The deposit is under suspicion. The bank has made a demand for full repayment of the loan, what to do in such a situation, what the bank has the right to do

You stopped paying your loan. A dark cloud hangs over your head: late fees, debt collectors, fear of losing your apartment and other property when the bank sues over a loan. Why and when does a bank go to court? How should a debtor behave in such a case in order to get away with it?

For what amount of delinquency does the bank sue?

The amounts may be different, since the basis for applying to the court is directly stated at the legislative level: your failure to fulfill your obligations under the contract. Banks often look at:

• The amount of debt you owe to the financial institution;
• The length of your delay (is it 2 weeks or already 6 months);
• Accrued late fees and others (it is beneficial for the bank that you remain in debt for as long as possible: this way more penalties will be “inflated” on the loan amount).

Attention! Litigation is a waste of time and effort for a financial institution. It is necessary to file a claim, pay state fees, and attend meetings (and this is all the time of a full-time lawyer). Just imagine when there are thousands of such debtors throughout the city. The bank will have to hire a huge staff of lawyers to “extort” pennies from debtors through the courts. Therefore, if the amount of your debt is less than 100,000 rubles, the financial institution will contact the security service or collectors.

In a difficult situation, it is better to contact the professionals of our company, especially if it concerns loan repayment and illegal actions on the part of the bank. There is no need to waste time proving something on your own.

This is a general unspoken rule. But there are also those banks that are ready to run to court over 20,000 rubles.

Which banks sue debtors?

Large banks value their reputation, so cooperation with collection agencies is not in their rules. In general, it is not their policy to forgive debts to clients. Therefore, they send their savvy lawyers to court:

• Sberbank;
• Bank of Moscow;
• Gazprombank;
• Alfa Bank;
• VTB;
• Raiffeisenbank;
• Home Credit Bank.

The larger the amount of loans issued (for the purchase of a car, real estate), the higher your risk of receiving a writ of execution. And along with it - the risk of paying the banking organization the amount of the loan issued + interest on the use of funds + a special penalty.

How long does it take for banks to sue?

The law prescribes that a banking organization can go to court within a day after the delay occurs. But in practice, banks act differently: they call with warnings several times a day, intimidate with criminal liability and problems with relatives, promise to call an on-site seizure team, and so on. The bank's security service is working with you. In practice, they will call for 2 months; if nothing works out, they will transfer your case to the professional guys from the collection agency.

But before the trial you will have at least 5-6 months to “settle” the situation. There are banks that sue after the statute of limitations has expired (but you shouldn’t rely on such “luck”).

ATTENTION! The latest official statistics from the Central Bank of the Russian Federation can hardly be called comforting for debtors. Banks “sell” (right of assignment) your debts to collection agencies. The financial institution receives a certain percentage for this.

Which banks will hand you over to collectors?

There are several banks that have been operating on the market relatively recently. Their goal is to win as many customers as possible (and to do this at any cost). Therefore, their loan programs always include unfavorable interest rates and other “subtleties”. Such financial institutions do not operate entirely “cleanly”, so they use contact with collectors as a method of protection.

Remember the names of these financial institutions:

• Tinkoff;
• Russian standard.

Is it profitable for the bank to start legal proceedings with you?

It sounds strange, but sometimes borrowers are more interested in the proceedings than the bank itself. For a financial institution this is:

• Serious waste of time. Lawyers need to prepare a claim, send it, make sure that the court has taken everything into account, and so on;
• Enormous costs of funds (payment of state fees, work of lawyers, etc.). As soon as he goes to court, he must stop charging fines and penalties to the borrower. This automatically entails loss of benefits;
• Risks of ending up with nothing. Of course, in 90% of cases the banks win the case. But the remaining 10% of losses make them a little wary;
  Damage to reputation. It’s unlikely that anyone wants to be “first in the number of debtors” in the market.

Attention! The secret tactics of most financial institutions look something like this:

• Notice the delay;
• Do nothing, wait for it to increase;
• Connect the security service to collect the debt;
• Invite collectors;
• Go to court if all the above methods do not work.

