SOLUTION
In the name Russian Federation
On May 25, 2015, the Sovetsky District Court of Krasnoyarsk, consisting of:
presiding judge Akimova I.V.,
under secretary I.S. Kuchina,
Having considered in open court a civil case based on the claim of N.A. Khaptukhaev. to CJSC "UniCredit Bank" on recognition of the conditions loan agreement invalid, recovery Money on account of commission, insurance premium, penalties, compensation moral damage,

U S T A N O V I L:
Khaptukhaeva N.A. filed a lawsuit against UniCredit Bank CJSC to recognize the terms of the loan agreement as invalid, to recover funds on account of the commission, insurance premium, penalties, compensation for moral damages, citing the fact that DD.MM.YYYY a loan agreement was concluded between the parties, on on the basis of which the plaintiff was granted a loan in the amount of 384,800 rubles. From the moment the loan was issued, the Borrower paid the bank a loan arranging fee in the amount of 6,000 rubles and an insurance premium in the amount of 39,438.33 rubles. From the application for a car loan and notice of conditions car loan It follows that the amount for arranging the loan is 6,000 rubles, which is also reflected in the extract from the Borrower’s personal account. For the provision of a loan in accordance with the notice for obtaining a loan, the total amount of the insurance premium was 39,438.33 rubles, which is confirmed by the insurance policy DD.MM.YYYY and the notice for obtaining a loan. From the Loan Terms, it follows that the commission for arranging a loan and the insurance premium are specifically identified as paid services that are subject to separate payment by the Borrower. At the time of signing the form of agreement proposed by the Bank, the Borrower was not informed that he had the right to count on receiving a loan without purchasing additional services. Payment of a commission for arranging a loan and an insurance premium is a mandatory condition of the contract. There is no other procedure for receiving funds within the framework of obligations under the terms of the loan. These terms of the agreement, by virtue of the direct instructions of the law, are invalid, and charging the Borrower a commission for arranging a loan and an insurance premium is illegal. In this case, the conclusion of an insurance agreement was a mandatory condition for the Plaintiff to obtain a loan, which in turn is illegal, since the Defendant did not provide the opportunity to conclude a loan agreement on other terms without concluding an insurance agreement. Obliging the Plaintiff to enter into an insurance agreement against the risk of theft, damage and complete destruction of property, the Bank made the conclusion of the loan agreement conditional on the mandatory conclusion of an insurance agreement. Thus, the Bank significantly violated the Borrower’s right to freely choose a service, and also imposed the burden of bearing additional expenses on insurance.
During the trial, the plaintiff clarified the claims and requests that the terms of the loan agreement concluded between N.A. Khaptukhaeva be declared invalid. and ZAO UniCredit Bank, which provide for the collection of a commission for arranging a loan, compulsory insurance vehicle as a condition for obtaining a loan; recover from the defendant in its favor the funds paid towards the commission for arranging a loan in the amount of 6,000 rubles; funds paid towards the insurance premium in the amount of 39,438.33 rubles; a penalty in the amount of 6,000 rubles; a penalty in the amount of 39,438.33 rubles; compensation for moral damage 7,000 rubles.
At the court hearing, the representative of the plaintiff D.N. Borovik, acting on the basis of a power of attorney dated April 6, 2015, fully supported the stated claims, taking into account the clarification, and insisted on their satisfaction.
The representative of the defendant CJSC UniCredit Bank, the representative of the third party SOJSC VSK Insurance House, did not appear at the court hearing, they were notified in a timely manner and properly. The defendant sent objections to the court (case sheets 25-30), in which he asked to dismiss the claim and consider the case in their absence. In accordance with Art. 167 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the case was considered in the absence of the participants in the process who did not appear.
After listening to the plaintiff's representative and examining the case materials, the court comes to the following conclusion.
In accordance with Article 9 of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation dated DD.MM.YYYY No. 15-FZ “On the implementation of Part Two of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation”, paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Protection of Consumer Rights”, relations with the participation of consumers are regulated by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Protection of Consumer Rights”, other federal laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation adopted in accordance with them.
By virtue of clause 1 of Article 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Protection of Consumer Rights,” the terms of the contract that infringe on the rights of the consumer in comparison with the rules established by laws or other legal acts of the Russian Federation in the field of consumer protection are declared invalid. Contract terms that infringe on consumer rights in comparison with the rules established by laws or other legal acts of the Russian Federation in the field of consumer rights protection are recognized as infringing. By virtue of clause 2 of this norm, it is prohibited to condition the purchase of some goods (services) on the mandatory purchase of other goods (services).
