RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
20/09/2024
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
20 September 
1970 The Cannes Festival was held for the first time.
1970 The first university for women was opened in St. Petersburg.
1970 Divorces were allowed in France.
20 September
1970 The Cannes Festival was held for the first time.
1970 The first university for women was opened in St. Petersburg.
1970 Divorces were allowed in France.
CONDUCTING AML/CFT EVENTS CANNOT BE A REASON FOR ENRICHING THE BANK AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CLIENT
The manager applied to the court to challenge the transaction on debiting funds from the debtor's account in favor of the bank (case no. A40-87169/21).
The courts of two instances refused to satisfy the claims, since the arguments of the manager boil down to disagreement and challenging the defendant's position that the funds written off in favor of the bank with the wording "commission for transferring the balance of funds when closing the account" are considered by the defendant to be a measure of responsibility.
Also, in the opinion of the courts, the manager chose an inappropriate way to protect civil rights, since the stated claims are subject to verification in order to consider a dispute about non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of obligations under bank account agreements.
The cassation sent the dispute for a new review and pointed out that the bank's control functions in order to counteract the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime and the financing of terrorism are carried out in the public interest, in fulfillment of the duties imposed by federal law and regulations adopted in accordance with it, and not on the basis of an agreement with the client.
The implementation of the above-mentioned public function by a credit institution cannot be used in private law relations as a way to extract benefits at the expense of the client in the form of an increased fee for transactions with funds that the credit institution has recognized as questionable, since this contradicts the essence of the legal regulation of these relations and is not provided for by the Federal Law "On Countering the Legalization (Laundering) of Income criminally obtained, and the financing of terrorism", nor other regulatory acts.
In this regard, it is unacceptable to impose on the bank's client the costs of carrying out this control, including by setting a special tariff for banking transactions, depending on whether they are or are not the result of such control.
The courts of two instances refused to satisfy the claims, since the arguments of the manager boil down to disagreement and challenging the defendant's position that the funds written off in favor of the bank with the wording "commission for transferring the balance of funds when closing the account" are considered by the defendant to be a measure of responsibility.
Also, in the opinion of the courts, the manager chose an inappropriate way to protect civil rights, since the stated claims are subject to verification in order to consider a dispute about non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of obligations under bank account agreements.
The cassation sent the dispute for a new review and pointed out that the bank's control functions in order to counteract the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime and the financing of terrorism are carried out in the public interest, in fulfillment of the duties imposed by federal law and regulations adopted in accordance with it, and not on the basis of an agreement with the client.
The implementation of the above-mentioned public function by a credit institution cannot be used in private law relations as a way to extract benefits at the expense of the client in the form of an increased fee for transactions with funds that the credit institution has recognized as questionable, since this contradicts the essence of the legal regulation of these relations and is not provided for by the Federal Law "On Countering the Legalization (Laundering) of Income criminally obtained, and the financing of terrorism", nor other regulatory acts.
In this regard, it is unacceptable to impose on the bank's client the costs of carrying out this control, including by setting a special tariff for banking transactions, depending on whether they are or are not the result of such control.
19.09.2024