If you are overdue on your loan and the bank has not made demands for it, it is too early to rejoice. He's just waiting for the time to give you a hefty bill.

How do banks sue debtors? What to do in such a situation?

Usually they have everything “automatic” and it is almost possible to formulate a statement of claim electronically.

What should you do when this terrible cloud hangs over your head?

Calm down and get the help of a lawyer. If you are being defended by an “experienced” lawyer with solid experience, then you can relax a little. But you shouldn’t go against the system on your own: there is a risk that it will simply “break” you;

Collect all documents. This must be not only a concluded loan agreement, but also certificates confirming the deterioration of your economic situation (work book as evidence of loss of a source of income, and others). In general, everything that confirms a decrease in your income will be useful. Everything turns out absolutely correctly and legally: we refer to Art. 451 Civil Code.

An example from life. Let’s say that when concluding a loan agreement, your monthly income (confirmed by certificates and documents) was 50,000 rubles. The bank checked everything and gave you a loan in the amount of 1,000,0000 rubles. You regularly paid the amounts due, but after 6 months your income dropped to 25,000 rubles. This point is of fundamental importance for the court, and it is important for you to prove the fact of loss of income.

How to win a lawsuit against a bank?

Clarify all the details. You cannot hide from employees of a financial institution. Come upon their request, clarify all the nuances and subtleties of the work, your debt and other details. Remember the well-known rule: “Forewarned = forearmed”;

If the reason for the delay was objective circumstances (loss of a job, the occurrence of a serious illness, military service, etc.), we prepare all the documents and present them to the court. Often Themis takes the side of the injured party (debtor);

Collect receipts and checks indicating payment. This will allow you to demonstrate to the bank that you made all payments correctly. And then the financial situation simply forced you to change the order and subtleties of depositing amounts;

If you applied to a financial institution with an application for restructuring, but they refused to do so, you should also attach documents. They will once again prove your good faith and desire to resolve the issue in good faith.

How long does it take to resolve a loan with a banking organization?

All issues of judicial proceedings are regulated at the level of the Code of Civil Procedure. But what matters here is not only what is written in the law, but also the level of workload of the courts. In Moscow, justice officials are heavily overloaded with work. But in the regions, the load on the courts is several times lower. This means that cases will be processed faster.

Attention! In Moscow, a regular court case for non-payment of a loan lasts 3-9 months. With the participation of a professional lawyer, the terms can either decrease or increase. For example, very often the debtor is faced with the task of prolonging the trial (and professional lawyers can “stretch” it for 18 months).

You can resolve a dispute with a bank without any problems or difficulties if you contact professional lawyers with experience. In the meantime, a sample plate just for you.

Thus, the legal battle could last almost 40 weeks. It is important for you to attend all meetings in order to defend your interests if necessary.

You should not take out loans from a bank if you are going to refuse payments without objective reasons. In this case, it will be difficult for you to win in court; Themis will side with the bank’s defense. And you will simply create a huge number of meaningless problems for yourself, which will be quite difficult to eliminate.

Remember that loans are evil. Unfortunately, this is a necessary evil in the modern world. We wish you to get rid of them as soon as possible and live a normal life, breathing deeply and enjoying financial solvency. Let the financial problems remain behind. But you can definitely do all this (and very easily).

09 January 2018, 17:05, question No. 1865678 Michael, Moscow

Collapse

Lawyers' answers (3)

Lawyer, Saint Petersburg

Chat
• 10.0 rating
• expert

Good afternoon

If the bank client does not show up for the balance within 60 days after the bank sent him a notice of termination of the contract, or the bank did not receive an instruction to transfer money to another account within the specified period, then the funds will be transferred to a special account of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.

Civil Code of the Russian Federation Article 859. Termination of a bank account agreement

3. The balance of funds in the account is issued to the client or, at his instructions, is transferred to another account no later than seven days after receiving the corresponding written application from the client.
​If the client fails to appear to receive the balance of funds in the account within sixty days from the date the bank sends the client a notice of termination of the bank account agreement or the bank fails to receive the client’s instructions to transfer the amount of the balance of funds to another account within the specified period, the bank is obliged to credit the funds to a special account with the Bank of Russia, the procedure for opening and maintaining which, as well as the procedure for crediting and returning funds from which is established by the Bank of Russia.

