The scammers armed themselves with writs of execution. Courts are giving away other people's money Fraud with false writs of execution from courts

Fraudsters use writs of execution to steal funds from the accounts of legal entities

Court decisions are used not only to legalize income received criminally. As RBC found out, in Lately Fraudsters have become more active, stealing funds from the bank accounts of legal entities using documents issued by the courts. writs of execution. The victims - large companies - part with money in small portions

Photo: Oleg Kharseev / Kommersant

Several bankers told RBC about the activation of a scheme that allows fraudsters to steal funds from the bank accounts of large companies with the help of court decisions. This is not about a scheme for laundering funds through court orders, but about real theft.

According to RBC sources, large companies whose accounts are opened in large banks are chosen as victims. “The large volume of transactions both in the company and in the bank makes it difficult to quickly track illegal write-offs Money from bank accounts,” explains one of RBC’s sources. Once the victim has been selected, the individual fraudster files a claim against him to recover a certain amount as an unrepaid debt. Moreover, the company itself does not even know that someone is suing it.

“The fact is that a citizen-fraudster usually applies to a regional court general jurisdiction with a statement of claim, the amount of which does not exceed 500 thousand rubles. This is the threshold for disputes for an amount below which decisions by magistrates are made in a simplified manner within the framework of a court order in accordance with Art. 121 Civil procedural code Russian Federation,” says one of RBC’s interlocutors. According to him, the simplified procedure allows the magistrate alone, on the basis of an application for recovery sum of money make an order without a trial as such and without summoning the parties to hear their explanations.

“However, if the judge still wants the parties to the dispute to be present, another fraudster enters the case, colluding with the first one, who, using a forged power of attorney, “represents” the interests of the defendant in court. During the meeting, he confirms that he agrees with the demands presented, after which the magistrate makes a decision to collect the debt,” he says. According to an RBC source, in order to obtain a contract form, details and a sample seal, fraudsters deliberately enter into fictitious contractual relations, conduct business correspondence in order to obtain the necessary data. Tour operators are especially vulnerable, he said, since they can send their agreement by email to any counterparty.

The next stage is the theft itself. The claimant comes to the bank with a writ of execution, or more often sheets - each worth less than 500 thousand rubles - which the bank is obliged to execute within one day, if there is no doubt about its authenticity. After which the funds leave the legal entity’s account for the fraudster, bankers say. “The bank is not obliged to notify the client about debits from his account based on writs of execution issued by the courts, but theoretically it can do this,” says a RBC source. “However, in practice, given the deadline for writing off funds is only one day, there is simply no time for this.”

“This scheme did not appear yesterday, but recently it has become more and more common,” states one of RBC’s sources.

Scale of the problem

The bankers and lawyers interviewed by RBC found it difficult to assess the scale of the thefts. Disclosure of such information is associated with serious reputational damage for banks.

However, the existence of the problem and the concern of the banking market of RBC was confirmed by the Association of Regional Banks of Russia (ARROS). “A number of banks, including large ones, with which we contacted, confirmed the existence of a problem of fraud, which is carried out through genuine writs of execution. At the same time, the victims include not only bank clients, but also credit institutions themselves,” says Alina Vetrova, first vice-president of the Association of Regional Banks of Russia (ASROS), without indicating the names of the banks. In case of fraud using writs of execution against banks, funds are debited from their correspondent accounts with the Central Bank. “The period of one day allotted for checking the writ of execution is clearly not enough for anyone,” she states.

In her opinion, the problem is aggravated by the fact that courts of general jurisdiction (especially in the regions) do not always carry out a sufficient analysis, sometimes use a formal approach and make decisions that are not fully developed. “Tracking such a fraudulent scheme is quite difficult, since the courts of general jurisdiction do not have the ability to quickly track information on the disputes under consideration,” adds the partner law firm“Iontsev, Lyakhovsky and partners” Igor Dubov.

