Quite common in the lending industry. Due to the availability of favorable conditions for obtaining a loan, many scammers take advantage of this for their own purposes. The formal component of customer verification opens up many avenues for criminals to enrich themselves.

The essence of lending fraud

The main goal of scammers is to obtain various loans, which they did not plan to repay from the very beginning. Or it implied a partial return of funds sufficient to clear oneself of charges of criminal intent.

In addition, according to the content of Article 159.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the most significant factor in the crime is the submission of initially false and invalid information. This list includes:

• fake documents (passport);
• invalid income certificates;
• any other papers containing invalid data that may help in obtaining a loan.

The legislation of the Russian Federation provides for punishment for fraudsters only for providing false information when applying for a loan. Any actions of fraudsters in the process of debt repayment are not regulated by Article 159.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The main difficulty is that it is impossible to understand: the attacker really refuses to repay the loan, or the client really did not have the opportunity to do this. But if during the audit it is discovered that false information was provided when obtaining a loan, the fraudster will be found guilty.

In order to unambiguously determine a person’s actions as unlawful, it is necessary to have specific factors, namely:

• the offender must be 16 years old;
• the presence of criminal intent, the main purpose of which is to obtain a loan and unwillingness to repay it (or its misuse);
• providing the credit institution with any documents and information that do not correspond to the real state of affairs.

In general, this is exactly how the crime can be characterized. There is a subject, an object, the objective and subjective sides of their relationship.

The key factor for law enforcement is that the attacker knows in advance that he is submitting invalid documents and has no intention of repaying the loan. If it is possible to prove the guilt of the criminal, then criminal proceedings will certainly begin.

This video discusses Art in detail. 159.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: what is considered fraud in the field of lending, in what cases liability arises, etc. It also gives advice on what to do if you are accused of such a crime.

Features of credit fraud

Obtaining a loan by criminals hides many non-obvious details:

1. Criminal prosecution occurs only if the loan amount exceeds 1 thousand rubles. Otherwise, the actions of the attacker will only entail administrative liability under Article 7.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

2. To obtain a loan, criminals can use dummies. Usually these are citizens who have permanent residence, but do not have any permanent income. For this kind of mediation, they can receive a certain monetary reward. Often, such amounts are small, since these individuals will ultimately not be subject to criminal liability. Although this is exactly the information that attackers give them, this is not always true.

3. Sometimes fraudsters carry out their actions through dummies who do not know about their participation in the crime. The documents of these citizens are provided to the credit institution by an official of the company, who has the legal right to provide these papers to various organizations. If such intermediaries really had no idea about their participation in the crime, they will be exempt from criminal and any other liability. And the malicious leader will have to bear much more severe responsibility, since the use of his official position is an aggravating factor.

4. Most of the time is spent by law enforcement agencies reviewing financial documents. During these actions, attempts are made to find and provide evidence of a criminal motive in the actions of the attacker. The main goal is to search for information about:

• unwillingness to repay the loan;
• providing invalid information;
• misuse of loan funds.

Only a small portion of law enforcement's work involves investigative activities. This is due to the fact that attackers do not try to hide, because their main activity is:

• searching for loopholes in legislation;
• taking advantage of the inattention of credit institution employees when issuing a loan;
• maximum attempts to avoid criminal punishment or transfer it to administrative liability.

Attackers are trying with all their might to hide evidence of their illegal activities, manipulate the documents provided (and not only) and reduce criminal liability as much as possible. This is why reviewing financial documents is a key activity for police officers. It is not possible to identify the attacker by any other means due to the specific nature of the crime.

5. If criminals use a fake or stolen passport when obtaining a loan, they can send intermediaries who look similar to the owner of the documents. Criminals may use makeup or bright clothing to distract an employee of a financial institution. All this is done to deceive the lender and get money.

Under such conditions, police officers will spend much more time on search activities. An important factor will be the testimony of the loan officer and any other witnesses. Elements of clothing, gait, human behavior and any other distinctive features that allow identifying the attacker or his intermediaries will be taken into account.

Fraud in obtaining a loan, when a criminal provides false documents to credit organizations, entails punishment in this form:

• fine 120 thousand rubles. or in the amount of the perpetrator’s income for a period of up to 1 year;
• compulsory (360 hours), corrective (up to 1 year) and forced (up to 2 years) labor;
• restriction of freedom up to 2 years;
• arrest for up to 4 months.

Aggravating factors are:

• the crime was carried out by a group of persons under a criminal agreement;
• the fraudster’s use of official status (and therefore on a large scale) to commit a crime;
• particularly large amount of stolen funds.