​

Was the lawyer's response helpful? + 1 - 0

Collapse

• Lawyer, Moscow

  Chat
  • 10.0 rating
  • expert

  Good afternoon.
  

  1. First of all, I would like to note that all blocking of cards of individuals (as well as blocking of current accounts of companies/individual entrepreneurs) is not some whim of the bank and not some accident that cannot be predicted, but the consequences of violations committed by you.
  

  In short, there is already a fairly well-known law 115-FZ “On combating the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime and the financing of terrorism.” The law itself has quite a few specifics, namely, it says that transactions for one-time amounts of six hundred thousand rubles are controlled and they are indeed controlled, but this will not help you in any way understand the reasons for blocking cards, since banks control many other transactions and for many other parameters.
  

  In general, everyone who makes a large number of card transactions is at risk - freelancers, online stores and other companies that receive payment for goods/services on the cards of individuals, those who receive non-salary payments from legal entities. individuals/individual entrepreneurs, cryptocurrency traders, financiers, those who play on exchanges, receive payments from bookmakers, those who use online exchangers, who receive large sums from abroad and a huge number of other persons whose activities involve performing a large number of transactions on maps
  

  Certain specifics are set out in the Appendix to the Regulation of the Bank of Russia dated March 2, 2012 N 375-P “On the requirements for the rules of internal control of a credit organization in order to combat the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime and the financing of terrorism” - there is a list on 18 sheets , which contains the parameters by which banks must identify suspicious transactions.
  

  What does this look like in practice - the Central Bank has developed criteria for identifying suspicious transactions, banks, based on these criteria, have developed their own automated systems that automatically track all transactions according to specified criteria, and if the system recognizes your transactions for a certain period as suspicious - you a request comes in under 115-FZ.
  

  Therefore:
  

  A) Requests under 115-FZ are generated automatically by an automated system. Many people think that this specific person sits in the bank and chooses who to get to the bottom of, to whom to send the request. This is wrong! All requests are sent automatically if you do not comply with the parameters by which the bank’s automated system operates.
  

  B) Statements that “banks have become insolent and are blocking whoever they want” are all nonsense. Requests are formed based on strictly defined criteria; there are no “random” requests. Moreover, I note that the specified criteria of the Central Bank are the same for all banks, therefore, in my experience, stories in the format “Sberbank constantly blocks, but bank “xxx” does not block anyone” is also nonsense. There are indeed certain differences between banks, and sometimes quite significant ones, but the common vector for all banks is still the same and there are risks when working with any bank.
  

  On the other hand, I would like to note that many blockings are indeed unfounded and, in my experience, a significant part of bank blockings can be challenged in court, but in all cases it is better not to count on challenging the bank’s actions, but to initially work so that you do not receive requests.
  

  C) The mere fact of receiving a request is already evidence that your transactions in the bank have been recognized as suspicious and, accordingly, this already means that since you were working before the request, you cannot continue to work, otherwise the request may come again even if the bank does not do it for the first time the claim will be withdrawn (even if all transactions are formally legal).
  

  D) I would also additionally note that the same requirements equally apply to payment systems (Yandex.Money, Qiwi, WebMoney wallets, etc., although in practice they are generally more loyal).
  

  2. Regarding the blocking procedure. The order is usually as follows:
  

  A) You do not comply with the criteria of the Central Bank.
  

  B) The system automatically generates a request that you receive, in which the bank asks you for “the economic meaning of the operations being carried out” and a number of documents that should help the bank determine whether your operations are connected with something illegal or not. At this stage, as a rule, the bank already limits the ability to use the card until a decision is made based on the justification and documents provided by you.
  

  C) You provide the requested documents.
  

