A bank client has the right to close his account at any time - both the Civil Code and the law on the protection of consumer rights speak about this. But can you just as easily terminate your relationship with a bank if the account is tied to a credit card with a large debt? For a long time, the practice was ambiguous: some courts agreed to close the account - after all, obligations can be fulfilled without it. Others, on the contrary, insisted that the agreement with the client ties the credit card and the account together and it cannot be closed if there is a debt. Which of the two approaches is correct, the Supreme Court reminded.

Same question, different approaches

Clause 1 of Art. 859 of the Civil Code provides that a bank account agreement can be terminated at the request of the client at any time. And if the contract is terminated, this is the basis for closing the account (clause 4 of Article 859 of the Civil Code). Moreover, there is no need to sign an agreement to terminate the bank account agreement - the client’s application is already sufficient. But if we are talking about a credit card to which the account is linked, closing it if there is a debt will be difficult, if not impossible.

Courts have different approaches to the possibility of closing an account in case of debt, notes Denis Bobyr, lawyer at Yukov and Partners. One position is to acknowledge this possibility. If we analyze the provisions of Art. 421, 422, 859 of the Civil Code or Instruction of the Bank of Russia dated May 30, 2014 No. 153-I, it follows that the requirements for closing a bank account must be satisfied, since by force of law the bank account agreement is terminated at the request of the client at any time, notes Bobyr. This conclusion, for example, was made by the Novosibirsk Regional Court in an appeal ruling dated January 31, 2017 in case No. 33-881/2017, in which the plaintiff sought the right to close a credit account with Alfa-Bank. The court explained: the agreement concluded between the parties is a mixed agreement containing elements of a loan agreement and elements of a bank account agreement, and the bank account agreement - one of the components of the mixed agreement - can be terminated at any time.

Rosportebnadzor received a complaint......

Rospotrebnadzor demonstrated a similar approach in 2015. Rosportebnadzor received a complaint from a citizen who was refused to close an account at MTS Bank, and the department saw this as a violation of consumer rights. The bank was eventually held liable under Part 2 of Art. 14.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (inclusion in the contract of conditions that infringe the rights of the consumer). The bank failed to defend its position in the courts.

The courts explain that when a bank account is closed, it is still possible to fulfill obligations under the loan agreement and deposit cash into the cash register - this method of payment is provided for by law. As a result, the presence of a debt does not affect the ability to close the account, and the borrower has the right, in accordance with Art. 859 of the Civil Code, send an application for account termination, but this will not affect the loan agreement.

However, there is another approach. It lies in the fact that opening an account with a bank is associated with the need for a person to fulfill obligations to repay the loan. That is, a bank account does not have an independent, but an optional meaning, and its opening is conditioned only by servicing the loan agreement, Bobyr notes. In this case, if the loan is not repaid, the bank has all the legal grounds to refuse to close the bank account, the lawyer reminds. This approach was applied, in particular, by the Stavropol Regional Court in the appeal ruling dated June 6, 2017 in case No. 33-4114/2017. It was this position that was supported by the Supreme Court in another dispute about the possibility of closing an account with a loan debt.

If there is a loan, there will be a bill

In 2011, Tatyana Ruzaeva* took out a consumer loan from Sberbank. She was given a credit card with a limit of 20,000 rubles. and 19% per annum for a year and opened an account for transactions. In 2016, Ruzaeva contacted the bank and asked to close the account - at that time her loan debt amounted to 52,091 rubles. The bank refused to do this, and the woman went to court. She insisted that the refusal violated her rights, since the ability to close the account and the obligation to return the money to the bank were not connected: the absence of an account did not relieve her of the need to return the money.

The first two instances supported the applicant's claim. They recognized her agreement with Sberbank as terminated in terms of opening a current account and ordered the bank to close it. The bank was charged 500 rubles. moral damage and 250 rubles. fine

The courts proceeded from the fact that the Civil Code and the law on the protection of consumer rights provide for the right of a bank client to close an account and this does not affect the credit obligations that have arisen. The bank account involves carrying out various operations on it, which indicates its independent nature, not related to loan repayment, the appeal added. They indicated that according to the law on the protection of consumer rights, it is impossible to make the purchase of some goods conditional on the mandatory purchase of others.

Supreme Court…..

But the panel of the Supreme Court for civil disputes, chaired by Judge Vyacheslav Gorshkov, considered this approach erroneous (case No. 67-KG17-26). As the Supreme Court noted in its ruling in the case, when a bank client enters into an agreement on the issuance and use of a credit card, we are talking about a mixed agreement containing elements of a bank account agreement and a credit agreement.

In accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 819 of the Civil Code, under a loan agreement, the bank undertakes to issue money to the borrower; According to the terms of the agreement, the borrower undertakes to repay the money with interest. Since the agreement is mixed, the obligation to repay the loan is related to operations on the account, including its closure, the Supreme Court concluded. And the opportunity to get a loan, in principle, is associated with conducting transactions on the account and closing it. In addition, according to the terms of use of Sberbank cards, the account is closed subject to repayment of the overdraft and the absence of other debt. This approach is consistent with Art. 421 of the Civil Code, which regulates relations under a mixed agreement, was recognized by the Supreme Court, and the application of the rules on the possibility of terminating the agreement at any time contradicts the essence of such an agreement - after all, it concerns only one part of it - the invoice. As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the acts of the lower courts and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court.

“In essence, the board’s conclusion seems correct, since in the situation with credit cards, both the use of a bank account for transactions and the use of credit occur simultaneously; These two components are inextricably linked, says Alexandra Gerasimova, head of the FBK Legal practice. At the same time, the justification of the board lacks logical completeness, she is sure.”

The approach to the interpretation of the norms of procedural law is also interesting, Gerasimova believes: thus, despite establishing the incorrect application of the norms of substantive law, the board did not adopt a new court ruling, as follows from paragraph 5 of part 1 of Art. 390 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but sent the case for a new consideration on appeal, citing compliance with reasonable deadlines for legal proceedings. This is doubly unusual, the lawyer is sure, since sending it to appeal will only increase the time frame.

Any borrower can become a defendant in a credit dispute with Sberbank. After all, no one is immune from illness, injury, job loss or business failure, especially during a financial crisis. What should a borrower do if he has a debt on a loan from Sberbank? And how can you achieve the most favorable decision for yourself in court?

Court for non-payment of loan: in what cases does Sberbank file a lawsuit

The period during which Sberbank sues for a client’s refusal to repay loan debts is different in each case. This mainly depends on the amount of debt to Sberbank. The larger its size, the higher the likelihood that the bank will file a claim for compulsory action in the near future. However, the size of the debt is not always the deciding factor. When preparing a claim, the bank also takes into account such points as:

• period of delay;
• agreement conditions;
• availability of collateral;
• statute of limitations.

It should be remembered that going to court is an extreme measure, burdensome not only for the debtor, but also for the bank itself. Therefore, it is better not to avoid communicating with representatives of a financial institution. On the contrary, it is better to start negotiations, explain the situation and try to agree on restructuring the debt or changing the terms of its repayment.

The court may refuse to collect the debt if the estimated value of the collateral is much greater than the total amount of debt on the loan from Sberbank. Of course, this primarily concerns. All cases related to eviction are considered by the court on an individual basis. If the apartment taken on a mortgage is the only place of residence for your family and a minor child is registered in it, this is unlikely to affect you.

There is one important positive aspect of the trial. After the bank files a lawsuit, the loan ceases to be subject to penalties and interest. All additional interest stops accruing. Therefore, a court decision may even alleviate the situation of the borrower.

The fact that Sberbank has filed a lawsuit over a loan is brought to the attention of the borrower through a subpoena. Sometimes the court clerk may call instead. Collectors often pose as such employees to put pressure on the borrower. They may call from the bank and openly state that they have filed a lawsuit over the loan, but everything can still be resolved amicably. One way or another, if you are informed about filing an application with the court by telephone, it is better to find out exactly in which court and when the hearing will take place.

For this you need

• find out which court you belong to territorially (at your place of registration);
• go to the official website of this court and check the necessary information there;
• In addition, you should check whether any specific court is indicated in the agreement with Sberbank.

If your name is not being considered by any of the possible judicial authorities, then most likely the bank did not file a claim. This means that the calls are made to intimidate you and rush you to repay your debt.

The summons must be filled out by hand only and contains a blue stamp. The summons printed on the computer is definitely fake.

Actions of the defendant during the trial

First of all, it is necessary to understand the scale of the problem. To do this you should:

• take the case materials from the court office for study (you can read or take a photo for detailed information);
• find the amount of debt required by the bank, as well as supporting documents provided by it to the court (agreement, including a current account statement, calculations of the total debt with calculated penalties and fines, etc.);
• weigh your own capabilities and determine whether you are ready to repay the debt indicated by the bank.

The presence of valid reasons for non-payment of the loan (illness, dismissal, birth of a child, etc.), which can be documented, will help reduce the total debt by a significant amount.

With a competent defense, the court can partially satisfy the bank’s claim, obliging the debtor to reimburse only the loan itself and interest for its use. Six months to a year before filing a claim, the bank may add a considerable amount to the principal debt in the form of fines and penalties. Therefore, in such cases, it is advisable to contact a lawyer specializing in such cases. He will help you save much more than his services cost.

Moreover, if the court takes into account the current difficult situation of the debtor (also documented), then it will be possible to achieve gradual repayment of the entire amount of debt or a deferment. Attempts to arouse pity with stories about a difficult financial situation without providing arguments will not give any result in court. The decision will be made in favor of the bank.