According to Art. 309 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, obligations must be fulfilled properly in accordance with the terms of the obligation and the requirements of the law and other legal acts.
According to Article 819 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a loan agreement, the bank undertakes to provide the borrower with funds (loan) in the amount and on the terms stipulated by the agreement, and the borrower, in turn, undertakes to return the amount of money received and pay interest on it.
According to clause 1 of Article 329 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the fulfillment of obligations can be ensured, in addition to the methods specified therein, by other methods provided for by law or contract.
Article 33 of the Federal Law dated DD.MM.YYYY No. “On Banks and banking» it is also established that the fulfillment of obligations can be ensured by a penalty, a pledge, retention of the debtor’s property, a surety, a bank guarantee, a deposit and other methods provided for by law or contract.
Article 927 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes that insurance can be compulsory and voluntary. In cases where the law imposes on the persons specified in it the obligation to insure as insurers the life, health or property of other persons or their civil liability to other persons at their own expense or at the expense of interested parties (compulsory insurance), insurance is carried out by concluding contracts in accordance with with the rules of Chapter 48 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. For insurers, concluding an insurance contract on the terms proposed by the policyholder is not mandatory.
The court found that DD.MM.YYYY. a loan agreement was concluded between the parties, on the basis of which the plaintiff was granted a loan in the amount of 384,800 rubles.
As follows from the Notice of the terms of the car loan, the amount of the loan provided to the plaintiff is 384,800 rubles, interest rate– 14.00% per annum, date of loan provision – 09/15/2011, full cost of the loan – 26.93% per annum, term 60 months (case sheet 10).
According to clause 2.4. general conditions provision of a loan to UniCredit Bank CJSC for the purchase of a car, the Borrower pays the Bank a Commission for arranging the Loan in the amount and on time specified in the Application.
Also according to subclause 10 clause 2.6.1. general terms and conditions of lending, the Borrower undertakes to provide property insurance for the car during the entire term of the loan agreement by concluding an insurance agreement/policy with its subsequent prolongation, on the following terms:
Insured risks: “Theft (hijacking)”, “Damage”, “Total destruction (death)”;
The beneficiary for the risks “Theft (hijacking)”, “Complete destruction (destruction)” is the Bank from the date of concluding the Pledge Agreement;
The insured amount is no less than the total loan amount, the Loan Arrangement Fee and interest accrued on the Loan Amount for the entire loan term, and no more than the insured value of the Car, expressed in the currency in which the Bank provides the Loan to the Borrower (conversion into the Loan currency is carried out at the exchange rate Bank of Russia on the date of conclusion of the insurance agreement/policy);
other requirements of the Bank for the insurance contract are posted in the Bank’s operating rooms and on the Bank’s website on the Internet.
DD.MM.YYYY between Khaptukhaeva N.A. and SOJSC VSK "Insurance House" entered into a CASCO insurance contract No. of the vehicle<данные изъяты>, 2011, according to the AUTOCASCO risk group, sum insured 729,900 rubles, insurance premium 39,438.33 rubles (case sheet 11).
From the available documents (in particular, bank statements) it follows that the bank wrote off funds in the amount of 6,000 rubles from the plaintiff’s account DD.MM.YYYY as payment for arranging the loan (case sheet 143-157).
DD.MM.YYYY Khaptukhaeva N.A. CJSC UniCreditBank was presented with a claim in which she asked to return the amount of the commission for arranging the loan in the amount of 6,000 rubles, the amount of the insurance premium in the amount of 39,483.33 rubles (case sheet 12-13).
At the court hearing, the representative of the defendant Borovik D.N., supporting the claims taking into account the clarification, additionally explained to the court that organizational actions for issuing a loan are functional responsibility bank, that is, when carrying out its credit activities the bank does not have the right to impose the costs of compliance with the rules established for the credit institution on the borrower, thus compensating for the costs incurred by him. Also, current legislation does not provide for the possibility of charging a fee for arranging a loan as an independent payment from the borrower. The provision for charging a commission for arranging a loan does not comply with the requirements of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights, since the bank did not provide any additional services other than those that it was already obliged to perform. Also, taking into account the norms of current legislation, the provisions of the terms and conditions of the insurance contract infringe on the rights of the client. Within the meaning of the provisions of Article 16 of the Law “On the Protection of Consumer Rights”, the provisions of the conditions obliging the plaintiff to enter into an insurance contract infringe on the rights as a consumer, since the bank conditions the conclusion of a loan agreement on the obligatory conclusion by the borrower of an insurance contract.