  Here, in practice, the most common mistakes are the following:
  

  – the person begins to wave a saber and declare that the bank’s actions are illegal, I have not violated anything (see point 1 and the arguments that requests should not just come, although banks do often request a lot of “extra” and similarly, requests often come in situations when you have not done anything even remotely illegal) and refuses to provide documents. By such actions, you actually refuse to fulfill your obligations to provide documents under 115-FZ, and this entails very bad consequences, including including you on the black list of the Central Bank (which already contains about 500,000 people and companies, a huge number of which are really not were engaged in no crime, but simply carried out operations incorrectly, or took the wrong position after receiving a request about the bank).
  

  It’s also a common mistake - a person doesn’t really need the card (for example, there is no money on it anymore and there is no interest in using it anymore) and he decides that I won’t provide anything, I’ll close it and that’s it, since I don’t need it.
  

  Another common mistake is to count on the fact that you will be able to repel any claims by providing contracts to confirm the transfers, regardless of the nature of the transfers. You need to understand that the bank can block you not only when there is direct evidence that you have violated the law, but also when the very nature of the transactions gives reason to believe that the transactions may be related to illegal activities, even despite the documents you provided. The practice of specific banks is of great importance here.
  

  It is also a common mistake to give an answer without a preliminary analysis of the situation with a lawyer, since there are many other small and often formal aspects of interaction with the bank at the stage of receiving a request, failure to comply with which can result in a blocking even in a situation where it could have been avoided and when Indeed, you carried out exclusively legal transactions.
  

  D) A specific bank employee reviews the documents and ultimately makes a decision on your situation (accordingly, at this stage there is already a certain dependence on a specific bank employee) and either removes all claims and all restrictions on the card, or leaves the blocking in force and, as a rule, this In this case, you are asked to write a statement about closing the card “at your own request.” Also in practice, after receiving documents, sometimes the bank may request additional documents.
  

  3. You may ask - how is it possible, my friend/acquaintance spends huge sums through cards and no one blocks anything for him despite all the restrictions, why then was I blocked?
  

  The answer is quite simple, several options are possible:
  

  A) Your friend/acquaintance intentionally/unknowingly performs transactions in such a way that the bank/payment system does not recognize them as suspicious, since if the criteria are met, you will not receive a request.
  

  B) It’s just that the total duration of operations has not yet led to operations being recognized as suspicious and blocked, and sooner or later this will happen.
  

  4. Consequences. Based on my practice, I can say that:
  

  A) In case of blocking, the clear consequence is a damaged relationship with the bank that blocked you, that is, cards/accounts will no longer be opened for you here. Although there are still exceptions here.
  

  B) A worse consequence is being blacklisted by the Central Bank. If you actually engage in crime or if your transactions are not connected with anything illegal, but at the same time you take the wrong position in dealing with the bank, there are serious risks of getting blacklisted by the Central Bank and in this case, not only the one who blocked you will not want to cooperate with you bank, but also any other bank in general, since all banks will see that you are on the Central Bank’s blacklist.
  

  Q) Many people are still interested in whether the bank will give the money back? Here I will just say that according to the law, yes, the bank is obliged to give the money, but in my experience, it is not so easy to get your money from the bank, there are certain nuances.
  

  So, to summarize:
  

  1) There are no random blocks; each block is a series of mistakes on your part.
  

  2) It is very important to take the right position in communicating with the bank, prepare correct explanations regarding the economic meaning of the operations being carried out; the slightest mistakes at this stage can lead not only to account blocking and difficulties in returning money from the bank, but also to your blacklisting by the Central Bank with all that it implies.
  

  3) It is very important to initially work so that you take into account the requirements of the Central Bank and the banks themselves when carrying out operations, and do not carry out operations that are questionable according to the criteria of the Central Bank, since only this can protect you from blocking.
  

  I hope my answer helped you.
  

  Sincerely,
  

  Vasiliev Dmitry.
  

When issuing a loan, the bank expects timely and full repayment from you, counting on regular receipts according to the schedule scheduled for the entire term. By allowing 2-3 delays, you are on a slippery slope, which leads to the formation of a bad debt and the costs of fines, penalties, and other troubles that the bank will definitely arrange for you.

