RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
01/01/2025
Wednesday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
1 January 
2021 Gregorian calendar New Year.
2020 Gregorian calendar New Year
1998 Denomination was held in Russia - a copeck was put into circulation again.
1998 Denomination was held in Russia - a penny was put into circulation again
1935 Surnames were introduced instead of titles in Turkey.
1935 Surnames were introduced instead of titles in Turkey in 1935
1 January
2021 Gregorian calendar New Year.
2020 Gregorian calendar New Year
1998 Denomination was held in Russia - a copeck was put into circulation again.
1998 Denomination was held in Russia - a penny was put into circulation again
1935 Surnames were introduced instead of titles in Turkey.
1935 Surnames were introduced instead of titles in Turkey in 1935
VTB WILL ANSWER FOR THE ACTIONS OF SCAMMERS
The company and the entrepreneur concluded an agreement under which the latter transferred funds to the company's account, but later it turned out that the recipient was substituted when transferring money. By itself, the Company did not enter into any legal relations with the entrepreneur. The victim appealed to the court to protect his rights with a claim for recovery of unjustified enrichment from the company and recovery of losses jointly with VTB and Sberbank.
The essence of the dispute
IP Kakakulin Igor Pavlovich appealed to the court for the recovery of unjustified enrichment from Vertical LLC in the amount of more than 1.8 million rubles, as well as for the recovery of losses from Sberbank of Russia PJSC and VTB Bank PJSC in solidarity.
Kakakulin and Vertical LLC have signed a supply contract. The entrepreneur transferred funds to the bank details of the supplier and began to wait for the paid goods. However, the delivery was not carried out within the agreed time frame, and Kakakulin unilaterally renounced the contract and demanded that Vertical LLC compensate for losses within a month by transferring the goods or returning funds for it.
The company sent an answer to the entrepreneur that it does not conduct activities for the sale of goods that Kakakulin requires, did not conclude a contract with the latter, did not receive any funds from him.
It turned out that when transferring funds, the recipient was replaced by LLC Vertical (TIN 9728026346) with LLC Vertical (5031111133).
Position of the Court of first instance
The first instance satisfied the entrepreneur's claims against Vertical LLC, but refused to satisfy the requirements to VTB and Sberbank.
The court found that the funds were received by the defendant by creating a clone organization with an illegal purpose.
However, the first instance noted that when conducting operations with the plaintiff's funds, the banks complied with all relevant legislative norms, and Kakakulin himself did not show due diligence.
The position of the appellate and Cassation courts
The higher authorities decided to satisfy the entrepreneur's claims in full, based on the fact that Sberbank did not check the values of the order details, as a result of which the client's order was executed improperly.
VTB did not properly check the details provided by Kakakulin and made a transfer of funds to the account of another legal entity.
Losses, as the courts noted, arose from the plaintiff as a result of improper execution by Banks of the entrepreneur's instructions.
The position of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court annulled the judicial acts of the lower courts regarding the satisfaction of the plaintiff's claims against Sberbank (Ruling of 10/20/2023 in case A67-1408/2022 (304-ES23-9987)). Otherwise, I left them unchanged.
As indicated by the highest authority, the transfer of the payer's funds to the recipient's account in another bank is carried out by accepting and carefully checking the client's order by the payer's bank and transferring this order to the recipient's bank for execution. Such a check should have been carried out by VTB Bank, not Sberbank.
The Supreme Court has not established any grounds for bringing the latter to joint responsibility.
Photo: Wikipedia
The essence of the dispute
IP Kakakulin Igor Pavlovich appealed to the court for the recovery of unjustified enrichment from Vertical LLC in the amount of more than 1.8 million rubles, as well as for the recovery of losses from Sberbank of Russia PJSC and VTB Bank PJSC in solidarity.
Kakakulin and Vertical LLC have signed a supply contract. The entrepreneur transferred funds to the bank details of the supplier and began to wait for the paid goods. However, the delivery was not carried out within the agreed time frame, and Kakakulin unilaterally renounced the contract and demanded that Vertical LLC compensate for losses within a month by transferring the goods or returning funds for it.
The company sent an answer to the entrepreneur that it does not conduct activities for the sale of goods that Kakakulin requires, did not conclude a contract with the latter, did not receive any funds from him.
It turned out that when transferring funds, the recipient was replaced by LLC Vertical (TIN 9728026346) with LLC Vertical (5031111133).
Position of the Court of first instance
The first instance satisfied the entrepreneur's claims against Vertical LLC, but refused to satisfy the requirements to VTB and Sberbank.
The court found that the funds were received by the defendant by creating a clone organization with an illegal purpose.
However, the first instance noted that when conducting operations with the plaintiff's funds, the banks complied with all relevant legislative norms, and Kakakulin himself did not show due diligence.
The position of the appellate and Cassation courts
The higher authorities decided to satisfy the entrepreneur's claims in full, based on the fact that Sberbank did not check the values of the order details, as a result of which the client's order was executed improperly.
VTB did not properly check the details provided by Kakakulin and made a transfer of funds to the account of another legal entity.
Losses, as the courts noted, arose from the plaintiff as a result of improper execution by Banks of the entrepreneur's instructions.
The position of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court annulled the judicial acts of the lower courts regarding the satisfaction of the plaintiff's claims against Sberbank (Ruling of 10/20/2023 in case A67-1408/2022 (304-ES23-9987)). Otherwise, I left them unchanged.
As indicated by the highest authority, the transfer of the payer's funds to the recipient's account in another bank is carried out by accepting and carefully checking the client's order by the payer's bank and transferring this order to the recipient's bank for execution. Such a check should have been carried out by VTB Bank, not Sberbank.
The Supreme Court has not established any grounds for bringing the latter to joint responsibility.
Photo: Wikipedia
25.10.2023
