Since mid-2013 when the Central Bank headed by Elvira Nabiullina, from the banking system dropped every third Bank, reminiscent of the leading expert, Center for macroeconomic analysis and short-term forecasting (CMASF), Mamonov Mikhail. On paper from 308 banks, deprived for different transgressions license in 2013-2016, according to the last before the revocation of the license report, the Bank had assets of 2.89 trillion rubles – RUB 311 bln more of a commitment. In fact, in those 70% of them, is declared bankrupt, temporary administration found a hole almost total 1.4 trillion roubles, follows from the data controller. The size of the paid insurance coverage for individual deposits is not disclosed.
According to estimates Cmake, 65% of banks that lost their licenses were discovered holes in the capital, equal to 2.1% of GDP, or 47% of their assets. It can be much worse. "Slightly more than half (394) living banks can hide their balance sheets holes in the capital in the amount of 5.6% of GDP, or about 4.7 trillion rubles., – said Mamonov. It says that the reviews licenses and detect major holes yet to come. Still punishing hand of the regulator touched the medium and small banks – with a few exceptions like the Bank "trust". What would happen if the Central Bank will begin to discover holes in larger banks?" According to the calculations Tsmakp, the largest potential losses are localized in the first hundred banks, but outside the top 30.
Losses compensated by the state due to the issue of money for the rehabilitation and insurance payments to depositors. Unfair the owners and managers of banks almost no risk. In the 11 years that the DIA is suing them, the Agency received the decision on the recovery of 101.6 billion rubles. But really managed to get only 180 million rubles, or 0.18%. Total losses from criminal actions of top managers and owners of the collapsed banks of the DIA a year ago was estimated at 550 billion rubles That prevents the Agency?
If the collapsed Bank has insufficient funds to repay debts, the bankruptcy Trustee can involve the former controlling persons of vicarious liability – ask them the difference between creditors and assets of the Bank. But those, as a rule, no assets. In 80% of cases the bankruptcy of the Bank is due to the withdrawal of assets when the stolen property was legalized through a Bank dummy, in fact, deals and ended up with relatives or controlled by former bankers structures. And the law has no mechanism to withdraw the property from the nominee, says the representative of ASV. Increasingly, assets are derived abroad and the owners in the occurrence at banks of serious financial problems go beyond the borders of Russia, said earlier the Agency. Meanwhile, the Russian courts denied the adoption of interim measures, said the representative of ASV. In the end, to escape, maybe even the property known to the creditors of a bankrupt Bank.
In September 2013, the Central Bank revoked for numerous breaches of the license of the Bank "Pushkino". Two months later he was declared bankrupt, the claims of creditors amounted to 25.7 billion rubles. the owner of the Bank Alexey Alyakin was the accused in a criminal case about the theft and about a year is already in the international wanted list.
ASV in November 2016 filed in the Moscow Arbitration court a statement about bringing to subsidiary responsibility in the amount of RUR 14.8 bln. 12 the Bank Supervisory persons headed by Alakina and former CEO Kirill Nikulin. But in December 2016, the court refused to secure the claim to arrest their property, putting that they have not received documents proving the necessity of such measures. ASV was not able to challenge in court the requirement Nikulina on the payment of his salary for two months after the revocation of the license, as well as compensation for unused vacation and breach of the terms of severance – only 5.4 million rubles.
On January 1, 2017, according to the DIA, the creditors Pushkino the first stage, i.e., the depositors returned less than 1.4 billion rubles, or about 6% of the size requirements. On 30 January, the court suspended all the proceedings of the "Pushkino", stating that "the size of subsidiary responsibility can only be determined after the final formation of the bankruptcy estate and, accordingly, satisfaction of requirements of creditors" and for today to determine its "impossible because the debtor has unrealized assets".
Similar stories happened to PV-Bank (suspended proceedings on the claim of vicarious RUB 2 billion), Udmurtinveststroybank (320 million rubles), Bank "holding-credit" (8.4 billion rubles) and "Express" (2.6 billion rubles), Uraltransbank (305 million rubles).