The fact that bankers also become victims of such fraud was confirmed to RBC by sources in the banking market. In particular, they pointed to a bank from the top 50, from whose correspondent account with the Central Bank, through the described scheme, there were several tranches - each in the amount of less than 500 thousand rubles. — funds written off for 1.5 million rubles. As this bank clarified to RBC, a court in the region, at an absentee hearing, made a decision on six claims of the same type without proper notification of the defendant and the appearance of his representative at the hearing. The plaintiff-fraudster was, as it turned out, a client of this bank: he was serviced there for several products ( bank card, consumer credit, car insurance), said RBC’s interlocutor.

Return cannot be appealed

It is difficult for companies to return funds stolen using the described scheme. Moreover, according to bankers, the costs of this procedure (both for travel and for attracting lawyers) will be comparable to losses if the write-off was in one tranche for an amount of less than 500 thousand rubles, and large companies economically unprofitable. “This is another reason why fraudsters target large corporate entities,” says one source.

"In order to challenge accepted by the court decision, the legal entity needs to send a lawyer with a power of attorney to the very regional court that made the decision,” he says. — Even if a legal entity manages to prove the absence contractual relations with the plaintiff and the court decision will be cancelled, in order to return the funds it is necessary to once again apply to a court of general jurisdiction with a statement of claim for unjust enrichment of the individual who fraudulently collected the funds. Thus, it takes at least six months to find the truth. Plus the associated costs."

According to the head of the legal department of SDM Bank, Alexander Golubev, in a situation where a genuine writ of execution is presented, the bank is helpless to protect its client: it is obliged to execute the court decision, in otherwise his actions will be classified as administrative offense. The lawyer points out that in accordance with Art. 70 of Federal Law No. 229-FZ “On enforcement proceedings“, in case of reasonable doubts about the authenticity of the writ of execution received directly from the claimant, the bank has the right to verify the authenticity of the writ of execution or the reliability of the information in it to delay its execution for no more than seven days. “However, the situation is complicated by the fact that in the described scheme there is no problem of the authenticity of the writ of execution, since fraud is realized in the very process of issuing such writs,” says Golubev.

Solutions

According to specialized lawyers, the situation can only be corrected by changing the legislation.

“In order to eliminate these types of fraudulent schemes, it is necessary to make changes to the federal law No. 229-FZ “On Enforcement Proceedings,” namely, to exclude the possibility of the claimant independently presenting a writ of execution to the bank,” suggests Igor Dubov. “Then the bailiff will present the writ of execution to the bank, and he will at least notify the “debtor” of the start of enforcement proceedings. Thus, the latter will have the opportunity to learn about the fraud being committed and try to prevent it.”

Alina Vetrova from ASROS also believes that the legislation needs to be changed. She proposes another version of the amendments: “In the current situation, it makes sense to provide banks with tools to combat outright fraud. In particular, banking market participants talk about the need to extend the deadline for execution of court decisions on at least up to three days."

Before collecting funds from client accounts using writs of execution, banks must verify the authenticity of these writs, and they are obliged to warn clients about the write-off. This is stated in a letter signed by the first deputy chairman of the Central Bank, Alexei Simanovsky, sent to market participants (Izvestia has a copy). According to a source close to the Central Bank, the regulator’s attention to this problem is due to the fact that during the current crisis, cases of sending fake writs of execution to banks have become more frequent.

Since 2012, according to the law on enforcement proceedings, banks must immediately - within one business day - block the accounts of debtors after receiving bailiffs writ of execution for foreclosure of debtors' money. Slow banks can be fined up to 1 million rubles. If the bank has doubts about the authenticity of the sheet or the reliability of its contents, the bank has 7 days to check - the Central Bank gave such an indulgence to banks last year, as more duplicate sheets and sheets with erroneous information, and banks are responsible for unjustified write-offs under Art. 856 Civil Code(must return funds to the client with interest at the key rate of the Central Bank). Banks must report on the work done to the bailiffs within three days after receiving the documents. Until 2012, banks had three days to seize accounts, which created the ground for abuse: the debtor could transfer money to another account during this time.

