One of the companies that held funds in an account with Concord Bank faced the fact that it could not return them after the bank's liquidation, despite the fact that it was due for repayment. The company believes that the Deposit Guarantee Fund is unreasonably blocking the return of funds. In a comment to UNN, a company representative said that the funds should have been used to pay salaries to employees and taxes.
Details
As explained by the company, the funds in question were a deposit. They were not pledged, seized or otherwise encumbered. In accordance with the law, these funds are classified as the 7th priority of creditor claims (claims of legal entities not related to the bank).
On November 8, the Deposit Guarantee Fund reported that the satisfaction of this queue of claims is ongoing. However, the company says that despite the legitimacy of its claims, it cannot receive the funds now.
"The company appealed to the Fund with a demand for payment of the funds due to it. However, no written response has been received from the Fund for four months. The Fund has not responded to any of the company's requests at all. Orally, the Fund stated that the funds would remain on the account until the company returns the funds received under the loan agreement, which in itself is an interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms," the company explained, emphasizing that the funds of the deposit in question were not pledged and were not encumbered by any other obligations.
The company considers such actions of the Fund to be illegal.
The Fund is aware that the loan agreement is secured by collateral (deposits) that are twice as large as the debt under the loan agreement (since the company serviced the loan at the expense of interest received on deposits and only on August 1 did the debt arise, because the DGF stopped accruing interest on deposits (the point is that since the regulator announced the liquidation of the bank and revoked the deposit license, this bank no longer accrues interest, while interest on loans continues to be accrued in full - ed. ). Secondly, the DGF should act exclusively within the legal framework, apply to the court, but not unreasonably withhold funds on the account. The company believes that such actions of the Fund fall under Art. 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (failure of an official to fulfill his/her official duties)
The company's representative explains that for the fourth month they have not been able to use the funds belonging to the company and carry out full-fledged business activities, as they are constantly engaged in finding out the grounds for non-refund, preparing appeals to the Fund, to law enforcement agencies, as such actions are aimed at seizing the company's property.
"In addition to applying to law enforcement agencies, the company intends to go to court (although this will take 3-4 months), where it will recover not only the funds due to it, but also court costs (for professional legal assistance) and non-pecuniary damage. This can significantly increase the company's creditor claims, and in turn, the Fund's illegal behavior will increase payments to the bank, which is actually a waste of funds belonging to the owners of the bank, which is in the process of liquidation," the company's representative emphasized.
UNN is preparing a request to get the position of the Deposit Guarantee Fund.