In 2010, Mezhprombank was declared bankrupt and the following year its founder and ex-Senator Sergey Pugachev left Russia. In 2013, the Central investigation Department of the TFR opened a criminal case, accusing the businessman of embezzlement in especially large size. The banker was declared in the international search. In 2015, the Arbitration court of Moscow has satisfied the claim of the DIA (the bankruptcy Manager of Mezhprombank) on the attraction of Pugacheva to vicarious liability for the debts of Mezhprombank and the recovery from him of former managers of the Bank almost 76 billion roubles under the claim ASV London's High court in 2014 allowed the arrest of Pugachev's assets worldwide up to $2 billion a year ago, acknowledged the decision of the Arbitration court of Moscow on recovery of c ex-beneficiary of Mezhprombank 76 billion rubles determined for execution on the territory of England and Wales, said DIA. But actually recover anything yet failed. Pugachev is located in France which citizen is. Pugachev a representative notes that the Commission abroad of any action in the performance of the decision of the Russian court, the DIA must receive a separate decision of the national courts in each jurisdiction. "To our knowledge, no such decision, the DIA has not yet received, he says. And in France, and in Luxembourg, and the Cayman Islands ASV only managed to send a unilateral request of imposition of provisional measures". He is confident that hypnotherapy will be able to convince the court not to arrest his assets. The interlocutor insists that the UK, contrary to the statements of the DIA, the court did not recognize the decisions of Russian arbitration, and the Agency only filed a request about the possibility of recovery of funds, operating only in England: "the English court confirmed this possibility, but this requires a special judicial procedure with the participation of the parties. Pugachev does not fall under British jurisdiction, so the case is left without movement." However, as the representative of the DIA in the bankruptcy of Mezhprombank in the judicial process in relation to the control of the Bank entities received £ 25,000 and the $1.7 million – though he did not specify from whom, and the search of the property brought to vicarious liability of persons continuing. In the end, while the creditors of Mezhprombank paid less than 2 billion rubles (or 2.3% of total requirements), a comparable amount was spent on the conduct of bankruptcy proceedings. Conjugal duty the Property value of 16.2 million pounds and $5.6 million, including a restored castle of the XVI century Oxney Court in the English County of Kent, a mansion in Surrey, a house in Bali, investing 4 million pounds, and transfers to 16.6 million rubles, $11 million and 5 million pounds in the accounts of the spouses in "Trust" and the Geneva Bank Bordier & Cie – all the Bank "trust", hygiene which in December 2014 was doing the financial Corporation "Otkrytie", requires the High court of London, from the wives of former major owners of the Bank Ilya Yurov and Nikolai Fetisov and Sergey Belyaev. A trio of businessmen declared in the international search. Together with two former top managers of "Trust" – not left Russia and arrested Oleg Dikusar and Jevgenijs Romanovym – they are accused of embezzlement of Bank funds. The criminal case is heard in the Basmanny court of Moscow, where "trust" has filed a civil action for damages 22.7 billion rubles jointly and severally on all defendants. And in the High court of London trust requires Yurova, Fetisov, Belyaeva and their wives damages of $908 million, said the representative of the Bank. The damage was calculated as debt structures under control to the former owners of the Bank, minus security. However, the defendants failed to disclose to the court information about his assets worth only $100 million, said the representative of the Bank "trust". What "Trust" claims to spouses of owners? "For the time that has passed since the emergence of the Bank issues prior to filing a lawsuit, the shareholders have transferred millions to their wives and other family members, having them as gifts – explained the representative of "Trust". – The English court has the discretion to cancel the relevant transaction if they aimed to make the funds unavailable to creditors." The lawsuit stated that Yurov, Beliaev Fetisov received on account in a Swiss Bank Bordier & Cie $68 million from offshore associated with borrowers "Trust". And then transferred large sums to accounts of their wives. In addition, women received transfers from the accounts of men in "Trust". For example, according to the plaintiffs, Yurov transferred from your account 0na account wife Natalia approximately $8.3 million and 7.3 million rubles, follows from the claim. In recent years, Yurova bought a house in Kent, three apartments