even try to take into account the fact that companies could use or transfer funds in the normal course of business in a normally functioning bank, and individuals were not prohibited from moving funds on their accounts for their own purposes. It was money that people and companies simply kept in the bank for the convenience of making payments and keeping it safe.
We add that in December they will consider the lawsuit against the FSUE Engineering and Technical Center of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation – an enterprise financed from the state budget. Where did he get the money to pay the state corporation a year later? From the budget through subsidies?
In addition, the lawsuit was brought against the company Protom CJSC, which is engaged in scientific developments in the treatment of cancer, and LLC Medilon-Pharmimeks. This company supplies medicines to the regions. It is still unknown how the payment of several million will affect companies of this kind. For many, such a court decision may be the last.
All verdicts are issued on the basis of Article 61.3 of the Federal Law of 26.10.2002N 127-ФЗ “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)”. Within its framework, a transaction made by a debtor bank within a month before the appointment of a provisional administration may be invalidated by the arbitral tribunal if its execution has led to the fact that a separate creditor is given or may be given greater preference with regard to satisfying his claim that existed prior to the conclusion of the disputed transaction, which would have been provided in the event of settlements with it in the order of priority provided for by the bankruptcy law.
However, in the framework of legal proceedings, another article of the Bankruptcy Law is ignored, in particular, the deal concerns the transfer of property and assumption of obligations or obligations committed in the ordinary course of business carried out by the debtor cannot be challenged on the basis of Section 61.3 of the Bankruptcy Law if the price of property transferred by them or the size of the obligations or obligations assumed does not exceed one percent of the value of the debtor’s assets for the last reporting period.