The defendant, without appearing at the court hearing, filed an objection to the claim, in which, objecting to the stated requirements in full, he pointed out that the fee for arranging a loan is a fee for issuing a loan, is established in the form of a single fixed amount and represents reimbursement of costs for specific work preceding the issuance of the loan itself, carried out in the interests of the client. Information about the need to pay a fee for arranging a loan in the amount of 6,000 rubles and the full cost of the loan was communicated to the Plaintiff, which is confirmed by his signature in the loan agreement; the condition for paying for arranging the loan did not raise any objections from the Plaintiff. The bank provided a paid loan service, which was fixed by the terms of the agreement concluded by the parties in the offer-acceptance form. There was no evidence provided that the Plaintiff was forced to enter into a loan agreement or did not understand the essence and significance of this agreement, or that he was misled when concluding the loan agreement.
Payment of an insurance premium for vehicle insurance under a CASCO policy also does not violate the rights of the plaintiff as a consumer, since the Plaintiff credit funds were provided by the Defendant for a specific purpose, namely, for the purchase of a vehicle, which was pledged to the Defendant as security for timely and full repayment of the loan. Section 7 of the loan agreement provides for the borrower’s obligation to conclude a car insurance policy. As follows from insurance policy, No., the purchased car was insured by VSK JSC. The terms of the loan insurance agreement are aimed at ensuring the repayment of the loan, which corresponds to the provisions of Part 1 of Art. 819 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the Federal Law “On Banks and Banking Activities”, establishing one of the operating principles banking system in the Russian Federation provision financial reliability when placing funds. Thus, the terms of the loan insurance agreement are not an imposition additional service On the contrary, insurance of pledged property is expressly provided for by the current civil legislation, since the rules governing pledge issues provide for the obligation to insure the pledged property at the expense of the pledgor against the risks of loss and damage. The Plaintiff demands to recover the amount of the insurance premium from the Defendant, however, the Defendant is not an insurance organization and has never received money from the Plaintiff to pay the insurance premium (Article 954 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), therefore, cannot bear the obligation to return the insurance premium (whatever there were no grounds for such a return). The insurance contract was concluded between the Claimant and the insurer, the insurance premium was received by the insurer. The above-mentioned insurance contract concluded by the Claimant is a compensation contract (Article 423 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) and in return for the insurance premium paid by the Claimant, the latter received a consideration in the form of a property right.
Considering the stated requirements, taking into account the provisions of Articles 56, 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court takes into account the following.
In accordance with Art. 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a transaction that does not comply with the requirements of the law or other legal acts is void unless the law establishes that such a transaction is contestable or does not provide for other consequences of the violation.
In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 421 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the terms of the contract are determined at the discretion of the parties, except in cases where the content of the relevant condition is prescribed by law or other legal acts (Article 422 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
According to clause 2.1 of the Regulations on the procedure for the provision (placement) of funds by credit institutions and their return (repayment) from DD.MM.YYYY N 54-P, the provision (placement) of funds by the bank is carried out to individuals - in a non-cash manner by crediting funds to bank account of a client - a borrower of an individual, which for the purposes of these Regulations also means an account for recording the amounts of deposits attracted by the bank individuals at the bank or in cash through the bank cash desk.
From the Regulations “On the Rules of Conduct accounting in credit institutions located on the territory of the Russian Federation,” it follows that the condition for the provision and repayment of a loan (creditor obligation of the bank) is the opening and servicing of a bank account.
Clause 9 of Article 30 of the Federal Law dated DD.MM.YYYY N 395-1 “On Banks and Banking Activities” (introduced by the Federal Law dated DD.MM.YYYY N 46-FZ) provides that a credit institution is obliged to determine the full cost in the loan agreement a loan provided to a borrower - an individual. The calculation of the full cost of the loan must include payments by the borrower, an individual, on the loan related to the conclusion and execution of the loan agreement. The total cost of the loan is calculated credit institution in order, established by the Bank Russia.
In the Resolution of the Plenum Supreme Court of the Russian Federation from DD.MM.YYYY N 17 “On the consideration by courts of civil cases in disputes regarding the protection of consumer rights”, it is explained that if certain types of relations with the participation of consumers are regulated by special laws of the Russian Federation containing norms of civil law (for example, an agreement on participation in shared construction, insurance contract, both personal and property, contract bank deposit, contract of carriage, contract of energy supply), then the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights applies to relations arising from such contracts to the extent not regulated by special laws.