If the situation is advanced and the person has not taken measures to eliminate the accumulated debts, calls and letters from the creditor will follow with a warning of the intention to sue. In some cases, the bank or its contracted debt collector will notify you that your property will be seized to pay off the debt, with or without a trial. The question arises as to how lawful this penalty is and whether we should be afraid of threats.

What the bank has the right to do

Practice shows: it makes no sense to expect the bank to forgive your debt. If you find yourself in difficult life circumstances, you should not hope that the creditor will understand your situation and leave you alone. On the contrary, notification of personal financial insolvency threatens to accelerate the time for going to court and issuing a court verdict. When answering the question whether the bank has the right to collect a debt from property, it is necessary to take into account that such a measure is permissible only with the consent of the court after considering the case of collection of credit debt.

Until the writ of execution is received, the bank has every right to the following series of actions:

If the debtor avoids conversations, hides, and categorically refuses to pay, the financial company has no choice but court. If the situation cannot be resolved peacefully, forced collection awaits.

By threatening a lawsuit, a credit institution most likely realizes that in some cases there will be nothing to collect, or circumstances do not allow for the return of any significant amount. The lender has its own restrictions established by law, for example:

1. We must not be misled about the dire prospects for further payment evasion.
2. It is prohibited to independently seize the property and personal belongings of the defaulter until a writ of execution on forced collection is received.
3. Insist on payment of additional compensation not provided for in the contract. All financial consequences of non-payments and delays are indicated in the clauses of the concluded agreement. The court will be guided by it when making a final verdict against the debtor.
4. Disseminate or neglect the possibility of outsiders gaining access to information about the amount of the client’s debt. If writing a formal letter, promissory notes should not be written on the outside of the item or envelope.
5. The creditor is prohibited by law from questioning loved ones and relatives regarding the availability of property in the property of the defaulter.

The latter situation is rare, since banks have learned to resolve financial issues in their favor and have extensive opportunities, including interaction with lawyers, courts, bailiff services and debt collectors. However, after three years (when the statute of limitations expires), the bank has no right to go to court or otherwise demand payment of a long-standing debt.

When you hear on the phone how the bank threatens to take away property or tries to forcibly seize some things, it is recommended to record the violation and sue the bank. This will not help get rid of the debt, but it will discourage excessively fast debt collectors from using illegal methods.

And yet, the bank has the right to force a person to pay off his debts, having received the necessary court order with the support of its own legal department.

The simplest courts are for collateral, for example, a mortgage. Here, the chances of keeping your home without paying the housing loan are zero, and the court will strictly adhere to the regulations of the Law “On Mortgage,” which clearly indicates cases of possible alienation of housing.

An exception when the bank does not have the right to direct financial claims to property will be:

1. Lack of consent of the legal representative or supervisory authority (guardianship department) to take any actions under the mortgage agreement if the interests of their wards are affected.
2. Recovery from the property of an enterprise or legal entity.
3. Registration as collateral of property classified as objects of cultural and historical value or that is the property of society.
4. Registration of mortgage housing (property) for several owners who do not agree with the alienation of the collateral property.

Thus, when a bank, persuading a client to find funds to repay a debt, cites the risk of loss of property as an argument, you should not immediately rush into panic. There are too many obstacles in the bank's path for the threat to become a reality. However, in order to avoid neurosis, it is better to pluck up the courage once and admit to the bank about your own financial insolvency. The bank, like you, is interested in a peaceful resolution of the situation, avoiding the costs of courts, lawyers, and related expenses. Moreover, there are many ways to resolve even the most hopeless situations.

A rich client is not always desirable for a bank. Some credit institutions, before opening a deposit or account for a large amount of money, try to find out their origin by asking the client for additional documents.

Internal instructions bypassing the law

In theory, banks are happy to have any depositor, especially a large one who brings in a lot of money over a long period of time. However, a VIP client should not be surprised if he is asked to explain the origin of these funds.

Users of the Banki.ru portal are often interested in how the bank will react to the opening of accounts and deposits for large amounts. For example, a visitor under the nickname sny asks if the bank can ask him for proof of income for a deposit of 1 million rubles.

