The courts ordered T-Bank to compensate the microenterprise for losses of 1.7 million rubles due to the frozen account

T-Bank may pay the microenterprise White Box LLC, whose account was frozen under Federal Law No. 115 “On Combating the Legalization (Laundering) of Proceeds from Crime and the Financing of Terrorism”, more than 1.7 million rubles, the amounts included losses in the amount of 1.69 million rubles and interest for the use of other people’s funds.

Banking suspicions

According to the courts of two instances, Tinkoff Bank illegally limited the White Box account service, including remote service, from November 12, 2021, considering that the client’s financial transactions were “confusing or unusual” and lacked obvious economic meaning or legitimate purpose, nor were they consistent with the objectives of the activity.

At first, cooperation between the company and the bank was constructive. The LLC was registered using the Internet service of Tinkoff Bank; upon registration, its employees advised the founder on the choice of OKVED and the tax system. White Box joined the conditions of comprehensive remote banking services (RBS), opened an account with the Professional tariff and began finishing apartments in Moscow. Within two weeks of work, the account received funds from Potok LLC, from which the company paid for accounting services, including those of Knopka, LLC, a partner of the bank, taxes and insurance premiums, according to court documents.

Soon, the LLC hired Vardanyan to help an individual entrepreneur, where freelancers worked. The bank found the attempt to pay the individual entrepreneur suspicious due to the lack of employees and freelancers who did not disclose their personal data. It also turned out that in the LLC itself, the general director received the minimum wage while working part-time. However, it was not possible to pay him even 5,000 rubles of his salary, as transactions were blocked. At the same time, no cash was withdrawn from the company’s account, and no money was transferred to related companies.

T-Bank demanded that the company provide a package of documents to comply with the requirements of Federal Law No. 115, which it did, but the restrictions were not lifted. In a business conversation with the bank, a message appeared stating that “based on the results of a thorough verification of documents, White Box LLC has limited its remote banking services and will not resume them.” The Bank referred to clause 7.1.5. terms of service, which provides for the right to deny the client to carry out transactions on the current account, as well as to establish restrictions on carrying out transactions through remote banking channels in some cases. The bank left the client the opportunity to carry out transactions on the account following written instructions, but only on the territory of a certain office in Moscow, according to court documents. In response, the plaintiff demanded to close the account and transfer the balance of 3.44 million rubles to Alfa-Bank, which was not done. As a result, the company went to court, calculating losses arising from the bank’s restrictive activities, the freezing of funds and problems with agreements.

The courts sided with the plaintiff and concluded that the bank had no right to control the client in his business and to impose restrictions on his right to dispose of funds at his own discretion, without explaining the reasons for the blockage.

“The exercise by a credit organization of its rights under Federal Law No. 115 must not be aimed at an unreasonable and dishonest unilateral refusal to fulfill a bank account agreement,” the court materials say.

T-Bank, which managed to change ownership and name during the proceedings, has not given up hope of challenging the decision. The bank filed a complaint with the Court of Cassation, the next hearing on the case will take place on September 4.

RB.RU sent a request to T-Bank, but at the time of publication of the material had not received a response. The interviewed experts believe that the bank has no chance to challenge the court’s conclusions.

Lost cause

Business and asset security expert, corporate law specialist, litigator Yulia Bondarenko considers that banks, using Federal Law No. 115, are increasingly interfering in the activities of companies and submitting requests that go beyond the requirements of the law or interpreting the provisions of the law more broadly than specified therein.

According to Bondarenko, in 2023 a number of rulings of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation appeared, where it indicated that general suspicions about a client cannot be recognized as an adequate basis for a credit institution’s refusal to carry out a specific transaction, and refusal to provide banking services on the basis of the application of measures provided for by Federal Law No. 115, in the absence of other signs of suspicion, cannot serve as an independent basis for suspending a payment transaction.

“Of course, each situation is individual, but in judicial practice there are many unnecessary measures by funding organisations,” the expert concluded.

Head of Arbitration Practice at Eclecs Anastasia Konstantinova The court believes that the main arguments of the court in declaring the bank’s actions to block the account illegal are the insufficiency of the presence of only a formal sign indicating the dubious transaction, as well as the decision to withhold the client’s funds being made independently and in the absence of a corresponding resolution from Rosfinmonitoring.

Moreover, the defendant’s actions are considered abuse of power and interference in the company’s economic activities, which is unacceptable. Moreover, the courts see dishonesty in the bank’s actions, but the company took all necessary measures for its rehabilitation.

“Analyzing the judicial practice in this area, it is logical to conclude that in such cases the courts refuse to satisfy the claims of legal entities in situations directly established by law. The most common violations are the non-correspondence of the address of registration in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities with the actual address of the company’s activities and the provision to the bank of only part of the requested documents. In this case, the court did not establish the mentioned violations on the part of the client, therefore there is a high probability that the court of cassation will uphold the decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court without changes,” the lawyer said.

According Director of Arbitration, lawyer and economist Yulia VerkhovtsevaThe bank has the right to request additional information or documents in accordance with the above law, however, there are often cases of blocking current accounts by the bank unilaterally without explaining the reasons for its actions.

The lawyer explained what to do if the bank blocks the account without reason:

• It is necessary, at the request of the bank, to provide the requested documents with written explanations from the organization;

• save all correspondence with the bank and take screenshots;

• assess the damage caused by the bank’s actions (in practice, damage is assessed in monetary terms, this could be termination of the contract due to late payment and other actions);

• send a written complaint to the bank; if the bank does not solve the problem, you can write a complaint to the Central Bank of the Russian Federation and go to court (for the complaint you will need evidence and a calculation of the damage from the bank’s actions);

• You can write a review about the poor quality of services.

According to Vladimir Kovalev, founder and managing partner of Kovalev and Partners LLC, In the present case, T-Bank, considering the client’s transaction to be dubious, was not guided by the signs specified in the Regulation of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation No. 375-P, did not inform the authorized bodies about the presence of suspicions regarding the client’s transactions, did not have information about the inclusion of the client’s counterparties in the list by Rosfin, monitoring organizations and individuals in relation to whom there is information about their involvement in extremist activities or terrorism.

“The prospect of overturning the decisions of the first instance and the appeal court is doubtful if we are talking about the justification of excessive control and violation of the procedure for such control by T-Bank, however, the dispute also contains procedural aspects, as well as an assessment of the amount of losses caused to the client. Certain adjustments may occur in these areas, but they do not change the essence of the decision taken,” the expert concluded.