In paragraph “e” of paragraph 3 of the said Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, attention is drawn to the fact that the provision of credits (loans) to an individual is financial service, which relates, among other things, to the scope of regulation of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights.
As follows from clause 2.4 of the loan agreement, the borrower pays the bank a fee for arranging a loan in the amount of 6,000 rubles.
However, having analyzed the above provisions of the law and the evidence presented in the case in their entirety, the court comes to the conclusion that the bank’s inclusion in the loan agreement of a clause providing for charging the borrower a fee for arranging a loan contradicts the norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Protection of consumer rights”, since the bank’s organizational actions to issue a loan are the bank’s functional responsibility, then when carrying out its lending activities the bank does not have the right to impose costs (additional costs) on the borrower, and therefore this condition of the contract infringes on the consumer’s rights established by law, and therefore the conditions loan agreement on charging a fee for arranging a loan are insignificant.
Under such circumstances, since the condition of the loan agreement on the payment of a commission for arranging the loan is invalid (void), the amount of 6,000 rubles paid in pursuance of this condition of the agreement is subject to recovery in favor of the plaintiff.
In accordance with Art. 31 of the Law of the Russian Federation dated DD.MM.YYYY No. “On the Protection of Consumer Rights”, consumer demands for the return of money paid for work (service) sum of money, provided for in paragraph 1 of Article 28 and paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 29 of this Law, are subject to satisfaction within ten days from the date of presentation of the corresponding demand.
For violation of the deadlines for satisfying individual consumer requirements provided for in this article, the contractor pays the consumer a forfeit (penalty) for each day of delay, the amount and procedure for calculating which are determined in accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 28 of this Law (Part 3 of Article 31 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Protection of Rights consumers").
In accordance with clause 5 of Article 28 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Protection of Consumer Rights”, in case of violation of the established deadlines for the completion of work (provision of a service) or new deadlines assigned by the consumer on the basis of clause 1 of this article, the contractor pays the consumer for each day (hour, if the deadline determined in hours) delay a penalty in the amount of three percent of the price of performing the work (providing a service), and if the price of performing the work (providing a service) is not determined by the contract for the performance of work (provision of services) - the total price of the order. The agreement on the performance of work (provision of services) between the consumer and the contractor may establish a higher amount of the penalty (penalty).
The amount of the penalty (penalty) collected by the consumer cannot exceed the price of a separate type of work (provision of a service) or the total price of the order, if the price of a separate type of work (provision of a service) is not determined by the contract for the performance of work (provision of a service).
As follows from the case materials, DD.MM.YYYY the defendant was served with a claim for the return of losses in the amount of 6,000 rubles (case sheet 12-13), however, within the established ten-day period, the defendant did not fulfill the consumer’s demands.
Taking into account the above, the amount of the penalty for the period from March 14, 2014. until 05/31/2014 is 14,220 rubles based on the calculation:
6,000 rubles * 3%* 79 days (days of delay) = 14,220 rubles.
Since the amount of the penalty cannot exceed the price of the service, a penalty in the amount of 6,000 rubles is subject to recovery from the defendant.
Considering the plaintiff’s demands to invalidate the terms of the loan agreement, which provide for compulsory vehicle insurance as a condition for obtaining a loan, and to recover funds paid towards the insurance premium to the insurer in the amount of 39,438.33 rubles, the court takes into account the following.
As follows from the case materials, the loan funds were provided to the plaintiff by the bank for the intended purpose, namely the purchase of a vehicle, which was pledged as a timely and full repayment of the loan.
By virtue of Article 421 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, citizens and organizations are free to enter into an agreement. Compulsion to enter into an agreement is not permitted, except in cases where the obligation to enter into an agreement is provided for by this Code, the law or a voluntarily accepted obligation.
According to clause 1, clause 1, article 8 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation civil rights and obligations arise from contracts and other transactions, although not provided for by law, but not contrary to it.