in London, property in Cyprus, contributed to the investment company. "Judging by the fact that for the past 20 years, Ms. Yurova had no independent source of income, funds to acquire the property were provided by Mr. Yurov", – stated in the lawsuit. Yurov says that this information is untrue – like all other claims on the part of the Bank "trust". Wife Fetisova Elena pishchulina became the sole owner of property in the UK, Moscow and Bali, which they together with the husband acquired beginning in 2012 (see). "Trust" is asking a London court to cancel the transfer and return everything, including real estate, Uravu, Belyaev and Fetisov, and then to use these assets for compensation to the Bank. The representative of "Trust", expects that the trial will begin in October 2018 "unfortunately, in such matters is usually impossible to compensate for damages in full, because credit funds were spent or lost, and assets fell, as did the ruble, despite the fact that many of the loans were granted in dollars," says the source, "Vedomosti". Property history the Wife of the former owner of Bank "the trust" Ilya Yurov Natalia, as stated in the lawsuit the Bank that owns the "family castle" Oxney Court, in Kent, acquired for 4.1 million pounds. House of XVI century was destroyed during the First world war and until recently was a picturesque ruin, is included in all tourist guides. Now completely restored, elegant building, surrounded by 35 acres of gardens and lawns, pleasing to the eye a charming mix of Gothic and Georgian styles, wrote the publication Country Life in 2012, when the house was put up for sale for 4.5 million pounds. The most expensive real estate of the wife of former shareholder "of the Trust" Nikolay Fetisova – Elena Pasolini, which attempts to foreclose the new administration of the Bank, – a country house in Surrey. Surrounded by trees and lawns, three-story mansion with six bedrooms with swimming pool, Jacuzzi and cinema room, wrote website zoopla.co.uk. Fetisov in 2014-2015 to be transferred to the name of the wife's interest in the house and other jointly acquired property – apartments in London's Chelsea for 1.6 million pounds, a country house in Moscow worth $4.25 mln, a joint account of the spouses was paid for the house in Bali for $870 000 million By agreement of the parties in may 2014. "SMP Bank" is engaged in the rehabilitation of Mosoblbank, the former team which is to circumvent the limitations of the Central Bank on attraction of funds of natural persons of the withdrawal of deposits for the balance. The regulator found that Mosoblbank brought 76 billion rubles – money of more than 350,000 contributors. In a criminal case the damage from manipulation of the deposits was estimated at 68 billion rubles In another criminal case related to the transfer and assignment of the Bank's funds through fictitious contracts on the eve of the reorganization, the first ex-Chairman of the Board and shareholder of Mosoblbank, Viktor Yanin in June 2015, was sentenced to six years imprisonment with a fine of 800 000 rbl. the sum of the caused damage to the Bank was determined at 578 mln RUB, really Ioannina collected about 200 million. "the money was arrested at the stage of preliminary investigation in respect of the provision reported by the Bank of a civil lawsuit. The likelihood of repayment of the remaining amount of damage is low, although activities in the framework of enforcement proceedings is not over", – explained the Advisor to the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the "SMP Bank" Anton Treushnikov. On the basic criminal case in April 2016 for the long and systematic embezzlement of Bank funds Janine was sentenced to 3,6 years of imprisonment with a fine of 1 million rubles, the founder and actual owner of Mosoblbank Andrzej Malczewski – to four years and fined 400,000 rubles., the former Chairman of the Board Julia Sedina got three years. Two more defendants in the case – former Deputy Chairman of the Board Dmitry Vasilev and former President of the Bank holding company RFK Alexander Malczewski, son of Andrzej palchevskogo, was arrested in absentia and declared in the international search. Malczewski, Sr., Sedina and Janine and their agents are still at the stage of preliminary investigation in this case was concluded with Mosoblbank agreement on voluntary compensation. In the end, according to the representative of Mosoblbank, the Bank had transferred property to 462 mln., including 165 properties that were recorded at the cadastral value, property rights, etc., now comes the realization of these assets. Full compensation Mosoblbank does not count. "Crimes in this area are usually qualified for top management of banks, says Treushnikov. – Unfortunately, almost none of the participants in criminal schemes the Bank does not believe that he was doing anything illegal." To blame