You should not believe threats from bank employees or collectors about large legal costs that will fall entirely on the defendant in court. In addition to the total debt on the loan, the court can only award the defendant the payment of a state fee. This is 3200 rubles. with a claim price of 100 thousand rubles. or 5200 rubles, if the debt to the bank is a little more than 200 thousand rubles. Other legal costs may be considered illegal, these are:

• loan processing fee;
• insurance;
• illegally written off amounts (out of sequence).

Litigation on loans takes place in two stages:

• preliminary hearing, at which more organizational issues are resolved;
• main hearing, where the matter is considered on its merits.

If no documents related to the loan are considered at the preliminary hearing, then you need to be fully prepared for the main hearing. To do this you need to have:

• written objection to Sberbank's claims;
• tables with detailed calculations of the amount of debt that you consider legitimate and are willing to pay;
• documents confirming the reason for non-payment of the loan (work book with a record of dismissal, certificate from the hospital, paid receipts from the pharmacy, child’s birth certificate, etc.).

If you fail to submit the necessary documents or complete them incorrectly, you can consider the trial lost.

In addition, you need to be prepared to correctly answer the “uncomfortable” questions of Sberbank lawyers, and perhaps even the judge. Here you need to understand that only reasoned answers based on current legislation will be taken into account. Any everyday problems and difficult living conditions that are not legally confirmed can only cause a negative reaction from the judge.

Execution of a court decision

Once the court has made a decision, there is no point in avoiding its execution. You can only slightly delay the debt payment period:

• file an appeal, winning no more than two months;
• get an installment plan through the court (usually 3-4 months).

This time is best used to find the required amount, or at least part of it. If you have no money, you can sell your car or household appliances. It is better to do this yourself, otherwise after the seizure by bailiffs the property will be sold much cheaper.

After a court decision on a loan has already been made, you should not re-register real estate or cars in the name of friends and relatives. Such transactions are easily challenged in court. In addition, such actions are regarded as fraud.

If the sale of personal property does not help to fully pay off with Sberbank, the bailiffs will contact the debtor’s employer. Until the debt to the bank is fully repaid, part of the salary will be withheld.

• Carefully study the loan agreement before signing it. If you are not satisfied with the conditions, it is better to contact another bank.
• There is no need to hide from the bank and avoid court hearings. Such actions often result in the issuance of default decisions with 100% satisfaction of the bank's requirements. If you do not appear in the court of first instance, then in the future (on appeal) it will no longer be possible to file a counterclaim.
• Build your defense not on emotions, but based on legislative norms, confirmed facts and judicial practice.
• If you are a guarantor for a problem loan, you should not think that you will not be affected by litigation. The bank does not care from whom to withhold the debt and whose property to take. In this case, you can raise your objections to the lender separately from the borrower. Competent argumentation in court will help you avoid financial liability for a loan that you did not take out or see.

Most often, banks go to court with claims, the defendants of which are clients with large debts. If you find out that Sberbank has filed a lawsuit, it is better to immediately contact a lawyer. A credit lawyer will be able to answer all your questions and find a suitable solution.

Remember, if the judge grants the claim, you are unlikely to be able to improve your situation.

How can I check if Sberbank has sued me?

There are several ways to find out that the bank has filed a lawsuit against you.

• Subpoena

Most often, the borrower receives a subpoena by mail. In most cases it is genuine. Collectors and banks do not counterfeit them. If in doubt, you need to perform the following sequence of actions:

1. Go to the official court website listed in the subpoena. Use the search option in the "Litigation" section. To do this, you must indicate your last name. If the claim actually exists, it will appear in the search results. There you will also be able to familiarize yourself with the available information and find the date and time of the meeting.
2. Look at the agenda itself. It should have a blue stamp on it. The text must be printed; such documents should not be filled out manually.

• Phone call

The court does not always issue a subpoena. Sometimes everything is as small as a phone call. Collectors or bank specialists may call you under the guise of court employees. They do this intentionally in order to influence the debtor, scare him and force him to fulfill his loan obligations.

Bank employees make calls openly, warning the client that a lawsuit has already been filed. They offer to solve the problem out of court.

If you receive a call from the court or bank, you must:

1. Find out which court the case is in. Find out the exact date and time of the meeting.
2. Go to the website of the desired court and check the information.

What to do if the name of the court is unknown?
It is not always possible to find out the name of the court. In this case, you will have to spend a little more time finding out. Tips for finding the right bank:

• Find out which territorial court hears cases in your place of residence.
• Find their territorial court at the Sberbank address.
• Review the loan agreement. It may already indicate a specific court.

All these options need to be checked. If the search did not produce results, then most likely the bank did not file a claim.

We study the case materials and assess the consequences.

So, you found out that the case is already in court. Next you must evaluate the possible consequences. The first step is to contact the court office. They must provide you with materials related to the case. To do this you need:

• Show your passport.
• Fill out an application.

You can study the information on the spot or take photos of all pages to look at everything in more detail and without haste.