The regulator's new modification of the practice of working with writs of execution is caused by a surge in fraudsters. The approach of the Central Bank is now that banks must confirm the information specified in the documents for collection from bailiffs directly from their clients.

Counterfeits as part of enforcement proceedings are now being delivered to banks by both individuals and legal entities. In relation to citizens, we are talking, as a rule, about small amounts (up to 100 thousand rubles); scammers make money by sending counterfeits to banks on a mass scale, indicates a source close to the Central Bank. - Writing off larger sums from citizens may provoke justified concern among them, which will quickly lead to the trail of violators. Companies are debited with slightly larger amounts, but the scammers' goal is the same - to remain in the shadows. There are no specific schemes that the Central Bank could soon systematize in warning letters to banks. Everything is individual. General - the technique of making counterfeits. For this you need stamps and court forms. Fraudsters can obtain them through friends in arbitration courts and courts of general jurisdiction. Another option is to make them yourself. Both methods are practiced.

The President of the Russian Guild of Arbitration Managers Stanislav Kleimenov confirms that since the end of 2014 the number of falsified writs of execution has been growing, sometimes very good quality, and it is impossible to recognize a fake by eye - especially quickly.

On March 16, 2015, the Volzhsky District Court (Saratov Region) found a group of seven people guilty of falsifying writs of execution with decisions to collect compensation from local firms. It was established that seven criminals entered unfilled original forms of judicial writs of execution false information. In particular, the sheets contained fake decisions of Saratov courts to collect compensation from local companies in favor of dummies for allegedly low quality goods and services. Fraudsters stole 26 million rubles from the bank accounts of the affected companies. They first tried this scheme in 2013 and actively used it in the past. The court sentenced one of the group members, who pleaded guilty to fraud and participation in a criminal community and entered into a pre-trial agreement, to 4.5 years in prison.

In fact, the Central Bank introduced a new link into the process of checking writs of execution - the client himself. Earlier in the chain of sources of confirmation of information (in addition to judicial databases, the database of enforcement proceedings on the website Federal service bailiffs (FSSP) and passport database on the website of the Federal migration service) there were collecting banks, bailiffs, courts and the Central Bank. As the head of the legal department of SDM Bank, Alexander Golubev, notes, the most convenient way to confirm the client’s data is to call the client using the details he left.

Credit institutions may choose other methods of communication with a citizen/company - for example, via SMS, by email, but a call is the most reliable way to confirm information, says Golubev. - SMS and mail may remain unread, and the bank - without feedback with him. For security reasons, we sometimes called clients when doubts arose and confirmed that the court decision was valid. We also called the court and the territorial administration of the Central Bank at the client’s location - for additional check. Now the regulator has decided to make confirmation of information from clients a standard practice: the bank in mandatory informs them about write-offs. If fraud is detected, banks will contact law enforcement agencies.

Nikolai Vyalov, head of the department for working with distressed assets of B&N Bank, says that, in addition to standard channels for informing clients (calls/SMS/mail), a personal visit of bank employees to the debtor is effective.

This excludes the possibility of restoring the deadline for filing a complaint for the client - on the basis of arguments that he was not properly notified of the write-off under the writ of execution, explains Vyalov. - When leaving, bank employees have two copies with them executive documents. The client signs both copies, one remains with him, the other with the bank representatives.

According to the vice-president of SMP Bank Irina Danilina, contacting the client is a good help, but without documentary confirmation from the court that the executive document is falsified, legal grounds Banks do not have the option to refuse to write off funds from the debtor.

Lawyer Danil Levchenko believes that the Central Bank’s new measure to inform clients is an ineffective way to solve the problem with fake writs of execution.

