We have an unusual situation. By the title, you most likely understood that the bank closed the account for us. But no! We want to close the bank account remotely, and the bank wants to milk us forever, it seems. Banks themselves in batches close accounts and do not open accounts when applying. Many were faced with a refusal to open an account without explanation. Banks like to scare another 115-FZ, but they are very afraid to write a written refusal to open an account. And as a result, they open it.
But we switched to another bank because of the desire to save money, and VTB was not satisfied with it purely technically. We have an account there since 2002 with the Bank of Moscow. And they do not give us normal integration using the 1C DirectBank open API. And our statements have long been automatically taken away, payments are sent to the bank and salaries are also sent through DirectBank through a salary project.
According toClause 1 of Article 859 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation , the bank account agreement is terminated at the
request of the client at any time. We sent a letter from the Internet bank with a request to terminate the contract and close the account.
It would seem that everything is simple, everything is obvious, everything is logical. There is a law. There is an internet bank where we send payments. But it turns out not! VTB refuses to close the account. Requires a personal appearance.
We're going to court. Fortunately, a personal appearance in court is not needed and the claim is sent remotely. See our claim here .
The coronavirus epidemic, of course, dragged things out and made it impossible to come to court in person. We lost the trial in the first instance. And to put it mildly, ofigeli. Here is the court 's decision .
The logic of the court is very florid. The court does not explain why it refuses to apply paragraph 1 of Article 859 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Indeed, in article 859 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation there are no words: "unless otherwise provided by another law or agreement of the parties." The court goes to the side, clings to 115-FZ, 63-FZ. And comes to the conclusion:
Since the law establishes the obligation of the credit institution toThat is, we can and are identified to send payments via the Internet bank. But we cannot withdraw from the agreement - we are not identified. In court, VTB does not claim that the hackers faked the letter to close the account. Also, VTB does not declare in court that the claim came to the court from an unidentified person.
identify the client (client's representative) who filed an application to
close the bank account, the court concludes that the
claims were denied in full.
We are now preparing for an appeal. In my opinion, the court decision contradicts common sense, logic and law. Such judgments are not conducive to the advancement of technology and a healthy business climate at all. Even if everything is correct from the legal point of view, it turns out that the law has no direct effect, it is canceled by the provisions of the Bank of Russia. And here a precedent is set when both parties agree that one side sent a letter to the other side, there are no questions about the authenticity and receipt of the letter, but despite the genuine letter, it does not matter.
We plan to write in the appeal that the law was incorrectly applied. That since VTB did not declare in court that the letter was not from us, it means that VTB identified us. And once identified, he is obliged to comply with paragraph 1 of Article 859 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
If anyone has any idea what else to indicate in the appeal, I would be grateful.