Particular attention should be paid to the following documents:

• Statement of claim. In it you can find information about what demands the bank made and how the circumstances of the case were presented. It indicates the amount that the creditor wants to receive from the debtor.
• Loan agreement.
• Payment schedule.
• Debt settlements.
• Account statement.

If you are ready to repay the debt in full, then you can try to resolve the issue with the bank yourself. Otherwise, you will have to contact a lawyer if you yourself do not have sufficient knowledge.

Only clear explanations, preferably based on the laws in force in Russia, will be weighty arguments in court. Pressing on pity will not work.

Stages of consideration of a case in court

The trial with Sberbank over a loan consists of two stages: preliminary and main hearings. The duration of any of them can pass in several tens of minutes or drag on for several hours.

Preliminary hearing.

This is where you first meet the judge presiding over your case. There is no need to prepare for the preliminary hearing; decisions as such are not made there. A person without a legal education will be able to understand little. Unless you find out the date and time of the main hearing. It is better to go to this meeting with your lawyer or even send him alone.

Main hearing.
It is not always limited to one meeting. Sometimes it is postponed due to violation of the conditions necessary for the start of the trial.

The main hearing has a number of significant differences:

1. During the meeting, you need to legally present your objections to the case, and they must be supported by legislative acts. You need to prove the creditor wrong and have a clear position. It is also worth providing tables with calculations of debts. All of them must comply with the laws. It is important to indicate how much debt you agree to repay. The absence of these documents in most cases leads to the loss of the process.
2. Surely the meeting will not be complete without tricky questions from the bank, and maybe even the judge. It is important to give informed answers. No everyday issues will be taken into account. Pressure on pity can even cause negativity.
3. The result of the meeting is the final decision of the court regarding the filed claim. It will have to be fulfilled in any case. If necessary, bailiffs will find ways to collect debt. Moreover, they have legal grounds for this and the necessary tools of influence.

You need to understand that it is very important to build a defense position competently. It is unlikely that you will be able to do this on your own. Do not forget that the interests of the bank will be represented by highly specialized specialists with a legal education and extensive work experience. You need to make sure that a qualified specialist defends you in court.
The decision has been made - what next?

Many people wonder what to do after the court has made a decision? Will I have to pay the obligations or can I challenge the decision and evade execution? The defendant may appeal. True, this will be a purely formal procedure. If you believe the statistics, the vast majority of decisions in such cases are not changed, they remain in force. An appeal will be able to delay the payment time for up to 2 months. The court may decide to make payments in installments, but this period is not increased by more than 3-4 months.

There are not enough funds - what to do?
You need to try to pay off the debt, at least partially. If you have personal property, it makes sense to sell it yourself. In case of non-payment, the bailiffs will still confiscate it. This applies not only to cars, but also to various electronics and household appliances.

If some property is registered in your name and you transfer it to your loved ones and friends, remember that such transactions can be challenged in court. In the worst case scenario, you may face criminal charges.

If the sale of all property could not help cover the entire debt, be prepared for the fact that part of your salary will be withheld in favor of Sberbank. This negatively affects not only the financial situation, but also the relationship with the employer and colleagues.

In any case, you need to understand that a court decision in favor of Sberbank will bring many problems. It will no longer be possible to influence the situation.

What needs to be done to win the trial?

Not every case can be won. If you took out a loan and did not repay it according to the terms of the agreement, the court will decide in favor of Sberbank. There are exceptions, but they are very rare. For example, if the statute of limitations on a loan has expired, the court may take the side of the defendant. By “winning” we mean a situation where the amount of your debt was reduced during the trial of the case.

Violation of obligations under a loan agreement almost always entails a significant increase in interest and fines. It also happens that they exceed the loan amount by several times. It is important to competently build a line of defense in court. Otherwise, you will have to pay all these astronomical interest and fines. A competent lawyer can reduce the amount several times.

By contacting a lawyer, you will immediately receive an answer about what prospects there are in this matter. Perhaps the lawyer will even be able to estimate how much the final payments could be reduced.

I agree with almost all my colleagues’ answers, BUT

1. Indeed, the most optimal option is not to apply anywhere, the SSP is very difficult to stir up, they will not particularly strain you

2. I do not agree with the answers of my colleagues regarding the amounts that will be withheld from you.

According to Article 446 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, part 1 execution under enforcement documents cannot be applied to the following property, owned by a debtor citizen by right of ownership:
residential premises (parts thereof), if for the debtor citizen and members of his family living together in the premises owned, it is the only premises suitable for permanent residence, with the exception of the property specified in this paragraph, if it is the subject of a mortgage and on it in accordance foreclosure may be subject to mortgage laws;
land plots on which the objects specified in paragraph two of this part are located, with the exception of the property specified in this paragraph, if it is the subject of a mortgage and can be foreclosed on in accordance with the legislation on mortgages;
items of ordinary home furnishings and household items, personal items (clothing, shoes and others), with the exception of jewelry and other luxury items;
property necessary for the professional activities of a debtor citizen, with the exception of items the cost of which exceeds one hundred minimum wages established by federal law;
used for purposes not related to business activities, breeding, dairy and working cattle, deer, rabbits, poultry, bees, feed necessary for their maintenance before pasture (going to the apiary), as well as outbuildings and structures necessary for their maintenance;
seeds needed for the next sowing;
food and money for a total amount not less than the established subsistence level of the debtor citizen himself and his dependents;
fuel necessary for the family of a debtor citizen to prepare their daily food and heat their living quarters during the heating season;
means of transport and other property necessary for the debtor citizen in connection with his disability;
prizes, state awards, honorary and memorable signs awarded to a debtor citizen.