for the collapse of the Bank, from their point of view, are the regulator and hypothetical competitors, well, more compelling circumstances, forcing you to build a financial pyramid and to engage in dubious operations, he continues: "asset Search is just difficult because of the randomness of their actions. Well, it is worth mentioning that most of the money, typically commonplace pass". And search of assets abroad is a very expensive process, as the subsequent treatments, he recalls. There is also the question about the real beneficiary of the assets, Treushnikov notes: "Very often the Bank is used as a transit instrument, and in this case we can talk about legalization of the money stolen with the help of the Bank." For example, most objects obtained Mosoblbank on the basis of an agreement by the accused himself did not belong. Owners of this property were affiliated with the defendants of the company (the connection was obvious, therefore, such assets were arrested by an investigation still under investigation) and their immediate families (parents, children), which added to the agreement the "number of properties", says Treushnikov. Therefore, the signing of the agreement was beneficial to the Bank, it was possible to obtain the property quickly enough, he concluded. The procedure of irresponsibility For 11 years, the DIA was able to make decisions on recovery of funds from the controlling persons 14% of the 425 banks bankrupt in 2005-2016 years., including one third of 182 banks, where they found signs of deliberate bankruptcy. Forty cases for 34 banks lost or suspended for various reasons. "[The courts] said that the fault of the managers of the credit institution in making decisions on granting loans has not been proven due to the presence of collective bodies (e.g. credit Committee) who made the decisions on granting loans – lists the DIA representative. – Sometimes in legal acts of the you can find a link to the act of checking the credit institution by the Bank of Russia, they say, the check had not established fact of negative financial situation of borrowers is not revealed other violations." At the same time "is not taken into account that the test conducted during a specified period before the date of bankruptcy," and "the situation in the Bank then can seriously change" and, "finally, that the borrower is actually controlled by the former head of the Bank, who was involved to justice" after the revocation of the license of such debtors stop paying. For example, the results of the bankruptcy proceedings Sotsekonombank, which lasted six years and ended recently, with total requirements of 1.1 billion rubles. compensation received only three creditors of less than RUB 1 million, and the costs of the bankruptcy proceedings amounted to almost 21 million rubles. ASV nearly three years unsuccessfully trying to recover from eight Bank managers headed by Yury Koval RUB 1.1 billion and even reached the Collegium of the Supreme court. The courts found that 90% of the assets of the Bank had promissory notes purchased under the contract to the Commission by the company, without any property, and in the end neither enumerated the company's funds or securities from the Bank was not. But the courts decided that the Bank managers who approved the transaction according to the regulations, is irrefutable evidence of malicious intent in their actions, as causal connection with the subsequent bankruptcy, the courts have not seen. In real life almost never is impossible to say exactly what kind of reason led to the bankruptcy, says leading lawyer "FBK right" Alena Ermolenko: "Or this reason to install is still possible, but it was accompanied by a lot of objective events to which a controlling entity could not affect. Nicely, investigate the question of the presence of regulatory misconduct that led to the bankruptcy, must be accompanied by a deep analysis of the economic situation of the debtor in pre-bankruptcy period. But, unfortunately, the analysis is very formal and superficial; courts considering 30-40 cases per day, are not able to pay enough attention to the real situation of the bankrupt". Therefore, in the current situation, the imposition of vicarious liability is either because of formal violations controlling persons of the obligations expressly provided by the bankruptcy act (failure to file the bankruptcy petition, withholding of documents, withholding information, etc.), or if there is a criminal case, summarizes the expert.
- 02-05-2020Four of the Americans ' Outlook: what will happen to the world economy and the US economy
- 21-02-2020The phantom menace: the non-obvious consequences of the depletion of nature for the economy
- 24-07-2019Look at the future of business: five trends postremoval era
- 23-06-2019Industrial revolution 4.0: how the Internet of things is changing business and how to stay afloat