Each debtor will answer that the writ of execution is falsified and there is no need to collect anything, says Levchenko. - The bank will lose time to find out the details. To combat fraud, you need to create a normal single base executive documents, to which banks will be given access. It is clear that if the problem of counterfeiting is not solved, the number of crimes will increase tenfold - due to the simplicity of the scheme.

Danilina says that another option is to create a well-established workflow with the country’s courts to exchange information about issued writs of execution and the requirements contained in them at the request of the banks executing the document.

Artem Safonov, a lawyer at Nektorov, Savelyev and Partners, points out that as the first stage of checking the validity of writs of execution, calling clients can have a positive effect - if the borrower confirms over the phone the existence of a debt to a specific creditor, there is no need for further checks of the writ of execution. And thanks to this, the time spent on checking writs of execution by banks in general will be reduced, Safonov notes.

According to the FSSP, in 2008 banks participated in 35.9 million enforcement proceedings, in 2013 - already 55.7 million, this figure is growing every year. By September 1, 2014, the figure reached 48.2 million, and for 2014 as a whole - 62 million.

Since 2012, according to the law on enforcement proceedings, banks must immediately - within one business day - block debtors' accounts after receiving a writ of execution from bailiffs in order to foreclose on the debtors' money. Slow banks can be fined up to 1 million rubles. If the bank has doubts about the authenticity of the sheet or the reliability of its contents, the bank has 7 days to check - the Central Bank gave such an indulgence to banks last year, since more duplicate sheets and sheets with erroneous information began to arrive, and banks are responsible for unjustified write-offs according to Art. 856 of the Civil Code (must return funds to the client with interest at the key rate of the Central Bank). Banks must report on the work done to the bailiffs within three days after receiving the documents. Until 2012, banks had three days to seize accounts, which created the ground for abuse: the debtor could transfer money to another account during this time.

The President of the Russian Guild of Arbitration Managers, Stanislav Kleimenov, confirms that since the end of 2014, the number of falsified writs of execution has been growing, sometimes of very good quality, and it is impossible to recognize a fake by eye, especially quickly.

On March 16, 2015, the Volzhsky District Court (Saratov Region) found a group of seven people guilty of falsifying writs of execution with decisions to collect compensation from local firms. It was established that seven criminals entered false information into unfilled original forms of judicial writs of execution. In particular, the sheets contained fake decisions of Saratov courts to collect compensation from local companies in favor of dummies, allegedly for low-quality goods and services. Fraudsters stole 26 million rubles from the bank accounts of the affected companies. They first tried this scheme in 2013 and actively used it in the past. The court sentenced one of the group members, who pleaded guilty to fraud and participation in a criminal community and entered into a pre-trial agreement, to 4.5 years in prison.

In fact, the Central Bank introduced a new link into the process of checking writs of execution - the client himself. Previously, the chain of sources for confirming information (in addition to judicial databases, the database of enforcement proceedings on the website of the Federal Bailiff Service (FSSP) and the passport database on the website of the Federal Migration Service) included collecting banks, bailiffs, courts and the Central Bank. As the head of the legal department of SDM Bank, Alexander Golubev, notes, the most convenient way to confirm the client’s data is to call the client using the details he left.

Credit institutions can choose other methods of communicating with a citizen/company - for example, by SMS, email, but a call is the most reliable way to confirm information, says Golubev. - SMS and letters in the mail may remain unread, and the bank may remain without feedback from it. For security reasons, we sometimes called clients when doubts arose and confirmed that the court decision was valid. We also called the court and the territorial department of the Central Bank at the client’s location for additional verification. Now the regulator has decided to make confirmation of information from clients a standard practice: the bank must inform them about write-offs. If fraud is detected, banks will contact law enforcement agencies.

This excludes the possibility of restoring the deadline for filing a complaint for the client - on the basis of arguments that he was not properly notified of the write-off under the writ of execution, explains Vyalov. - When leaving, bank employees have two copies of executive documents with them. The client signs both copies, one remains with him, the other with the bank representatives.