Those. if in your region the cost of living is set at 7,000 rubles, therefore deductions can only be made in the amount of 2,000 rubles. Although this needs to be proven to the bailiffs, it is worth it

It’s been a while since we’ve had stories of ordinary citizens resisting the impudence of banks that violate laws and successfully defending their rights in court. Go!

Today's issue:

1. Too free interpretation of 115-FZ led to Sberbank to a trial with a businesswoman from Kirov. The bank lost in court, and the client received moral compensation and a fine for withholding funds.
2. VTB 24 took away a credit limit on a card of almost 300 thousand rubles from a client from Perm, then lost the court, but refused to execute the court decision, for which he received a fine from the bailiffs, a threat of criminal prosecution of the official, and was eventually forced to comply.

Court decisions are attached to both situations.

The first situation May 19, 2016 Pervomaisky District Court, having satisfied the demands of a Kirov woman, whose consumer rights, as established by Themis, were violated, ordered Sberbank to give the plaintiff money - 400 thousand rubles, held in her account since January of this year.

Recognizing Sberbank’s actions as illegal, the court ruled: recover compensation for moral damages and a fine in favor of the plaintiff. According to lawyer Yan Chebotarev, who represented the plaintiff’s side in the process, once the decision comes into force, the victim will again turn to justice with a demand from Sberbank for compensation for legal expenses and losses caused to her for six months. Only 120 thousand rubles.

Back in January, Sberbank blocked the debit card of my client, a Kirov businesswoman, who at first, not even expecting that she would have to go through seven circles of hell, immediately asked the question “why” first to the hotline, and then to one of the local branches of the organization. First, asking orally, and when she did not get a clear answer, in writing. Including writing a statement on the Sberbank website.

At the local branch, the woman was told that “Moscow blocked the card.” The capital division sent the depositor to the “Processing Center” of St. Petersburg, which allegedly decided to block it. There they shrugged their shoulders and sent the client back to Moscow. There they snorted: sort out Kirov - and the cycle of circulation began. Having walked the path: Kirov-Moscow-St. Petersburg and back several times, the entrepreneur finally waited for an answer.

Only in February, the Kirov branch explained that, on the basis of Federal Law 115 on “countering the legalization of funds obtained by criminal means” and “countering the financing of terrorist organizations,” the bank was conducting an audit of the depositor’s activities, requesting along the way a bunch of documents and certificates, including tax declaration for the previous year.

Shocked by suspicions against herself about financing terrorists, the businesswoman tried to prove to the bank that she could bring a certificate from the tax office no earlier than April, when the declarations were submitted, but she heard in response: write an application, close the account and receive your money in 45 days. Then the investor’s patience ran out, and she actually wrote a statement, which she took to court.

I would call Sberbank’s position, voiced in the lawsuit, “very funny.” In their opinion, with reference to Articles 4 and 7 of Federal Law 115, he has the right not to disclose to the client the reason for the blocking, as well as to block the card and account for an unlimited period without any court decision, says Chebotarev.

The defense proved that the bank can independently block the movement of money and transactions for a period not exceeding three days to conduct an audit. And, if it is determined that the transactions are suspicious, contact the federal supervisory authority Rosfinmonitoring. Which, in turn, has the right to go to court to obtain permission to block. And since Sberbank could not imagine the appeal of the supervisory authority, as well as the court decision, The bank's actions were declared illegal.

Over the course of three meetings, the Bank referred to the Federal Law “On combating the financing of terrorism and the legalization of funds obtained by criminal way,” though only in one key, says Yan Chebotarev.

It was stated that the bank, without explaining the reasons, has the right to block any card and any citizen and demand an explanation of where the person got the money. Well, of course - where from? If there is not enough money in the budget...
The essence of Sber's claims also boiled down to the fact that the woman withdrew too much cash. We referred to the same 115-FZ, saying that it is the bank that must prove the substance of its suspicions, that the bank has the right to block the operation only for a few days, and not forever, that a person, his rights and freedoms are the highest value... Well, that didn’t bother me there. As a result, the court agreed with us.

Unreasonable suspicions of a person by a bank are not a reason to deprive him of his own funds outside the framework of a judicial procedure.