By virtue of clause 1 of clause 1 of Article 343 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the pledgor or pledgee, depending on which of them has the pledged property, is obliged, unless otherwise provided by law or agreement, to insure the pledged property in full at the expense of the pledgor value from the risks of loss and damage, and if the total value of the property exceeds the amount of the claim secured by the pledge - by an amount not lower than the amount of the claim.
From the contents of the loan agreement it follows that the terms of insurance are a way of ensuring the fulfillment of obligations assumed by the borrower under the loan agreement, and not an additional service within the meaning of Art. 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Protection of Consumer Rights”. The terms of the loan insurance agreement are aimed at ensuring the repayment of the loan, which corresponds to the provisions of Part 1 of Art. 819 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the Federal Law “On Banks and Banking Activities”, establishing one of the principles of functioning of the banking system in the Russian Federation to ensure financial reliability when placing funds.
In the case under consideration, the disputed terms of the contract provided for property insurance of the collateral, which allows in the event of insured event satisfy the requirements of the creditor - beneficiary under the insurance contract by receiving insurance compensation, which minimizes the borrower’s risks regarding the proper fulfillment of obligations.
According to the terms of the loan agreement, borrowed funds were provided to pay for the cost of the vehicle purchased by the borrower; the agreement provides for the obligation to conclude an insurance policy for car insurance.
As can be seen from the vehicle insurance policy available in the case materials (case sheet 11), the purchased car was insured by the insurance company “VSK Insurance House”, to which the insurance premium was transferred, no evidence otherwise was provided, thus, within the meaning of the above provisions, the conditions loan agreement on insurance are not an imposition of an additional service; on the contrary, insurance of the pledged property is directly provided for by the current civil legislation, since the rules governing collateral issues provide for the obligation to insure the pledged property at the expense of the mortgagor against the risks of loss and damage.
In such circumstances, taking into account the above, since the plaintiff was provided with loan funds by the defendant for the intended purpose, namely, the purchase of a vehicle, which was pledged as security for timely and full repayment of the loan, and the obligation to insure the provisions of the loan agreement disputed by the plaintiff the subject of collateral, a car, does not contradict the law, then there are no grounds for recognizing the said terms of the loan agreement as invalid and for collecting insurance costs.
Based on the fact that when deciding on compensation for moral damage to a consumer, a sufficient condition for satisfying the claim is the established fact of violation of consumer rights, the court, taking into account the provisions of Art. 151, 1101 Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Art. 15 of the Federal Law “On the Protection of Consumer Rights”, the circumstances of the case, finds the amount declared by the plaintiff monetary compensation moral damages in the amount of 7,000 rubles are inflated, and therefore, determines recovery from UniCreditBank CJSC in favor of N.A. Khaptukhaev. compensation for moral damage in the amount of 1,000 rubles, which, according to the court, corresponds to the principle of reasonableness and fairness.
In accordance with paragraph 6 of Art. 13 Federal Law “On the Protection of Consumer Rights”, when the court satisfies the consumer’s requirements established by law, the court recovers from the manufacturer (performer, seller, authorized organization or authorized individual entrepreneur, importer) for failure to voluntarily meet consumer requirements, a fine of fifty percent of the amount, awarded by the court in favor of the consumer.
If public associations of consumers (their associations, unions) or local government bodies make a statement in defense of consumer rights, fifty percent of the amount of the collected fine is transferred to these associations (their associations, unions) or bodies.
Thus, the court, taking into account that the demands of the plaintiff, as a consumer, were not voluntarily satisfied, finds it possible to collect from the defendant a fine in the amount of 50% of the amount collected in favor of the consumer - 6500 rubles (6000+6000+1000 = 13000 rubles / 50%).
In such circumstances, the defendant in favor of the plaintiff must be charged a fee for arranging a loan in the amount of 6,000 rubles, a penalty in the amount of 6,000 rubles, compensation for moral damage in the amount of 1,000 rubles, and a fine in the amount of 6,500 rubles. The remainder of the claim is dismissed.
By virtue of Part 2 of Art. 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the amount and procedure for paying state duties are established by federal laws on taxes and fees.
The state duty, from which the plaintiff was exempted, is recovered from the defendant, who was not exempt from paying it, in proportion to the satisfied part claims. The collected amount is credited to the appropriate budget in accordance with the deduction standards established by the budget legislation of the Russian Federation (Part 1 of Article 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).
Thus, taking into account the provisions of Art. 333.19 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, with ZAO UniCreditBank as income local budget a state fee of 480 rubles is subject to collection.
Based on the above, guided by Art. Art. 194-198 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, court
DECIDED:

Invalidate the terms of the loan agreement DD.MM.YYYY year concluded between Khaptukhaeva N.A. and ZAO UniCredit Bank regarding the collection of fees for arranging a loan.
Collect in favor of N.A. Khaptukhaev. with UniCredit Bank CJSC, funds paid towards the commission for arranging a loan in the amount of 6,000 rubles, a penalty of 6,000 rubles, compensation for moral damage of 1,000 rubles, a fine of 6,500 rubles, a total of 19,500 rubles.
The remainder of the claim is dismissed.
To collect from UniCredit Bank CJSC a state duty for local budget revenue in the amount of 480 rubles.
The decision can be appealed to the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court through the Sovetsky District Court of Krasnoyarsk within a month from the date of issuance of the reasoned decision.

Chairman: I.V. Akimova

As RBC daily learned, UniCredit Bank is beginning the procedure for writing off problem debt. By the end of this year, the bank will “forgive” about 55 million rubles. overdue on 250 problem loans. The bank has to write off debt for the first time since 2003.

As the head of the retail department told RBC daily credit risks UniCredit Bank Victoria Polyakova, the bank decided to begin the process of writing off overdue debt on retail loans accumulated over the past seven years. “Over seven years of retail lending, there were no precedents for write-offs, as a result of which the bank accumulated overdue debt, which, in comparison with other banks that have long been writing off and selling bad debts, looked extremely unrepresentative,” said Ms. Polyakova.

According to her, these were loans issued at the very beginning of retail lending at the bank, when the processes of underwriting and collection business were poorly structured. “These loans lay as ballast. Therefore, we decided to improve the delinquency indicators and to develop and introduce a regular process of write-off and possible sale in the future,” explained Victoria Polyakova.

At the end of December, UniCredit Bank will write off the first 250 retail loans for a total amount of about 55 million rubles. The average amount of each loan is 200 thousand rubles. For all these loans from Federal service bailiffs UniCredit Bank has certificates stating the impossibility of collecting them.

“It’s difficult to say now what the total amount of the write-off is,” notes Victoria Polyakova. - Acts are gradually being collected for other loans. I think that in the first and second quarters of next year we will be able to write off the maximum volumes. This is all based on what has accumulated over seven years. Then the write-off volumes will gradually fall.”

“In our opinion, it would be more logical to collect acts of impossibility of collection and sell the debt,” says the general director collection agency"USB2 Center" Alexander Fedorov. “This way the bank would clean up its balance sheet and get a little money.” According to Victoria Polyakova, the bank discussed the possibility of selling bad debts last year, but the price bad loans during the crisis was very low, so it was not interesting to simply sell them.

“On the other hand, the bank, by not selling bad debts to collectors, does not spoil its reputation,” notes Alexander Fedorov. - In this case, the bank does not cause negative emotions. After all, a collector working on outsourcing and a collector working with purchased debts use different degrees of pressure on the debtor.”

Writing off bad debts is a common practice in the market to free up reserves for the bank, bankers say. “100 percent reserves were created for these debts, so writing them off does not have too much of an impact on the bank’s financial performance,” Oleg Skvortsov, deputy chairman of the board of Renaissance Credit Bank, tells RBC daily. “But bad debts worsen the standards, and if they are truly hopeless, then it is better to write them off.”

The history of my “cooperation” with the bank began a very long time ago... We decided to buy a car and advantageous offer was a purchase on credit from UniCredit Bank. We completed 2 documents, received a loan, and left in a car. For two years I paid as expected without any delays or problems. Two years later I paid the entire amount for complete early repayment. The advance payment amounted to 60% of the loan amount. That story ended well. They sent me a notification that a consumer loan was approved as a good borrower and all that, just a passport and to the cashier for money.