The visitor under the nickname mashulchik has a different situation. “I am officially unemployed, but I live with a fairly wealthy man who gives me significant, let’s say, sums of pocket money for expenses,” she writes. - I opened an account in one of the Russian banks and periodically replenish it, I will soon accumulate a significant amount. Will anyone have questions about where a non-working person gets such funds?”

Some visitors share their experiences. For example, Sergey7 tells how an acquaintance of his deposited money “proceeds from the sale of his mother’s apartment” into Raiffeisenbank. “I had to show the purchase and sale agreement and confirm my relationship with my mother,” he notes.

Formally, the legislation does not provide for requirements for verifying the legality of depositors’ money. “The Law on Combating Money Laundering does not establish mandatory control on the part of the bank if the depositor opens a deposit in his own name,” points out Lidiya Gorshkova, head of banking practice at Pepeliaev Group. “If a client opened a bearer deposit or transferred money in favor of third parties in an amount exceeding 600 thousand rubles, then the bank would be obliged to transfer information about such transactions to Rosfinmonitoring.”

This rule also applies to replenishing the deposit: if the client adds money to the deposit at his own expense, then no questions should arise for him. If the funds come from third parties, the bank may pay increased attention to such transfers.

However, as the bankers themselves admit, their internal rules establish requirements for verifying the legality of the origin of money. “Each bank independently determines the amount above which it will request additional documents confirming the legality of the origin of the money. For some it is 600 thousand rubles, for others it is several million,” says an employee of the financial monitoring department of a large bank on condition of anonymity.

Banks note that such documents can be a certificate from the employer about the amount of salary, copies of documents confirming financial transactions, for example, a property purchase and sale agreement, a gift agreement, etc.

But the bank can refuse to open an account only in one case. “Currently, the legislation provides for only one legitimate reason for refusal - failure by the client to provide documents necessary for his identification,” emphasizes Maria Saenko, deputy head of the department of passive and commission operations at VTB 24. “For an individual - a citizen of Russia, a document sufficient for his identification is a passport of a citizen of the Russian Federation.”

One of the bankers admits that a credit institution will open an account or deposit for a client, even if he does not have the requested documents - this is required by law. But at the same time, the bank can put it on special records and will closely monitor the transactions performed.

“When a client opens a deposit or account for a large amount, there is no reason to consider it suspicious,” states Alexander Golubev, head of the legal department of SDM-Bank. “Much more important are the transactions that then go through his accounts.”

According to Golubev, if a bank has suspicions, it must send information on these transactions to Rosfinmonitoring, which, in turn, can transmit information to the tax service, law enforcement agencies, etc.

Moreover, according to the law on money laundering, banks are prohibited from informing clients about these actions. “Since January of this year, one exception has been in force - if the client refuses to submit documents required by law to verify the transaction,” explains First Deputy Chairman of the Board of Vitas Bank Sergei Sergeev.

By law, a bank does not have the right to close an account for a suspicious client, but, as a rule, credit institutions introduce protective tariffs that make transactions unprofitable. “Some clients are trying to challenge these tariffs in court, but judicial practice is in favor of banks,” says Golubev.

Western banks are stricter

However, some banks prefer to play it safe and begin checking the client even before he brings his money. Having called the call centers of the largest Russian banks and credit organizations with foreign capital, the Banki.ru observer found out that not everyone will accept unconditionally large deposits (1-3 million rubles).

For example, Alfa-Bank said that they were ready to open a deposit for a large amount, but if it exceeds 600 thousand rubles, then information about it will be sent to Rosfinmonitoring.

The Raiffeisenbank call center reported that when making a deposit in the amount of over 600 thousand rubles, you will need to provide evidence of the origin of this money: a certificate of income in form 2-NDFL or other documents.

The UniCredit Bank call center stated that employees have the right to request additional documents. “But most often they don’t ask,” the operator clarified. The VTB 24 call center was also informed about the possibility of such requests.

The Bank of Moscow noted that information on all documents can only be provided at the branch. The absence of requirements for confirmation of the depositor's income was reported in the call centers of Sberbank, Promsvyazbank, and Uralsib.