The Pervomaisky District Court of the city of Kirov, composed of presiding judge Yu.A. Rogacheva, examined in open court a civil case based on the claim of E.G. Konysheva. to PJSC Sberbank of Russia on the protection of consumer rights, compensation for moral damage,

INSTALLED:

Konysheva E.G. filed a lawsuit against Sberbank of Russia PJSC for the protection of consumer rights and compensation for moral damage.

She justified her demands by the fact that she is the holder of a Visa Gold debit bank card, opened at Sberbank of Russia PJSC, for carrying out transactions with funds in the account. On (date) she was unable to withdraw cash using the card due to it being blocked by the defendant. Bank employees indicated to her the possibility of receiving funds only when closing the card account, or transferring funds to another account.

Konysheva E.G. believes that her rights as a consumer of banking services have been violated, she has not been able to receive her funds for a long time, and there are no legal grounds for the Bank to withhold money.

Referring to the unreasonable restriction of her rights as a consumer to dispose of the funds in her bank card account, taking into account the clarification of the requirements (made at the court hearing (date)), she asks the court to oblige PJSC Sberbank of Russia to give her the funds in her account (Number), to recover compensation for moral damages (Data depersonalized), a fine of 50% of the amount awarded.

At the court hearing, plaintiff E.G. Konysheva did not appear, was duly notified of the consideration of the case.

Representative of the plaintiff Chebotarev Y.E. The updated claims were supported in full, referring to the arguments set out in the claim. Indicated that the Bank requested from E.G. Konysheva. on (date) documents, in particular, a patent and documents confirming the payment of taxes, the latter could not provide due to the lack of a patent, and the deadline for filing a tax return had not yet expired. He noted that the funds to Konysheva’s account in Sberbank did not come from unknown and dubious persons, but from Konysheva’s account in another bank - the Kirov branch of PJSC JSCB Svyaz-Bank, a detailed account statement from which is presented. It is more convenient for her to withdraw cash from Sberbank due to more favorable conditions. The funds were used exclusively for personal purposes, for the construction and renovation of their home.

Representative of the defendant PJSC "Sberbank of Russia" Likhacheva T.V. did not recognize the claims, considering them illegal and unfounded. She explained that in January 2016, the Bank blocked E.G. Konysheva’s card, that is, it stopped remote access to funds in the account, in accordance with Federal Law No. 115-FZ dated August 7, 2001 “On combating the legalization (laundering) of income received criminally, and the financing of terrorism”, since analysis of its for the period (Date) of transactions for the transfer and withdrawal of cash does not allow them to be regarded as the use of funds to satisfy the personal and household needs of the plaintiff, and therefore they are recognized by the Bank as suspicious.

To verify the legality of transactions performed using a bank card, the Bank suspended remote access to funds in the account. Konysheva did not provide the necessary documents, the card is still blocked. The plaintiff can receive funds only when the account is closed.

After listening to the explanations of the participants in the process and examining the written materials of the case, the court comes to the following conclusion.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 845 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a bank account agreement, the bank undertakes to accept and credit funds received to the account opened for the client (account owner), carry out the client’s orders to transfer and withdraw the corresponding amounts from the account and carry out other operations on the account.

The bank can use the funds available in the account, guaranteeing the client’s right to freely dispose of these funds.

The bank does not have the right to determine and control the direction of use of the client’s funds and establish other restrictions on his right to dispose of funds at his own discretion not provided for by law or the bank account agreement.

Due to the requirements of Article 858 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, restriction of the client’s rights to dispose of funds on the account is not allowed, with the exception of seizing funds on the account or suspending operations on the account in cases provided for by law.

The court found that Konysheva E.G. on the basis of an application form dated (date) to receive an international Sberbank of Russia card under the Banking Service Agreement (number) dated (date), a Visa Gold bank card (number) was issued, and an account was opened to reflect transactions carried out in accordance with the Agreement ( number) .

Konysheva E.G. is familiar with the Terms of Use of bank cards of Sberbank of Russia OJSC, which together with other documents constitute the Agreement on the issue and servicing of bank cards.

In accordance with these Terms, a bank card is the property of the Bank and is issued to the client for temporary use to pay for goods, services, receive/deposit cash at credit institutions and through an ATM, as well as perform other transactions. To reflect transactions carried out in accordance with the Agreement, the bank opens an Account for the client (clauses 2.1, 2.4, 3.1).

In accordance with clauses 7.2, 7.4 of the Terms, the card holder undertakes not to use it to carry out transactions that are contrary to the current legislation of the Russian Federation, and does not carry out transactions related to business activities on card accounts.

It was also established that on (Date) the bank card issued by E.G. Konysheva, the defendant Sberbank of Russia PJSC, was blocked.

The fact that the card was blocked by the defendant was not disputed.

The card is blocked until now.

(date) Konysheva E.G. appealed to Sberbank of Russia PJSC with a statement about the illegal blocking of the card, about the need to unblock the card and allow her to use her funds.