Lawyer Danil Levchenko believes that the Central Bank’s new measure to inform clients is an ineffective way to solve the problem with fake writs of execution.

Each debtor will answer that the writ of execution is falsified and there is no need to collect anything, says Levchenko. - The bank will lose time to find out the details. To combat fraud, it is necessary to create a normal, unified database of executive documents, to which banks will be given access. It is clear that if the problem of counterfeiting is not solved, the number of crimes will increase tenfold - due to the simplicity of the scheme.

Anastasia ALEKSEEVSKIKH

SOLUTION

In the name Russian Federation

Case No. A40-160913/14
Moscow
April 09, 2015
The operative part of the decision was announced on April 6, 2015

Arbitration Court of Moscow

composed of Judge R.T. Abrekova (solely) (judge code 171-1126)

when keeping the minutes of the court session by secretary E.S. Zhigzhitova

Tried the case in open court

according to the claim of CJSC "INSURANCE COMPANY "DAR" (OGRN 1117746123439, INN 7702753897) 129090 MOSCOW per. PROTOPOPOVSKY, 19, cop. Bldg. 13, registration date: 02.21.2011

to the defendant OJSC "ALFA-BANK" (additional office Pyatnitskaya) (OGRN 1027700067328, INN 7728168971) 107078 MOSCOW KALANCHEVSKAYA st. 27, registration date: 02.24.1998

third party Nikolay Petrovich Kudashkin, Krasnodar, st. Fabrichnaya 10, apt. 28

on the recovery of losses as a result of writing off funds under collection order No. 231 dated March 20, 2014 in the amount of RUB 509,580. 00 kop.

with the participation of: from the plaintiff – Chekhonin K.V. according to Dov. No. 118 of November 27, 2014

from the defendant – Gavrichkov S.V. according to Dov. No. 5/3327D dated July 18, 2014

from a third person - did not appear.

INSTALLED:

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, with the participation of a third party, Nikolai Petrovich Kudashkin, to recover damages from the defendant in the amount of 509,580 rubles, citing the defendant’s unlawful debiting of funds from the plaintiff’s account based on forged writs of execution, the provisions of Art. Art. , 847, .

A third party duly notified of the time and place of the trial in the case in accordance with articles -, in court hearing didn't show up. The case was considered in the absence of a third party in accordance with Article Section II. Production in arbitration court first instance. Claim proceedings> Chapter 19. Trial> Article 156. Consideration of a case in case of failure to provide a response to statement of claim, additional evidence, as well as in the absence of persons participating in the case" target="_blank">156 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

The case materials received the original response from the Oktyabrsky District Court of Krasnodar, according to which case No. 2-8139/2013 does not exist. In addition, in the database, the claim of Nikolai Petrovich Kudashkin against CJSC SK DAR for the collection of insurance payment was not registered, the case on such a claim was not considered, and therefore, a writ of execution was issued in favor of N.P. Kudashkin. was not issued.

The plaintiff supported the claims and presented judicial practice.

The defendant objected to satisfaction claims based on the arguments of the review, he presented judicial practice. When asked by the court, the defendant explained that the file of cases was not checked because in this case the amount is insignificant and current rules this is not provided.

After listening to the plaintiff’s arguments and the defendant’s objections, examining the written materials of the case, and assessing the evidence presented, the court came to the following conclusions.

As can be seen from the case materials, on April 20, 2011, between the Open Joint-Stock Company "ALFA-BANK" (hereinafter referred to as "OAO "ALFA-BANK", "Defendant") and the Closed Joint-Stock Company " Insurance Company“ARK”, the legal successor of which is CJSC SK DAR, (hereinafter referred to as “CJSC SK DAR”, “Plaintiff”) entered into a Bank Account Agreement in the currency of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”).