Experts attribute the stricter requirements of foreign banks to the source of income of their clients to international rules. “According to Western standards, banks are quite strict in checking the legality of the origin of funds,” says Lidiya Gorshkova. “It is therefore possible that some banks are acting within the group’s requirements.”

The press service of Raiffeisenbank itself said that the bank identifies clients and their transactions in accordance with the requirements of federal legislation, the Bank of Russia and its internal procedures.

In Western countries, most of which are members of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), proof of the legal origin of money is one of the main conditions for mutually beneficial cooperation with banks.

For example, as realtors specializing in real estate abroad say, when opening a bank account to pay for a large purchase, the bank asks the client to provide documents showing the source of available funds.

Russia is not yet a member of the FATF, and Russian legislation does not provide for the presentation of such requirements to the client. “Proof of the source of origin of money has nothing to do with a bank deposit; from the point of view of protecting personal data, such requirements are unacceptable,” says Sergey Sergeev.

If a credit institution persistently asks a client to show additional documents, he can sue and recover the interest on the deposit that he would have received for the entire time when the bank refused to open a deposit.

Today, almost every company has switched to a non-cash payment option and pays salaries to its employees using plastic bank cards. This payment method is not only convenient, but also reliable.

It allows the employer to save time and money that was previously spent on transporting cash to the cash register, and employees can store money on the card without fear that it will disappear somewhere.

Dear readers! The article talks about typical ways to resolve legal issues, but each case is individual. If you want to know how solve exactly your problem- contact a consultant:

APPLICATIONS AND CALLS ARE ACCEPTED 24/7 and 7 days a week.

It's fast and FOR FREE!

But despite all the convenience of salary cards, they also have their disadvantages. We are talking about the possible blocking of the card by the bank. Why is this happening? Who can have funds blocked from their account? And what to do with it?

Legislative side

Whether a bank can block a salary card depends on whether this was indicated in the cooperation document. Typically, a credit institution resorts to this only if one of the clauses of the loan agreement states the possibility of this action.

Funds are blocked most often for those payroll clients who have a loan or installment plan from a particular bank. An institution may resort to such action due to delay, in order to further receive funds that the client owes.

According to the agreement, withdrawal of a certain amount of money from the client’s account can be carried out solely on the basis of his order. If there is no such permission, then the funds are written off by a court decision or in accordance with an agreement that states the client’s consent to this manipulation.

Refunds from the salary account back to the bank are carried out only at the will of the client. This may be a payment agreement in the case of non-cash payments, or written permission to transfer money to the bank's cash desk.

Such an order should not be written at the request of the institution; the client has the right to make his own decision about the use of his salary funds in this way.

Based on the law, the bank can limit the client’s right to dispose of personal funds on the basis of financial seizure.

In some cases, the bank’s right to write off client funds is provided for in the clauses of the salary agreement.

If there is arrears on the loan, the organization can block cash receipts, but only within the amount of the debt

What to do

The bank has the right to block a salary card not only because of arrears on the loan.

Blocking can be caused due to the following actions:

• incorrect PIN code entered more than three times;
• conducting suspicious transactions (receipt of funds not related to salaries);
• at the request of the client (loss of card);
• I swallowed the card and did not return the ATM.

What to do if the bank has blocked your salary card? In the first case, to unlock it, you need to visit the nearest branch of the institution, taking your passport and TIN with you.

The account will be opened after writing the appropriate application. If the PIN was entered incorrectly because it was forgotten, the application should indicate that the card was changed.

If the card was blocked on suspicion of fraud due to suspicious transactions, then access to the money can only be restored by visiting the office of the credit institution in person. In this case, in the application for unblocking you will have to indicate from which sources the funds were received into the salary account.

If the card is lost or stolen, the client himself calls the bank and asks to block it.

To resume access to funds, you will have to write an application for a new card. This can be done both at a bank branch and at the accounting department of the company where you work.

If a salary card was swallowed by an ATM and not returned, the client will need to call the bank’s hotline and report what happened.

The telephone number is indicated on the self-service terminal itself. After this, you can pick up the card the next day by visiting a branch of the institution, which a bank employee will notify you about in a telephone conversation.