I worked two jobs, paid well, there was no need. Then we decided to have a good rest, and I decided to take out this loan; I was sure that I would also pay it off ahead of schedule. In short, I took out a loan. I paid regularly for 6 months in a row. The situation in Ukraine came out of nowhere, and since one of my works was in Ukraine, it immediately “burst.” Since we are in the Rostov region, which borders Ukraine, we began to have layoffs, layoffs... and in the end I was laid off. Now I'm standing at the labor exchange. But let’s get back to the loan... I realized that I couldn’t pay the next payment, so I wrote a letter to the bank describing the situation and asking them to restructure it or provide credit holidays. The bank told me that there is no overdue payment and we won’t do anything. Well, accordingly, the arrears began, I contacted the bank again, to which I received the answer that since there is an arrears, you will pay it off, and then we will consider the issue of restructuring. I say I can no longer pay off the arrears, there is no such money. Calls from the bank began, I explained the situation to everyone, but apart from threats of legal action, I did not receive anything intelligible to get out of the situation.

After 3 months of daily explanations, I could not stand it and said: court means court. I'm tired. I am guilty, I will answer according to the law. There was silence, about a month passed. An unknown number called, I picked up the phone, they introduced themselves to me as NSV (the official name is the National Collection Service, and in life the Sassy Knockout Service). They said that my case had been transferred to them and now they, on behalf of the bank, would find a solution together with me to return the money to the bank. I was happy, I thought, well, thank God, we’ll decide... But... as it turned out, I was happy too early. In general, the dialogue was conducted in a friendly manner, we talked, listened... in general, we agreed that I would pay the late fee and submit a written request to the bank about restructuring.

I borrow money from a friend, deposit it into an account, write an application, take it to the office, which is more than 50 km away (we don’t have a branch in the city). The next day there is a call from NSV and I understand that they deceived me. They tell us we don’t care what you’re talking about and with whom you agreed... we don’t know anything, pay the money and already with such an attack. He laughs and says, do you think the bank will restructure you? Of course not! I say, what about the contract? Or are your words not worth a penny? They laugh and are touched by my gullibility!? After a couple of days, a response actually comes from the bank refusing the restructuring. Then NSV calls again and they say now you still need to deposit as much as you have and now the bank will definitely go for restructuring. Now I’m already saying that I don’t believe it, they answer me: write again and take the letter to the branch. I write again, again I travel 50 miles, I return the letter, to which I again receive a refusal!

Bottom line. When I paid off my first loan and paid it off ahead of schedule, I was great. And as soon as a force majeure event occurred, they turned their backs. So they are also chasing me like a boy with letters and threats, although all I need to do is sit down at the negotiating table! It turns out that I’m not running away from them, but the bank is brushing me off, not wanting to solve the problem.

So I think this is the most bad bank. I won’t contact him anymore and I don’t recommend it to others... there can be different situations in life and their solution depends on both sides! Therefore, you need to choose a reliable second side!

St. Petersburg resident Sergei D. shared the story of how he managed to sue UniCredit Bank for refusing to accept money without a passport - and explained how such a court decision can help in law enforcement practice.

I was a client of UniCredit Bank CJSC. The bank provided a loan for which payments were made through the operating cash desk of a bank branch. Before the conflict situation, monthly payments were more than 15 thousand rubles, so I always presented my passport, but then due to partial early repayment monthly payment became just over 9200 rubles.

During the next payment, they demanded my passport (the bank representatives were not satisfied with a driver’s license). They were also not happy with the fact that I showed up to them once a month for four years, and they probably knew me.

Payments of less than 15 thousand rubles do not require the presentation of a passport by law.

Identification can not be carried out banks:

when carrying out operations to accept payments from clients - individuals, if their amount does not exceed 15,000 rubles or the amount in foreign currency, equivalent to 15,000 rubles (except for the case when employees of an organization carrying out transactions with funds or other property suspect that this operation is carried out for the purpose of legalizing (laundering) proceeds from crime or financing terrorism);

Rospotrebnadzor, in turn, forwarded the complaint to the St. Petersburg department, identified a violation of consumer rights and opened an administrative case. I was recognized as a victim in this case.

Rospotrebnadzor issued resolution to hold Unicredit accountable for violating consumer rights(passport requirement for payments less than 15 thousand rubles), and also submission on eliminating the violation - the bank needs to change its instructions and the procedure for staff working with the client, as well as report on the measures taken.

When making a decision on the complaint, Rospotrebnadzor understood that the case could be quite pivotal and precedent-setting in the banking industry, establishing certain requirements for banks as a whole when making payments, but nevertheless the management took such a step.

