Hello dear friends!
Today we will talk about a problem that is not directly related to trade, namely, we will talk about the difficulties in crediting “hard-earned” money from trading in Russian banks.
But before proceeding directly to the problem itself, I want to thank my active reader and subscriber – Vladimir Lobov, who during our acquaintance has become my good friend and always keeps his finger on the pulse of the legislative field.
It’s great when there is feedback from practicing traders, since it is impossible to keep track of all the “sticks in wheels” that the regulatory authorities are trying to insert into us.
And it was like this …
Vladimir decided to withdraw some of the money he earned from trading. Dukascopy Bank sent funds without any problems, but difficulties began with Russian banks …
“After the creation of an application for withdrawal on the fifth calendar day, the money fell into an account (in a Russian bank) from where it had previously been sent to Dukascopy. And then the bank through the application on the communicator sent me a message with a request to provide documents (agreement) by April 29, 1919 on the basis of the Law on Currency Regulation No. 173-FZ. And I decided to write to you, since this feature was not discussed on your site “
No sooner had I figured out this issue (the May holidays and legal “idleness” at the dacha with spring field work), as Vladimir in his second letter to me not only voiced the problem, but also found a solution, for which he received a separate respect and respect !
“Good day, Sergey!
I would like to share the results of studying the problem with the bank and the way to resolve it.
I will not use specific references to laws, although if it is necessary in the future, I am ready to write a dissertation 🙂.
In general, recently some banks began to request documents for incoming payments to the client’s account.
By some banks, I mean those that do not take into account the amount of income, but simply request documents in case of any doubt or suspicion that arose.
By the way, the cause of the “doubt” or “suspicion” symptom, as well as the “headache” symptom, is unknown. And even most likely spontaneous (in those who are chronically ill). Therefore, no one is insured with an income of $ 500-1000 to receive a message from your favorite bank with an authoritative request for a “contract”.
The circle of “chronic” banks is expanding, apparently due to the whipping up of an atmosphere of fear of the opportunity for a banker to experience the happiness of losing his Central Bank license. Although the law itself indicates that its tightening is not aimed at discriminating against participants in foreign exchange (monetary) transactions.
It should be noted that the legislator does not oblige, but gives the right to currency control agents, which are banks, to request “documents”, listing them in a long footcloth (that is, a list) in the law. Moreover, it specifies that it is the Central Bank that determines with its instructions which document and in what situations it should be required (it is strange why not ask, because the “right”, not the “obligation”) from a participant in a currency transaction (hence, we, ordinary bank clients ).
That is, the legislator himself does not specify when to ask for which document. And the Central Bank has issued only one instruction on this topic, which for some reason is perceived by banks as a guide only with regard to entrepreneurial activity. Although I studied the instructions and did not find an indication anywhere that it applies only to entrepreneurs. After all, the legislator calls entrepreneurs not those who have registered, but those who are engaged in entrepreneurship. He considers the registered ones to be law-abiding, and the unregistered ones – criminals. Therefore, the instruction of the Central Bank is not concretized on entrepreneurship as a registered fact, but the banks apparently know better …
By the way, the law itself proposes to consider such a situation of legislative ambiguity as an unremovable contradiction that must be interpreted in favor of us, ordinary users. But banks are winning the courts on these topics. Noting that a participant in a currency (monetary) operation, if it was impossible to withdraw cash from an account, not only did not provide documents in bad faith, but also had the opportunity to make payment electronically, as well as transfer money to another account in another bank. And that is why the right of a participant in a foreign exchange operation has not been violated, which means that the complaint cannot be satisfied. By the way, I myself have come across this, God forgive me, disgusting formulation of the court: “the right is not violated, because I could go over my left shoulder with my right foot.”
Any Russian who receives an amount higher than the equivalent of 200,000 rubles into the account will definitely fall under the requirement to provide a “contract”. If the amount is less, then the instruction of the Central Bank invites the participant to limit himself to providing the bank with the operation code in accordance with the annex to the instruction
No. 181-I (http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_282089/51baededab360b52a94b7a2f1f71e35bd363c646/).
But in fact, the bank may continue to insist on the provision of documents justifying the operation. Moreover, he does not give any instructions, he simply confronts the fact that “the request-requirement to provide documents must be fulfilled before a certain date” (as I understand it, if the documents are not provided on time, the account can be blocked, but this is not a fact. the bank will be obliged to send to the Central Bank on the fact of illegal behavior of a participant in a currency transaction).
In my case, the following happened: on the day the funds arrived, on the same day, a message came through the bank’s mobile application with the following content: “Please send a photo of the contract in reply”.
We corresponded for several days until they realized what exactly they wanted. I gave them both the operation code and the documents that Dukascopy sent me, and gave them a link to the Dukascopy page, where PDF files with information are listed, and the bank did not calm down: “If you do not provide documents, then we will be obliged to inform Central Bank “. I even got a little confused for a while, who the client is, am I or where? Moreover, there is no discussion of such a situation on the Internet, from which I can draw a deductive conclusion that few people have encountered this, apparently due to the fact that few people withdraw funds from foreign brokers. In the end, when I had already prepared an angry text with a claim against the bank with links to laws, the bank offered to send an email that I received when opening an account with Dukascopy. After I sent them a letter, the bank immediately fell behind.
Conclusion: it remains unclear what exactly the bank is guided by when requesting documents, that is, what exactly does the bank want to see? Therefore, you need to concentrate all efforts on extracting information from the bank – what kind of “document” the bank wants to see, if there are no documents as such – most likely the bank will want to see the letter received when opening an account.
Best regards, Vladimir Lobov ”
Here’s a story like that …
Who else among you has encountered a similar problem? Add a plus to your karma and share your experience with the general public in the comments.
Lord traders! Subscribed to receive announcements at the bottom of the blog – they received useful information before others!
Sergei Evdokimenko was with you. I will answer all your questions in the comments.
Add a plus to your karma. Share useful information with your friends, they will say “Thank you”