In addition, in the said statement of E.G. Konyshev. indicates that the funds in her account at Sberbank of Russia PJSC come from her account opened at Svyaz Bank PJSC. That it operates under a simplified taxation system and pays taxes on all incoming funds from business activities. Indicates the source of her income, and also that the funds she withdraws from her bank card are necessary for her and are used for personal purposes. To the statement of E.G. Konysheva documents were presented: certificates of her ownership of real estate objects, real estate objects in her possession and use, agreements on the maintenance and use of real estate.

In response to the specified stated (Date) (handed to the plaintiff (date)), the Bank with reference to the requirements of the Federal Law of 07.08.2001 N 115-FZ “On combating the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime and the financing of terrorism”, regulatory acts of the bank, internal procedures of the bank, asked to additionally submit: lease agreements, patent and documents confirming the payment of taxes for 2015.

According to the explanations of the plaintiff’s representative, E.G. Konysheva. could not provide the Bank with additionally requested documents, since she had not received patents, and the deadline for submitting a tax return for 2015 had not expired as of February. Currently, tax payment data for 2015 has been submitted to the Bank.

At the court hearing, a representative of Sberbank of Russia PJSC explained that in accordance with the Internal Control Rules for the purpose of combating the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime, dated December 30, 2014 No. 881-9-r, Bank employees analyzed transactions performed by Konysheva using bank card and, in the opinion of the bank, these transactions clearly did not correspond to generally accepted market practice for carrying out transactions, and therefore in January 2016 the bank decided to suspend remote servicing of the plaintiff’s card by blocking cards as a means of remote access.

(date) Konysheva E.G. I again personally contacted Sberbank of Russia PJSC to receive funds from my account. The defendant refused to issue funds; it was explained that funds can be obtained by closing the account, or transferring money to another account.

The defendant did not dispute that until now Konysheva E.G. cannot receive funds from his account without closing it, as provided for in clause 3.10 of the Terms.

However, based on the circumstances of the case, the court considers the Bank’s actions to limit the plaintiff’s right to dispose of funds in the account as contrary to the requirements of current legislation.

By virtue of the provisions of Article 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner has the rights to own, use and dispose of his property. The owner has the right, at his own discretion, to take any actions in relation to his property that do not contradict the law and other legal acts and do not violate the rights and legally protected interests of other persons.

General provisions on property rights apply to the legal relations of the parties and when disposing of funds in a bank account.

Restriction of the rights of the client (owner) to dispose of funds on the account is not allowed, except in cases provided for by law (Article 858 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation)

Federal Law No. 115-FZ dated 07.08.2001 “On combating the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime and the financing of terrorism” provides for various actions of the bank aimed at ensuring the implementation of this Law, including the suspension of transactions with client funds and refusal to execute a client’s order to perform a transaction (Article 7).

Thus, according to paragraph 10 of the above norm, organizations carrying out transactions with funds or other property suspend the corresponding operation, with the exception of operations for crediting funds received to the account of an individual or legal entity, for five working days from the day when the client’s order about it implementation must be carried out if at least one of the parties is:

a legal entity directly or indirectly owned or controlled by an organization or individual in respect of which measures have been taken to freeze (block) funds or other property in accordance with subparagraph 6 of paragraph 1 of this article, or an individual or legal entity acting on behalf of on behalf of or at the direction of such organization or person;

an individual carrying out a transaction with funds or other property in accordance with subparagraph 3 of paragraph 2.4 of Article 6 of this Federal Law (that is, an individual included in the list of organizations and individuals in respect of whom there is information about their involvement in extremist activities or terrorism carrying out operations aimed at receiving and spending wages in an amount exceeding... rubles, as well as making payments for obligations that arose before its inclusion in the specified list).

The said norm also stipulates that if, during the period for which the operation was suspended, the resolution of the authorized body to suspend the relevant operation for an additional period is not received on the basis of part three of Article 8 of this Federal Law, organizations carry out transactions with funds or other property at the order of the client, unless, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, another decision is made limiting the implementation of such an operation.

By virtue of paragraph 11 of Article 7 of the Federal Law “On Combating the Legalization (Laundering) of Proceeds from Crime and the Financing of Terrorism,” organizations carrying out transactions with funds or other property have the right to refuse to execute a client’s order to complete a transaction, with the exception of credit transactions funds received to the account of an individual or legal entity for which the documents necessary to record information in accordance with the provisions of this Federal Law have not been submitted, as well as in the event that, as a result of the implementation of internal control rules in order to combat the legalization (laundering) of income, obtained by criminal means, and the financing of terrorism, employees of an organization carrying out transactions with funds or other property have suspicions that the operation is being carried out for the purpose of legalizing (laundering) proceeds from crime or financing terrorism.

In accordance with parts 3 and 4 of Article 8 of the Federal Law of August 7, 2001 N 115-FZ, the authorized body issues a resolution to suspend transactions with funds or other property specified in paragraph 10 of Article 7 of this Federal Law for a period of up to 30 days in the event , if the information received by him in accordance with paragraph 10 of Article 7 of this Federal Law, based on the results of a preliminary check, is recognized by him as justified (Part 3).