In many ways, the legislation in this area is confusing and does not fully provide understanding to all market players and regulators.

Unicredit, of course, did not agree with the decision and presentation of Rospotrebnadzor and challenged these decisions in court, asking them to be canceled. At the same time, knowing that I was recognized as a victim in the case, he did not involve me in participation (I did this myself at the request of the court hearing).

The main arguments of UniCredit were that this is not a payment to repay the loan, but a replenishment of the current account, from which funds are subsequently debited to repay the loan. They must carry out identification in any case - “terrorism and laundering”.

The very application of Unicredit to the court to challenge it consisted of a large number of terms and references to articles that were not directly related to the violation, for example, an attempt to apply the rule on electronic money or transfer of funds without opening a current account to the existing relations ( in simple language- these are payment services such as “Yandex.Money”, “Western Union”, Qiwi, “ gold Crown"and so on), an attempt to define this not as a “payment”, but as a “transaction” - that is, Unicredit tried to mislead the court.

At the same time, requesting a passport in operating cash desk, UniCredit itself in court referred to its website, where other methods of repaying the loan (payment systems) were indicated.


The position of the defense (mine in particular) was based on the fact that the parties themselves determined this procedure for making payments (depositing into the borrower’s account and subsequent debiting by the bank), in the cash receipt orders there is a purpose: depositing funds to repay the loan, payment less than 15 thousand rubles .

At the same time, by other methods of transferring money to the account specified by the bank (various payment services), it was possible to transfer funds without personal identification.

The position of Rospotrebnadzor was similar.

Unfortunately, the court of first instance treated the issue formally, did not delve into the essence, sided with the bank and declared the decision and presentation of Rospotrebnadzor illegal.

Rospotrebnadzor and I challenged the court’s decision.

Unicredit's response to the appeals did not contain anything particularly new, except that they began to consider this payment as financing of terrorism and money laundering obtained by criminal means as one of the grounds for refusal. That is, they wanted to classify the payment to repay their own loan as such, arguing that under such conditions they should require a passport, without informing the client about the suspicions that had arisen.

When considering the case in Rospotrebnadzor and at the court hearing itself, I specifically clarified whether the passport requirement related to this basis, to which the bank representative replied that it did not.

The appellate instance listened with interest to the position of the representative of Rospotrebnadzor and my position, and asked clarifying questions. The bank's representative did not appear in court. I conveyed to the judges that the decision was important for banking sector and consumers. And if the result is not in favor of Rospotrebnadzor, then I will try to block all payments up to 15 thousand as follows.

If the court recognizes that the requirement for a passport was legal in such legal relations, then any replenishment of the account through transfers through agents and payment systems will be possible after identification, that is, presentation of a passport or through bank card. All payments from mobile phone, through payment terminals and other systems that allow you to transfer funds without identification will be illegal.


That is, I would have to turn Unicredit’s position against them: I would ask strangers on the Internet to transfer funds to minimum size(10 rubles) to my current account through terminals and payment systems, that is, in the ways that Unicredit indicates on its website.

Next, I would contact Unicredit with a request to provide me with the data of those persons who transferred the money to me so that I could return it back, because, in their opinion, identification should be carried out in any case, which means it should not be difficult for them. Next, a complaint against them to the Central Bank and Rospotrebnadzor, as well as to Financial Monitoring that they do not comply with the legislation in their own interpretation, which would be supported by a corresponding court decision.

However, the court showed prudence, understood the situation, overturned the decision of the court of first instance and recognized the decision and presentation of Rospotrebnadzor as legal, and the actions of Unicredit as illegal. UniCredit must eliminate violations of the law in the form of personal identification when paying less than 15 thousand rubles, including by depositing funds into the account of an individual.

Now I have the right to demand compensation from Unicredit for damages from their unlawful actions, including in court, and they have the right to go to the court of the North-Western District. Whether they will take advantage of their right, just as I do mine, I don’t know yet.

What does this solution provide?

First of all, this is a precedent, that is, in similar situations of other people with other banks (the same bank), taking a copy of the court decision, a copy of the resolution of Rospotrebnadzor, they can first try to prove their case in the bank, and if that doesn’t work, then in Rospotrebnadzor and in court

There is a precedent, it will be easier for authorities to make decisions in favor of consumers, and as a result, a certain and unified law enforcement practice will emerge.