The client can solve the problem of blocking the card either independently, by personally visiting a bank branch, or by entrusting this issue to the accounting department of his company.

On what basis can a bank block a salary card?

In what case does the bank have the right to block a salary card if the contract does not indicate that the client gives the go-ahead for such actions?

Withdrawal of funds or blocking of an account is permitted if there is a court decision or on the basis of a lawsuit.

Also, such decisions are often made in accordance with the loan agreement, which specifies the possibility of resorting to such manipulation in the event of a delay.

Without a court decision

The bank has the right to resort to writing off the client’s funds or blocking the card only by a court decision.

If this happened without a court decision, then it is a violation of the law to carry out such manipulations on the part of the credit institution. In this case, the debtor should go to court to cancel the bank’s actions.

In most loan agreements, banks often stipulate the possibility of debiting funds from the client’s account on a direct-to-consumer basis.

We are talking about specific amounts that the institution can withdraw if necessary, namely:

• bank commissions;
• payment for services when transferring funds to third parties;
• any charges that the client undertakes to pay (penalties, interest, fines, etc.);
• taxes that the institution undertakes to collect from clients in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation;
• erroneous financial entries;
• loan arrears.

However, it should be remembered that even if there is a note in the agreement on the right to direct debit of funds, the client still has the right to challenge this decision of the bank in court. In most cases, the court obliges the credit institution to return funds to the account.

Based on the claim

A salary card may be blocked by the bank based on a lawsuit.

This type of financial arrest is imposed by the following authorities:

• tax office;
• courts;
• customs organizations;
• financial monitoring service.

In this case, the card can be unblocked only after the arrest has been lifted. If you need funds urgently, then try to personally negotiate with creditors to withdraw the claim without trial.

Otherwise, it will be possible to resume access to funds only after all litigation and repayment of the debt.

Basic questions of the procedure

Having noticed that funds have begun to disappear from a salary card, each client has many questions and to get answers to them, the first thing to do is contact a banking institution.

It often happens that the decision to write off money is made in court without the participation of the debtor himself and therefore the person remains in the dark.

Debt write-off

A banking organization can write off money based on a court decision, which was carried out following a claim from a creditor. Such withdrawals of personal funds may be used to pay alimony, loans, utility debts, taxes, etc.

At the same time, the debtor must know that write-offs by the bank can only occur in the amount 50% from the amount credited to the account. Sometimes it can reach 70% , but this rarely happens. He can freely use the remaining funds for personal needs.

The court may reduce the amount of deductions if:

• the debtor has a minor child (only written off 30% );
• the debtor is a single father (maximum withdrawal up to 25% ).

If all available funds are written off from the card, the client should contact the bank to clarify the circumstances, and if the institution refuses to return part of the money, then the client should go to court for further proceedings and lifting the arrest

Is it possible to withdraw money

If the card was blocked at the initiative of the client, for example, due to loss, then funds can be withdrawn at the bank’s cash desk using the passport. If the card was later found, then to unblock it and continue using the money, you just need to call the institution with a request to cancel the blocking.

If your card is blocked due to an incorrect PIN code, you need to contact support to find out what to do next. Some banks block cards temporarily, which allows you to use the funds after expiration. 24 hours.

Other credit institutions imply permanent blocking and to restore access to funds, you need to write an application for a new card.

If you need money urgently and don’t have time to wait for a new card, you can withdraw funds at the cash desk. In some institutions, it is enough to present a passport for this.

In others, you need to have a card with you along with your passport, so if it is lost, you won’t be able to withdraw it. But most banks, for example, still give money to clients in the absence of a card, but only if they write a corresponding application.

Making claims

What to do if the bank has blocked the card or withdraws funds without a court decision or a statement of claim? Is it possible to reverse this decision and restore free access to personal funds?

Each client, faced with this problem, has the right to challenge the bank’s actions in court by filing a statement about the unlawful actions of the credit institution. If you do not want to participate in legal difficulties, you can try to resolve the issue with the bank itself by presenting relevant claims to it in writing.