Ukrainian banks robbed depositors from Crimea en masse, – lawyer
Kyiv, September 13 (Navigator, Vladimir Mikhailov) – Speaking at a round table on legal uncertainty in Crimea, Dmitry Duginov, head of the legal department of FCG, spoke about the problems of Crimean depositors of Ukrainian banks.
“Starting in February, many depositors, taught by bitter experience and not trusting the banking system, began to withdraw deposits. Crimean investors were no exception.
Subscribe to the news "PolitNavigator - Kyiv" в Facebook, Classmates or In contact with
After the referendum on the independence of Crimea and its transition to Russian control, Privat Bank immediately closed its branches, and others began to close them gradually. On May 6, 2014, by decree of the NBU, licenses to conduct banking operations in Crimea were revoked. After this, branches of Ukrainian banks in Crimea stopped working. Crimeans are faced with a big problem - how to withdraw their deposits. Bank branches were simply closed. Depositors stormed call centers with questions about how to get their deposits. All banks told their clients that due to current events, the situation with the payment of deposits is in limbo, and the banks are awaiting a legislative decision at the level of the NBU and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Those. all banks asked clients to wait for some time until a mechanism was developed that would allow access to accounts.
At the same time, the autonomous organization Crimea Depositors Protection Fund began operating in Crimea. She took upon herself the obligation to return the deposits of Crimeans. It reimbursed deposits up to 700 thousand rubles (250 thousand UAH); if the deposit was larger, the depositor could either return the deposit himself or transfer the right to compensation to the Fund, which could subsequently recover funds from Ukrainian banks. The vast majority of depositors contacted the Fund, and many received their deposits. But not all. There are cases where depositors who submitted documents back in May-June have still not received reimbursement of their deposits.
The National Bank of Ukraine has done almost nothing for Crimean depositors. In the spring and at the end of July, he sent a letter to the banks in which he asked to help unblock the accounts of Crimeans who had moved to the territory of mainland Ukraine. In another letter, the NBU recommended that banks post on their websites information about further work with Crimean depositors. But not enough such information has appeared. Some banks placed it after a few months, some did not place it at all.
The banks argued their reluctance to return deposits by the fact that the accounts of their Crimean clients were blocked by NBU Resolution No. 260. But the NBU by this resolution did not at all prohibit banks from returning their deposits to depositors. They only stopped the work of branches and branches of banks in Crimea. Thus, banks blocked accounts on their own initiative. Having suffered certain losses due to the loss of property in Crimea and the threat of non-repayment of loans from Crimean borrowers, they tried to compensate for them at the expense of depositors.
In response to official requests from depositors and their lawyers, banks are coming up with more and more new ways to hold deposits for as long as possible. Thus, banks began to require from clients a certificate from the Federal Migration Service of Russia stating that they applied to the service with an application to renounce Russian citizenship (although this is contrary to the law). Thus, banks began to consider a priori all residents of Crimea as citizens of Russia, although in Ukraine they are considered citizens of Ukraine. Referring to the Law of Ukraine on Temporarily Occupied Territories, banks invited depositors to contact the Russian state directly. In particular, this is how Privat responded to its investors.
Another way to delay the return of deposits is the proposal of banks to renew deposit agreements, extending them for a period of up to 6 months or more. Moreover, the agreement included a clause about the need to notify the bank in advance in case of early termination of the agreement. In particular, this was done by the Finance and Credit bank.
Privat went the furthest. At first, he answered depositors that due to the annexation of the peninsula, the bank had no opportunity to return funds. After lengthy out-of-court agreements, the bank proposed to restructure the deposit agreements for a period of five years, until 2019. Moreover, the additional agreement stated that during this period the client undertakes not to present demands to the bank for the return of deposits.
It is also worth saying that internal affairs bodies do not initiate criminal cases against such banks. There are cases when a bank lawyer is questioned as a witness and states that the bank has developed a deposit return scheme, and the situation is not criminal, but administrative and legal in nature,” the lawyer said.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.