The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation stood up for a bona fide client of a bankrupt bank

The Highest court considered the case on the complaint of a citizen whose bank transaction was declared invalid in three instances.  The courts agreed with the trustee's arguments and considered the operation to be a transaction with unfair preference, but the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation did not share this position.

The situation took place around one of the bank's clients, who, a few weeks before the license was revoked from a credit institution, deposited funds into his account, after which he ordered to transfer them to the third party on the same day. The basis was the executive document issued by the bailiff.

After the bank's license was revoked, insolvency proceedings began, during which the debtor's bankruptcy trustee discovered the transfer and considered it a preference over other creditors.

The court of first instance, the court of appeal, as well as the courts of the district agreed with the arguments of bankruptcy trustee, having indicated that the transaction was completed less than a month before the appointment of the temporary administration of the bank. What was more, its size was more than 1% of the value of the debtor's assets for the billing period, which does not allow it to be classified as a transaction in the ordinary course of business.

However, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation did not agree with such arguments. The Economic Board noted that in the case under consideration, the bank acted simply as an agent, to whose account funds were first transferred one day, and then immediately debited by payment order. In addition, Supreme Court pointed to the good faith of the actions of the citizen who contributed the funds. If he had known about the pre-bankrupt state of the credit institution, he would hardly have dared to deposit his money into an account in this bank. As a result, the decisions of the lower instances were cancelled, and the trustee’s claims were rejected (decision No. 305-ES20-5289 (8) in case No. A40-15546 / 2019 dated March 10, 2022).