Crimea got rid of the hryvnia ahead of schedule due to US sanctions and Kolomoisky’s machinations – media

Moscow - Simferopol, June 2 (Navigator, Mikhail Stamm) - Plans for the circulation of two currencies in Crimea until 2016 had to be canceled due to US and EU sanctions against Russian banks operating in Ukraine - this is how Kommersant explains the peninsula’s early transition to full ruble payments.

Subscribe to the news "Navigator - Crimea" в Facebook or In contact with

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

From June 1, the hryvnia became a foreign currency for citizens of the peninsula, the publication recalls. It can be bought and sold, theoretically you can open a bank deposit in it and get a loan, but on a par with the dollar, euro and any other currency in the world. Non-cash payments in hryvnia in Crimea were stopped on May 6, and on May 7, the National Bank of Ukraine stopped, in accordance with the new Ukrainian legislation, the work of branches of Ukrainian banks in the Russian Federation. The Central Bank of Russia also suspended operations of Crimean branches of Ukrainian banks in Crimea and Sevastopol.

The two-currency system in Crimea was destroyed by a conflict between 4 large banks: the central banks of the Russian Federation and Ukraine, as well as Privatbank and Sberbank. It was Privatbank that had the most extensive network of branches in Crimea (337 branches). It was managed by local manager Boris Finkelstein. The idea of ​​a dual-currency scheme for the operation of Crimean banks presupposed the creation of the Bank of Crimea with a separate banking license of the Russian Federation precisely on the basis of the Privat network. But the owner of Privat, Igor Kolomoisky, publicly quarreled with Russian President Vladimir Putin, after which the Central Bank of Russia closed the Russian subsidiary of Privat, and then the dual-currency scheme in Crimea was blocked by the National Bank of Ukraine, which stopped supplying hryvnia cash to the peninsula. Therefore, the settlement system of the government agencies of Crimea de facto began to be created by the former subsidiary of VTB - the RNKB bank, sold to the authorities of Crimea. And from June 1, Crimea and Sevastopol, from the point of view of the legislation of the Russian Federation, are a ruble zone, from the point of view of the legislation of Ukraine (de jure from April 2) - a territory with a special status, different from the usual hryvnia zone.

An alternative to the Bank of Crimea could be the quickly deployed network of Sberbank of the Russian Federation. But Sberbank risked the assets of its subsidiary bank in Ukraine, whose assets are comparable to the assets of the entire Crimean banking system. And after the US imposed sanctions on Bank Rossiya, the risks of problems for the entire international network of Sberbank, which would certainly create problems for the entire business of the bank, became prohibitive. As a result, by May 2014 it became obvious: only those Russian banks that do not have assets in Ukraine will operate in Crimea. Ukrainian “subsidiaries” of Russian banks (VTB, Alfa Bank, a number of others) will be allowed, like the Crimean branches of Ukrainian banks, to quietly liquidate their businesses, the newspaper writes.

The Depositor Protection Fund, created on the basis of the Deposit Insurance Agency (DIA), is responsible for returning the deposits of Crimeans to Ukrainian banks. During the month of operation, the fund accepted 108 thousand applications out of 300-400 thousand expected, and paid compensation in the amount of 846 million rubles. and began working with 19 Ukrainian banks. In practice, the Federal Fund is busy purchasing these deposits from Ukrainian banks using funds from the Central Bank of Russia - it was initially assumed that this would require up to 60 billion rubles. ($1,8 billion), then the amount was halved - some of the Crimean owners of deposits managed to withdraw them from Ukrainian banks before the restrictions were introduced or converted them into other assets. The Fund will then file lawsuits in international courts and try to recover part of the costs from Ukrainian banks that did not return money to depositors.

It is more difficult with loans to individuals in Crimea (about 17 billion hryvnia). In theory, Ukrainian banks can return the money only by confirming the decision to collect the money in a Russian court, which is extremely difficult. Some Ukrainian banks are already selling loans to collectors - for example, on May 29, this was announced by the Ukrainian “daughter” of Russian Standard, which sold loans for an unknown amount to the Russian Debt Collection Agency. But the second largest bank in Ukraine, Oschadbank, announced its intention to collect debts from Crimea through international courts. The situation with the third largest bank in Crimea, Ukreximbank, is still unknown; back in March 2014, it announced large investments in the Crimean branch network. Other Ukrainian banks have already de facto abandoned Crimea - responsibility for its monetary system has passed completely to the Central Bank of Russia.