By the said Agreement The Defendant assumed the obligation to conduct settlement and cash services for the Claimant and carry out all settlement and cash transactions on his behalf. cash transactions in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, the Agreement on Cooperation and the terms of the Agreement (clause 3.1.1 of the Agreement).

March 19, 2014 at OJSC "ALFA-BANK" through postal item The Supreme Court received writ of execution No. 045882293, issued on March 14, 2014 by the Oktyabrsky District Court of Krasnodar Krasnodar region in civil case No. 2-8139/13 on recovery from JSC SK DAR in favor of Kudashkin Nikolai Petrovich (born on May 28, 1993; place of birth - the village of Kolki, Petrovsky district, Saratov region; place of residence - Krasnodar region, Krasnodar, Fabrichnaya st., 10, apt. 28) cash in the amount of 509,580 (Five hundred nine thousand five hundred eighty) rubles 00 kopecks.

As the plaintiff indicated, on March 20, 2014, OJSC ALFA-BANK executed the above-mentioned writ of execution and, according to Collection Order No. 231 dated March 20, 2014, transferred funds in the amount of 509,580 rubles 00 kopecks from the current account of CJSC SK DAR to the bank account of Nikolai Petrovich Kudashkin.

These circumstances were not disputed by the defendant, and therefore were accepted by the court on the basis of Part 3.1 of Art. .

At the same time, the plaintiff indicated that on the official website of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Krasnodar (http://krasnodar-oktybrsky.krd.sudrf.ru/modules.php?name=sud_delo) information about civil case No. 2-8139/13 is missing. In addition, according to information received from the Oktyabrsky District Court of Krasnodar, Krasnodar Territory: “Judge Maksimenko A.V. works to the present day, but there is no such court case number, a case involving N.P. Kudashkin was not found in the court file. and CJSC SK DAR, the writ of execution of the Supreme Court No. 045882293 dated March 14, 2014 was not issued by the court.”

Thus, according to the plaintiff, the write-off of money on the basis of the specified writ of execution, in accordance with the current legislation, was carried out by the defendant illegally, since the writ of execution with a non-repeating combination of two discharge symbols and nine characters of the Armed Forces number No. 045882293 Oktyabrsky District Court of Krasnodar, Krasnodar Territory was not extradited, the case was based on the claim of N.P. Kudashkin. was not considered for JSC SK DAR.

In this regard, the plaintiff contacted ALFA-BANK OJSC on April 11, 2014, within the period provided for in clause 3.2.12 of the Agreement (bank account statements for the period under review were received by SK DAR CJSC on 04/09/2014), with a demand for the return of the erroneously written off amount in the amount of 509,580 rubles 00 kopecks, which has so far been left unanswered and unsatisfied by the Defendant, in connection with which the plaintiff considered it necessary to go to court with this claim.

Meanwhile, by the decision of November 18, 2014 court in accordance with Art. granted the petition of the plaintiff and sent a request to the Oktyabrsky District Court of Krasnodar in order to request information about whether, in the framework of case No. 2-8139/2013, a writ of execution was issued, series BC No. 045882293, whether the case was considered based on the claim of Nikolai Petrovich Kudashkin against CJSC SK "DAR" on the collection of insurance payment upon the fact insured event, collection moral damage, collection of penalties.

The court received a response from the Oktyabrsky District Court of Krasnodar dated 02/09/2015, according to which the database of the case on the claim of Nikolai Petrovich Kudashkin against CJSC SK DAR for the recovery of insurance payment was not registered, the specified case was not registered by the Oktyabrsky District Court of Krasnodar was considered, writ of execution of the Supreme Court No. 045882293 in favor of Kudashin N.P. was not issued.

Analyzing the response of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Krasnodar to the court’s request, according to the rules provided for in Art. , the court comes to the conclusion that the writ of execution series ВС No. 045882293, which contains information about N.P. Kudashkin as a claimant, and about the plaintiff as a debtor, was not actually issued.

