RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
27/04/2024
Saturday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
27 April 
1970 The opening of the subway in Yekaterinburg
1970 The opening of the subway in Yekaterinburg
1970 The population was evacuated from Pripyat after the Chernobyl accident - all 40 thousand inhabitants were evacuated in 3 hours
1970 The population was evacuated from Pripyat after the Chernobyl accident - all 40 thousand inhabitants were evacuated in 3 hours
1970 The beginning of the civil war in Afghanistan, which continues up to this day
1970 The beginning of the civil war in Afghanistan, which continues up to this day
27 April
1970 The opening of the subway in Yekaterinburg
1970 The opening of the subway in Yekaterinburg
1970 The population was evacuated from Pripyat after the Chernobyl accident - all 40 thousand inhabitants were evacuated in 3 hours
1970 The population was evacuated from Pripyat after the Chernobyl accident - all 40 thousand inhabitants were evacuated in 3 hours
1970 The beginning of the civil war in Afghanistan, which continues up to this day
1970 The beginning of the civil war in Afghanistan, which continues up to this day
THE UNRELIABILITY OF THE BANK'S BALANCE SHEET PRECLUDES THE REFUSAL TO CHALLENGE THE TRANSACTION IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS
In the framework of the bank's bankruptcy case (No. A62-7344/13), the manager applied to the court to challenge the chain of transactions for the alienation of the debtor's real estate.
In refusing to satisfy the claims, the courts of three instances were guided by the fact that the applicant had not proved the fact of concluding a transaction in violation of the requirements of the law, the availability of a card file for a correspondent subaccount at the date of the transaction in a bank branch, as well as in connection with the commission of the disputed transaction within the framework of the ordinary business activities of a credit institution.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation referred the complaint of the manager to the board for consideration and pointed out the following:
• The defendants, with the help of related persons, during the period of the bank's insolvency, through intrabank transactions in the branch, formed a balance in their accounts, which they sent by intrabank transactions to pay for real estate purchased from the bank.
• Thus, the defendants received real estate from the bank in order to satisfy their claims against the bank for obligations arising from relations under bank account agreements (compensation).
• The defendants could not have been unaware of the transaction during the period of the bank's insolvency, since on the day after the transaction one of the defendants joined the bank's shareholders with a 9.9% stake. The fact of his participation in the bank's share capital presupposes his awareness of such a significant event as the revocation of a banking license.
• In addition, on the day of the transaction, the bank's branch notified customers, partners and counterparties of the bank about the situation with non-payment of the bank's correspondent account by posting information on the website. The branch offices were suspended during the day, and the next day the remote banking system was suspended.
• The state registration of the transfer of ownership of real estate was made after the revocation of the license from the bank, that is, it was committed in violation of the prohibition on disposing of the property of the bankrupt debtor. The defendant, as a bona fide participant in civil turnover, was obliged to notify the provisional administration of the procedure for registering the transfer of ownership and suspend the registration process in the Federal Register. At the same time, the defendants had enough time to suspend the registration of ownership of the property, but they did not do so. Such actions of the defendants indicate their bad faith.
• The conclusion of the courts that the transaction size was not exceeded by 1% of the value of the bank's assets is based on unreliable accounting statements of the bank.
In refusing to satisfy the claims, the courts of three instances were guided by the fact that the applicant had not proved the fact of concluding a transaction in violation of the requirements of the law, the availability of a card file for a correspondent subaccount at the date of the transaction in a bank branch, as well as in connection with the commission of the disputed transaction within the framework of the ordinary business activities of a credit institution.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation referred the complaint of the manager to the board for consideration and pointed out the following:
• The defendants, with the help of related persons, during the period of the bank's insolvency, through intrabank transactions in the branch, formed a balance in their accounts, which they sent by intrabank transactions to pay for real estate purchased from the bank.
• Thus, the defendants received real estate from the bank in order to satisfy their claims against the bank for obligations arising from relations under bank account agreements (compensation).
• The defendants could not have been unaware of the transaction during the period of the bank's insolvency, since on the day after the transaction one of the defendants joined the bank's shareholders with a 9.9% stake. The fact of his participation in the bank's share capital presupposes his awareness of such a significant event as the revocation of a banking license.
• In addition, on the day of the transaction, the bank's branch notified customers, partners and counterparties of the bank about the situation with non-payment of the bank's correspondent account by posting information on the website. The branch offices were suspended during the day, and the next day the remote banking system was suspended.
• The state registration of the transfer of ownership of real estate was made after the revocation of the license from the bank, that is, it was committed in violation of the prohibition on disposing of the property of the bankrupt debtor. The defendant, as a bona fide participant in civil turnover, was obliged to notify the provisional administration of the procedure for registering the transfer of ownership and suspend the registration process in the Federal Register. At the same time, the defendants had enough time to suspend the registration of ownership of the property, but they did not do so. Such actions of the defendants indicate their bad faith.
• The conclusion of the courts that the transaction size was not exceeded by 1% of the value of the bank's assets is based on unreliable accounting statements of the bank.
20.03.2024
