Related Links
News
News Releases
February 2, 2022
Platina Bank, based on the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, declared the insignificance of violations and the absence of grounds for the Central Bank of the Russian Federation to revoke the licenseREPORT ON THE RESULTS OF THE COURT SESSION
Meeting date: February 2, 2022
Court: Moscow Arbitration Court
Case: No. 8470 ?40-226623/21 (Judge Utochkin I.N.)
Parties: Applicants — Platina Bank and its founders: LLC Gran, LLC Firm Energia, LLC Capital; Respondent — Bank of Russia
Subject of dispute: challenging the orders of the Bank of Russia to revoke the banking license from Platina Bank and to introduce temporary administration in Platina Bank
Court report:
On February 2, 2022, the Moscow Arbitration Court composed of Judge I.N. Utochkin the application of Platina Bank to challenge the order of the Bank of Russia to revoke the license from Platina Bank was considered.
During the court session of the Moscow Arbitration Court, representatives of Platina Bank stated to the court that all violations of the law referred to by the Bank of Russia as grounds for revocation of a license are either not violations as such, or are technical, or are insignificant According to the position of the Constitutional of the Court of the Russian Federation, the revocation of a license from a bank is an «exceptional measure of influence», which can be applied only in case of gross and repeated violations of the law that pose a significant threat to legal relations protected by law.
As the first and main violation, entailing the revocation of the license, the Bank of Russia during the court session referred to the failure of Platinum Bank to inform its beneficiary and Chairman of the Board of Directors Gribov A.Yu. about transactions on his bank card by sending SMS in a situation where the beneficiary of Platina Bank himself asked the management not to send him SMS notifications.
As another example of violation of the law by Platina Bank, the Bank of Russia pointed to the untimely sending by Platina Bank of a response to a request from Rosfinmonitoring. Rosfinmonitoring’s inquiry was whether two specific individuals were clients of Platina Bank. The response, sent with some delay, indicated that the persons in respect of whom the request had been made had never been clients of Platina Bank. At the same time, Rosfinmonitoring itself, which was involved in the case, did not state that it had any claims against Platinum Bank in connection with the alleged violations referred to by the Bank of Russia.
The Bank of Russia, contrary to the explanations of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, took the position that any, even the most insignificant and formal violation of Federal Law No. 115-FZ11 gives the Bank of Russia the right to revoke a license, and that the Bank of Russia has the exclusive right in its own way (and only in its own way) discretion to decide whether to revoke a banking license or not. This approach of the Bank of Russia to the interpretation of legislation not only contradicts the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, but creates conditions for legal arbitrariness on the part of officials of the Bank of Russia and is an attempt on the part of the Bank of Russia to withdraw its decisions on revoking banking licenses from judicial control.
Earlier, in the case of YuMK-Bank (case No. A40-65046/21), the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal found this approach of the Bank of Russia to be contrary to the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
Despite these circumstances, the Moscow Arbitration Court composed of Judge Utochkina AND.GN. at a court hearing on February 2, 2022, he refused Bank Platina to invalidate the order of the Bank of Russia to revoke the license from Bank Platina.
The lawyers of the Trubor Law Office of Moscow, who represented the interests of Platina Bank and its shareholders in court, stated that the court decision was contrary to the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, in connection with which an appeal against the court’s decision.
February 2, 2022
Moscow Law Office «Trubor»
Kirill Trukhanov
1Federal Law "On counteracting the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime and the financing of terrorism" dated 07.08.2001 N 115-FZSagereistrasse 33, 8152 Opfikon, Zürich, Switzerland
- Copyright 1997-2022 CyberPlat