Former shareholders of Trust created a "pyramid"

High Court in London called the actions of the former shareholders of Trust Bank to "manage the balance sheet" dishonest and refused to unfreeze their assets.  
London Commercial Court judge Justice Meylz dismissed the former owners of the National Bank of unfreezing assets "Trust" Ilya Yurov, Nikolai Fetisov and Sergey Belyaev.

Recall order to freeze their assets for a total of $ 830 million was taken out in February of this year the High Court in London. How to write "Vedomosti", "of the court's decision, in particular, that the arrested Swiss bank accounts and the residence in Kent." This happened after the "Trust" filed a lawsuit against its former shareholders. It demanded the bank to repair the damage "caused by long-term fraudulent activities of the former leaders of the" Trust ", including the provision of false and deliberately non-performing loans to companies in which the former shareholders themselves secretly owned."

As follows from the text of the court decision, which cited "Vedomosti", "complex system of offshore companies oversaw Benedict Worsley, who claims to have worked" under the close supervision of the shareholders, in particular the first defendant (who was not Ilya Yurov). " Thus, Yurov, Fetisov andBelyaev attempted to mask the toxic assets, issuing loans to other offshore companies, which went to pay interest without reducing the debt the body, the newspaper notes.

In May Yurov applied for unfreezing assets, arguing that the order in principle, should not have been issued, as with his hand absent any risk of embezzlement. Also former shareholder denied possession of the borrower, insisting on the fact that they belonged to the bank "Trust" and used to "balance control".

Sam Yurov presented the description of the scheme, which adhered to the owners of the bank, as follows: "There were great fears that if all these losses will be reflected in the bank's balance sheet, its license will be revoked by the Central Bank of Russia, and he therefore declared bankrupt ... It was therefore decided the decision to use the evolving offshore bank network, and thus postpone the reflection on the balance of the bank's bad debt ... such "circular" transactions whose sole purpose was to push back the time when bad debts "kill" the balance were broadto spread in Russia at that time ... Maybe it's not quite in line with the requirements of Russian banking legislation, but it is widely practiced in Russia and was seen as an effective way out of almost hopeless situation ... "

While a final decision on the merits is still pending. However, the judge Meylz said, "it seems clear that the" balance "management methods described Yurov are fraudulent." "It was an ordinary pyramid with the extravagant name", - he stated the judge.

"Testimony of the witness say that if the Central Bank knew the truth about the situation in the bank, it would have revoked the bank's license. He (Yurov - "Rosbalt") has made active steps to conceal this from the position of the Central Bank. He knew that these steps will be illegal from the point of view of the Russian banking legislation ", - stated in the judgment.

The judge also Meylz drew attention to the benefits derived for the shareholders while the scheme was applied in the management of "Completing the circle of loans," ThuOba mask the insolvency of the bank. First, the defendant has received $ 12 million in salary and bonuses. Second, shareholders have benefited from the use of credits for which they have acquired assets - namely, stocks Willow River and RCP. "Their value now stands at about 100 million dollars", - specified in the judgment. Shareholders have benefited from other loans in the amount of about $ 70 million. The money was given to companies, the possession of which they are recognized. Meanwhile, these loans have not been repaid.

Former shareholders seem to understand the current situation in the bank, but, nevertheless, continued to actively attract deposits from new customers.

"From any point of view, shareholders benefited from what looks dishonest management insolvent bank", - says the decision of the court.

The judge also pointed out that the stock WR and RCP were collateral provided by the bank. However, December 17, 2014, a few days before the collapse in bank shares were exempted from collateral and directed by the shareholders without any consideration that has brought andm additional income.

English Court doubted that the shareholders, including the defendant, revealed all of its assets. The court decision states that they can only open that part of them, who was arrested and who was known to "Trust" - for example, bank accounts in Switzerland or residence in Kent.

"The fact that the defendant no longer have access to a network of offshore companies established Worsley, nothing says. Worsley is not the only one who could create such companies and manage them, - stated in the court decision. - The importance of this network is that it shows that the defendant is willing and able to make use of such structures in the fraudulent order to hide the beneficiary of this asset. This is exactly what he is, according to him, did, although he says he did it to the benefit of the bank - in the "balance control".

The Court pointed to the injustice done to the plaintiff - "Trust", which could occur in the event of approval of the application Yurov. "This is a case where the bank has a very strong position. He seems to have been the victim of massive fraud,ie that the defendant has benefited tens of millions of dollars, and maybe more. The behavior of the defendant even at his own expense, was unfair. It's about moving funds through a network of offshore companies for the purpose of disguising the origin of money from the regulator and data about the beneficial owners of their respective companies. The defendant received significant funds, but not told about it in the framework of the disclosure of his property. There is also strong evidence that seems to attempt to embezzlement. A more compelling arguments in favor of an order to freeze assets is difficult to come up, "- says the decision of the court.

As a result, a London court rejected the petition Yurov. In the bank itself is called the expected decision. As the director of the legal directorate of "Trust" bank said Sergei Massarsky, in terms of job prospects for the return of important assets are stated that the judge used. In particular, he noted that the "Trust" in this case there is very strong evidence presented.

"It does not directly bring us closer torepayment of funds which have been lost by the bank due to the actions of the former management, but undoubtedly makes our position even stronger. In any case, we understand that the process of search and recovery of assets will take a long time and it is too early to estimate how much money will be able to return ", - concluded Massarsky.

The trial of the case will be continued until a decision on the merits. Another significant meeting will be held in November this year, when the court will have to approve the tentative schedule of hearings for 2018.