RSS
Логотип
Баннер в шапке 1
Баннер в шапке 2

Bank for Trade Union Solidarity and Social Investment Solidarity

Company

width=200px

Content

History

2021: Each of the 6 ex-heads of Solidarity Bank arrested property worth 8 billion rubles

On August 6, 2021, it became known that each of the 6 ex-heads of the Solidarity trade union solidarity and social investment bank arrested property worth 8.1 billion rubles. The corresponding decision was made by the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal on the complaint of the Deposit Insurance Agency (DIA, bankruptcy trustee).

According to Interfax, citing a court order, the seizure of property affected the former chairman of the board of the Moscow credit organization Marina Bespalova, as well as ex-members of the board Vyacheslav Zinyakov, Dmitry Zhukov, Alexander Myachikov, Tamara Semeyutina and Evgeny Stulov.

Each of the 6 former heads of Solidarity Bank arrested property worth 8 billion rubles

The court considered the DIA complaint as part of a statement to bring seven former bank executives to subsidiary liability and recover 8.1 billion rubles from them. The Moscow Arbitration Court on May 14, 2021 refused the DIA to take security measures. Disagreeing with this, the agency filed a complaint, which the court upheld on July 27, 2021. DIA indicated that the controlling persons of the financial institution "provided loans to technical legal entities, as well as assigned market loan debt of legal entities to replace securities of unequal value."

At the same time, the court did not find grounds for the seizure of the property of another ex-member of the board Svetlana Goncharenko, "since the bankruptcy trustee did not provide evidence of alienation of the property."

Earlier, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation revoked the Solidarity license from the bank of trade union solidarity and social investments, explaining this by using an extremely risky business model and the poor quality of a significant part of the assets. The bank's business was focused on aggressively attracting funds from the population and placing them in assets of unsatisfactory quality. In addition, the bank committed numerous violations of restrictions on the implementation of certain operations imposed by the supervisory authority in order to protect the interests of creditors and depositors.[1]

Notes