By a court decision on the basis of an application from the authorized body, transactions on bank accounts (deposits), as well as other transactions with funds or other property of organizations or persons in respect of which there is information received in accordance with the procedure established in accordance with this Federal Law about their involvement in extremist activities or terrorism, or legal entities directly or indirectly owned or controlled by such organizations or persons, or individuals or legal entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of such organizations or persons, shall be suspended until such decision is revoked in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation (part 4).

In accordance with clause 2.9 of the Terms of Use of bank cards of Sberbank of Russia OJSC, on the terms of which an agreement was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, the Bank has the right to suspend transactions using the card or its details to verify their legality.

By virtue of the above provisions of the Federal Law dated 07.08.2001 N 115-FZ, restrictions on the implementation of operations for the disposal of funds available in the account can be established:

– by the bank independently for a period of up to five working days from the date when the clients’ orders for their implementation must be executed (clause 10 of Article 7 of the Law of August 7, 2001 N 115-FZ);

– on the basis of a resolution received from the authorized body – for a period of up to 30 days (paragraph 3 of Article 8 of the Law of 07.08.2001 N 115-FZ);

– by a court decision on the basis of an application from the authorized body of Rosfinmonitoring for the period until such a decision is canceled (paragraph 4 of Article 8 of the Law of 08/07/2001 N 115-FZ).

The issue of a bank card and the Client’s ability to remotely manage funds in the account when using it are the terms of the agreement concluded between the parties.

At the same time, no unconditional evidence providing the Bank to limit the owner’s right to dispose of funds belonging to him beyond the period established by law (Articles 7.8 of Federal Law No. 115-FZ dated August 7, 2001) was presented to the court.

Despite the legally imposed burden of proof, the Bank did not provide evidence of receipt of a resolution from an authorized body or a court decision to suspend transactions on the bank card account of E. G. Konysheva.

During the period from (date) (from the moment the card is blocked) and until now, the Bank does not carry out any actions provided for by current legislation.

Under such circumstances, the current restriction of the plaintiff’s right to use and dispose of his funds cannot be recognized as legal.

Blocking a card by a bank for a period exceeding five business days from the date when the client’s orders to carry out a transaction must be executed, in the absence of a resolution from an authorized body or court to restrict transactions with funds in the account, deprives the client of the right to remotely dispose of funds, therefore, it violates his rights as a consumer of banking services on the terms specified in the contract.

Having examined and assessed the evidence collected in the case in its entirety, by virtue of the above legal norms, the court comes to the conclusion that at present there are no legal grounds for preventing the owner from disposing of his funds; there is no evidence otherwise by the defendant, contrary to the requirements of Article 56 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation presented, and therefore the requirements of Konysheva E.G. on the issuance of funds in her account (Number), the court finds legal and justified.

According to Article 15 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Protection of Consumer Rights”, moral damage caused to the consumer as a result of violation by the manufacturer (performer, seller, authorized organization or authorized individual entrepreneur, importer) of consumer rights provided for by the laws and legal acts of the Russian Federation governing relations in the field of protection of rights consumers, is subject to compensation by the causer of harm if he is at fault.

Since the court established the fact of violation by the defendant of the rights of the plaintiff as a consumer of a banking service, there are grounds for collecting from the defendant monetary compensation for moral damage, which the court determines in the amount (Data depersonalized), considering this amount to be reasonable and fair taking into account the circumstances of the case.

In accordance with the requirements of paragraph 6 of Article 13 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Protection of Consumer Rights,” a fine in the amount of (Data depersonalized).

According to the provisions of Article 103 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, PJSC Sberbank of Russia is subject to collection of a state duty on the income of the municipal formation "city of Kirov" in the amount (Data depersonalized).

Based on the above and guided by Articles 194-199 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the court

Oblige PJSC Sberbank of Russia to issue E.G. Konysheva funds in her account (Number).

To recover from Sberbank of Russia PJSC in favor of E.G. Konysheva. compensation for moral damage in the amount (Data depersonalized), a fine of (Data depersonalized)

To collect from Sberbank of Russia PJSC a state duty for the income of the municipal formation "city of Kirov" in the amount (Data depersonalized)

The decision can be appealed to the Kirov Regional Court through the Pervomaisky District Court of the city of Kirov within a month from the date the decision was made in final form.

The decision in the next case was also made on May 19, but in 2015, its essence is that the VTB24 client won the court to restore the credit limit that she had been deprived of (282 thousand at a rate of 19% per annum).

However, the bank did not want to voluntarily follow the court decision and the bailiffs had to initiate enforcement proceedings on this fact.

For failure to comply with a court decision within a voluntary period, the bank was served with a demand, a warning about criminal liability for failure to comply with a court decision, and a resolution to collect an enforcement fee. After a couple of weeks, everything was fulfilled on the terms of the VTB24 client.