According to Methodological recommendations to identify and suppress crimes in the economic sphere and against the order of management committed by the parties to enforcement proceedings" (approved by the FSSP of Russia on April 15, 2013 N 04-4), forgery is the illegal production of a certificate or other official document. The method of forgery does not affect the qualification of the act and can be anything: erasure, addition, forgery of a signature, certification with a forged seal, re-taping a photograph. The forgery may concern the entire document being counterfeited or part of it, for example, only a change in the name on the ID. The complete production of a false document is also considered a forgery.

Based on the above, guided by the Federal Law “On Enforcement Proceedings”, Art. , 856 Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Art. , - , court

DECIDED:

To recover from the Joint Stock Company "ALFA-BANK" in favor of the Closed Joint Stock Company "INSURANCE COMPANY "DAR" losses in the amount of 509,580 (Five hundred nine thousand five hundred eighty) rubles, expenses for the state duty in the amount of 13,192 (Thirteen thousand one hundred ninety two) rub.

Return to Closed joint stock company"INSURANCE COMPANY "DAR" from federal budget RF state fee in the amount of 1,999 (One thousand nine hundred ninety-nine) rubles. 61 kopecks

The decision can be appealed within a month from the date of its adoption to the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal.

R.T.Abrekov

Court:

AS of the city of Moscow

Arbitrage practice on the application of the norm of Art. 393 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

Compensation for losses

Judicial practice on the application of Art. 15 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

Bankers discovered a new money laundering scheme using writs of execution and brought information about it to the Central Bank, reports the business newspaper Zolotoy Rog.

Letter from detailed description new scheme fraud to the director of the financial monitoring department and exchange control Chairman of the National Council sent Yuri Polupanov financial market Andrey Emelin. The Central Bank has already asked bankers to submit their proposals for eliminating this scheme before it acquires serious proportions, Izvestia writes.

According to bankers, the fraudulent scheme is related to the implementation of writs of execution. Newly registered legal entities open bank accounts, after which funds from other legal entities begin to flow into their accounts, most often “as payment for consulting services.” After this, banks receive genuine writs of execution issued by both regional courts of general jurisdiction and district courts— for the enforcement of court decisions, according to which large sums of money are collected from these accounts in favor of individuals.

At the same time, the management of the companies that opened the account does not challenge the legality of the writs of execution, and also does not contact credit institutions. As a result, hundreds of millions of rubles pass through the accounts of legal entity clients. At the same time, banks have no formal grounds for refusing to carry out transactions based on genuine writs of execution.

“The Department of Financial Monitoring and Currency Control of the Central Bank has reviewed the letter from the NSFR about questionable transactions using writs of execution and, taking into account the practical importance of solving the problem presented, asks for proposals for solving it,” Polupanov’s response to the NSFR says.

As Andrei Emelin explained to Izvestia, the purpose of the fraudulent scheme with writs of execution is money laundering.

— Several companies are involved in the fraudulent chain, as well as individuals, who are in collusion,” explains Emelin. — The company opens an account, funds from other legal entities are transferred to it. If you simply withdraw incoming amounts from your accounts, this will arouse suspicion among credit institutions. In this case, fraudsters risk being exposed. By means of writs of execution for the collection of amounts from accounts opened in banks (issued by the courts on legal grounds), the scheme is legalized. Citizens file lawsuits against companies that have opened bank accounts. The defendants admit the claims. Thus, the courts rule in favor of the plaintiffs. At the same time, banks cannot fail to execute court decisions when they receive genuine writs of execution. The elimination of this fraudulent scheme is necessary in light of the fight against money laundering and the illicit financing of terrorism. Schemes that involve writs of execution and which the Central Bank could systematize in warning letters to banks, up to current moment did not have. Criminal methods were used to withdraw funds from the bank - using fake writs of execution.

