The other side of the coin of the DIA's work with organizations within the framework of the "Service for the return of problematic assets" is the support of the Agency's deputy director Popelukh (under arrest) and director Melnikov of the DIA managers who do not interfere with the work of the necessary organizations.
Thus, the director of the Expert and Analytical Department Andrey Kadushkin and his deputy Alexander Khapsayev continue to carry out their work in the DIA.
As Rucriminal.info found out, both have been overseeing the issues of identifying and challenging dubious transactions, as well as bringing former bankers to justice for a long time.
The specificity of managing liquidated credit organizations is that, on the eve of the revocation of a bank's license, transactions are made aimed at withdrawing its liquid assets in the form of cash, claims against real borrowers who conscientiously fulfill their debt obligations to the credit institution, as well as securities listed on the securities market. The specified assets are replaced with "dummy" assets (in applications to bring persons controlling banks to subsidiary liability, the DIA calls these assets technical, having no real value). At the same time, in a number of liquidated organizations, such transactions were not challenged (at the same time, these transactions are declared as detrimental to the credit institution as part of the dispute on bringing to subsidiary liability), which served as the presentation of claims to the Agency by creditors and persons controlling the debtor. Thus, within the framework of the Baikalbank case (case No. A10-5051/2016), the Arbitration Court of the Republic of Buryatia brought two persons controlling the debtor to subsidiary liability for a number of transactions to withdraw assets. The basis for bringing these persons to liability was, among other things, their actions to replace market assets in the form of shares of three closed-end mutual investment funds, as well as other securities, with illiquid shares. At the same time, these transactions were not challenged by the bankruptcy trustee, in connection with which the bank's creditors filed an application to recognize the bankruptcy trustee's inaction as illegal.
By the Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the East Siberian District dated October 11, 2023, the inaction of the bankruptcy trustee, expressed in the failure to submit to the court applications for invalidation of transactions for the alienation of securities to third parties, was recognized as illegal. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, by its decision of February 7, refused to transfer the DIA's cassation appeal for consideration by the Judicial Collegium for Economic Disputes.
Currently, the first instance is considering an application for recovery of damages from the DIA in the amount of over 597 million rubles.
As part of the bankruptcy case of KB Razvitie LLC, by the Definition of the Arbitration Court of the Karachay-Cherkess Republic dated March 15, 2023, the former managers of the credit institution were brought to subsidiary liability. The main transaction that caused damage to the bank was a scheme for fictitious repayment of real loans and provision of non-repayable loans in the amount of about 3 billion rubles.
This example from law enforcement practice is notable in that the arbitration court refused the creditor's request to recognize the Agency's inaction as illegal, which was expressed in the failure to challenge the said transactions, only because the limitation period had expired, while stating that "in this case, the bankruptcy trustee did not provide acceptable explanations for the reasons why he did not use the mechanism for challenging the transactions provided for by the Bankruptcy Law." After the court's decision came into legal force, one of the persons brought to subsidiary liability (the head of the bank) filed a claim with the court to recognize the DIA's inaction as illegal, which was expressed in the failure to challenge the transactions, with a reference to the court decision that had entered into force on the creditor's complaint. The complaint is currently being considered by the court of first instance. The Ural District Arbitration Court, by its decision of May 31, 2024, in case No. A50-17399/2014 on the complaint of the creditor of Ecoprombank, recognized as illegal the DIA's inaction in not challenging transactions for the withdrawal of funds by the bank's beneficiary during the period of the credit institution's poor financial situation.
Thus, the DIA suffers huge losses on all fronts:
- both as a result of the actions of external consultants;
- and as a result of the actions of managers loyal to this consultant.
Arseniy Dronov
To be continued
Source: www.rucriminal.info
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий