Human nature is amazing: he always wants more. The higher you are authorities and closer to money, the louder, apparently, the voice of such a snake-tempter. And to each he whispers his own, as if knowing who is greedy for what.
The Presnensky District Court of Moscow found Alexander Apakin guilty. This is the former owner of Benefit Bank. Another manager decided that everything was possible for him, and stole 4 billion from a credit institution. The result was six years in a colony with a general regime, as well as an obligation to compensate for the damage.
Apakin disposed of a 67% stake in the bank’s securities. He organized a scheme, thanks to which knowingly non-performing loans were issued to commercial structures affiliated with Benefit Bank. The check found all signs of fictitiousness and hooked.
Alexander Apakin within the framework of the criminal case, he appears in the usual role – he is the main one (and in this case the main villain). The banker gave instructions to his subordinates on the preparation of the necessary documentation. This was followed by the conclusion of contracts, and after – illegal transfers of money.
Back in 2012, in the means of “particularly corrosive” information Benifit Bank was called an organization not very transparent. How else, if the media suspected schemes for the illegal return of bank income tax and linked suspicions to the case of the deceased in jail Sergei Magnitsky (formerly worked as a lawyer).
Benefit-Bank was torn apart, in particular, for the fact that in 2009-2010 funds received from illegal VAT refunds were credited to bank accounts. In 2014, depositors of BPF Bank, which lost its license, complained that the credit institution had transferred part of its liquid assets to Benifit Bank on conditions far from the market.
In November 2015, the financial institution lost its license. Commenting on this decision, the Central Bank stated that there was a real threat to the interests of creditors and depositors and a hole in the bank’s capital in the amount of 3.7 billion rubles.
The regulator also pointed to the high-risk credit policy pursued by the bank’s management. The lack of provisions for possible losses on loans, commensurate with the risks taken, summed up the disastrous results. There also: non-compliance with the supervisory requirement for a reliable reflection of the financial position of the bank in the statements, endless complaints from depositors about non-fulfillment of obligations.