A source close to the Central Bank explained that the regulator is aware of a fraudulent scheme using writs of execution; it sent targeted internal letters to banks in 2013-2014, asking them to pay attention to the existence of this problem. The Central Bank also reminded banks that they have the right not to carry out transactions that cause them suspicion, referring to 115-FZ.

Deputy Director of Rosfinmonitoring Pavel Livadny told Izvestia that the agency shares the position of the Central Bank.

“The new fraudulent scheme is another interpretation of the standard cash-out scheme,” comments Rustam Mukhametshin, director of Deloitte CIS. — To combat such schemes, we need enhanced verification of clients when accepting services, training of employees who carry out such operations, namely, in this case, employees who receive these writs of execution. Banks need to inform employees and/or create internal instructions for bank employees who may encounter this scheme. I believe that the instructions may include a number of criteria under which an employee must inform the bank’s control departments about suspicions of this scheme. For example, in this case, a recently registered entity and receipt of writs of execution by the bank.

According to Sergei Varlamov, partner of the Delovoy Fairvater company, losses from the new scheme in 2016 alone could amount to 10 billion rubles.

Partner at Yukov and Partners, Svetlana Tarnapolskaya, believes that the main role in stopping the scheme should not be played by banks, but by law enforcement agencies, which must be promptly involved in the investigation of dubious transactions.

— For now, banks, as before, have the opportunity to defer write-off on a “dubious” writ of execution on the basis of clause 6 of Art. 70 of the Law “On Enforcement Proceedings” for a period of no more than 7 days, recalls Tarnapolskaya. “But in the case of a genuine writ of execution, this does not solve the problem. Within 7 days, law enforcement agencies must join the investigation of the circumstances and ensure prompt suppression of the scheme if there are unconditional grounds for assessing the operations as fraudulent.

Maxim Osadchy, head of the analytical department of BKF Bank, notes that the scheme with writs of execution in general outline repeats the “Moldovan scheme”, with the help of which billions of dollars were illegally withdrawn from Russia.

— An offshore shell with an account in Moldindconbank entered into a fictitious loan agreement for hundreds of millions of dollars with another offshore shell. The guarantor of the deal was a citizen of Moldova, so that the proceedings would take place in local courts. Also, the guarantors were Russian shell companies with accounts in Russian banks, which also participated in the scheme. When an offshore debtor defaulted on a fictitious loan, the creditor filed a claim in the Moldovan court at the place of registration of the guarantor of the transaction. The judge made a decision according to which money from Russian shell accounts was transferred abroad. The bank would not have missed a technically illegal transaction. It was necessary to give this transaction a legal form. And what could be more legal than a court decision? According to the writ of execution, the one-day company owes hundreds of millions of dollars. Thus, the Russian bank had completely legal grounds pass money abroad. About 60 Russian banks participated in the “Moldavian scheme”. Billions were transferred to bailiffs' accounts at Moldindconbank. There, rubles were converted into foreign currency and sent to the Latvian Trasta Komercbanka to the accounts of foreign companies that allegedly issued the loan, Osadchy explained the essence of the “Moldovan scheme.”

As Izvestia previously wrote, during the current crisis the number of falsified writs of execution sent by fraudsters to banks has increased significantly. In April 2015, the Central Bank strongly recommended that banks, before collecting funds from customer accounts using writs of execution, verify the authenticity of these writs.

Since 2012, according to the law on enforcement proceedings, banks must block debtors’ accounts within one business day after receiving a writ of execution from bailiffs to foreclose on the debtors’ money. Slow banks can be fined up to 1 million rubles. If the bank has doubts about the authenticity of the sheet or the reliability of its contents, it has seven days to check - the Central Bank gave such an indulgence to banks last year, since more duplicate sheets and sheets with erroneous information began to arrive, and banks are responsible for unjustified write-offs according to Art. 856 of the Civil Code. Banks must report on the work done to the bailiffs within three days after receiving the documents.