If one of these conditions is present, responsibility, as well as the punishment for the crime, increases significantly. For example, dishonest receipt of funds on a particularly large scale will result in a prison sentence of up to 10 years. Additionally, a fine of up to 1 million rubles may be imposed. and/or restriction of freedom for 2 years.

Criminal liability may vary depending on the factors present and the characteristics of the crime. The type and measure of punishment are assigned by the court at its own discretion, according to the studied circumstances of the case or depending on the severity of the damage caused by the crime.

Also during the trial the emphasis is placed on the attacker himself. The punishment for a crime will be milder for a private individual, average for an organized group and the most severe for an official. But the circumstances of the crime, the assessment of the involvement of accomplices in the crime, etc. will still be taken into account.

How to prove a crime?

In judicial practice, there are countless different schemes used by fraudsters in the field of lending. One of the ways to obtain credit funds is the following (the most common):

• the attackers find a homeless person, provide him with clothes, teach him manners, help him clean up (wash, shave, etc.);
• he is given forged documents, a fake income certificate, etc.;
• if all this allows a given citizen to obtain a loan from a bank, then after leaving the financial organization, the money is confiscated from the person by criminals;
• the homeless person himself is given a certain share of what he received for his participation in the crime, and the organizers disappear without a trace.

This method of stealing credit funds is especially dangerous because it is almost impossible to find the perpetrators. In fact, police officers cannot charge a homeless person with anything - such people often have nothing to lose, as a result of which they are ready to commit much greater crimes (and in prison, sometimes, conditions are better than on the street). And the amount of profit received, compared to the size of the loan itself, does not allow the citizen to be perceived even as an accomplice.

However, law enforcement officials may question this citizen. In turn, this will allow you to find out the details of what happened, determine the identities of the criminals (identify their distinctive features), and find any other clues in the case that will allow you to identify the real criminals.

To prove the presence of criminal intent in the actions of a suspect, it is necessary to confirm this fact with various evidence. For this purpose the following are used:

• expert opinions;
• testimony of victims and witnesses;
• a variety of relevant documentation.

The main goal of law enforcement agencies is to search for circumstances that will serve as evidence in a trial:

• overestimation of the value of the collateral by the fraudster;
• expert assessment of existing information that was provided to the bank in order to obtain a loan (any inconsistencies, violations, etc. will definitely be found);
• transfer of received loan funds to the account of a shell company;
• sale of collateral without notifying the organization that issued the loan;
• finding citizens who acted as intermediaries in obtaining a loan;
• fictitious guarantors;
• the use of a variety of documents that are fake (lost by someone, stolen, completely false, etc.);
• provision as collateral of property that had previously been pledged to a third party, but about which the bank representatives had no idea.

If evidence of a crime is found, the perpetrators will be punished. But if the scammers plan the operation perfectly, the bank will have to part with the money.

The only way to avoid falling for the tricks of criminals is to thoroughly check all possible data provided by the potential borrower. It is precisely because financial organizations are superficial in studying documents and immediately issue a loan that a variety of crimes occur in the field of lending.

Get a lawyer's answer in 5 minutes

According to the United Credit Bureau (UCB), when applying for loans, a significant part of the violations is the provision of false information about the place of work of potential borrowers. So, at the end of 2012, out of 40 thousand. submitted applications for consumer loans about 8 thousand. submitted applications containing false information about employers. This calculation was based on data received from 30 leading commercial banks in Russia, whose activities are aimed at consumer lending to the population.

Unfortunately, experts note that banks are increasingly faced with fraud and deception on the part of clients. In general, over the past year, individual borrowers tried to obtain half a billion in borrowed funds by reporting fictitious employers and places of work. And the statistics are inexorable: in 2012, the number of loan applications in which signs of fraud were detected increased by more than 30%, which affects not only creditor banks, but also bona fide clients. After all, taking into account the risks, banks are forced to factor in their possible losses into loan rates, thereby forcing decent borrowers to pay much more.

In many cases, citizens, pursuing malicious intent, indicate in applications organizations excluded from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, companies that have mass registration or are not registered at the actual address, as well as one-day companies, information about which is not in the register of legal entities or tax authorities. This is the situation that testify OKB research data is more likely to be typical for large banks. In this case, the logic of the scammers is simple: a large credit institution experiences a huge flow of clients and applications, so there is a chance to go “undetected.”

In order to somehow reduce the banking risk when issuing consumer loans, the Central Bank published lists on its official website liquidated organizations, as well as companies that are not located at the Unified State Register of Legal Entities. At the same time, the regulator strongly recommends that credit institutions use such information when working with corporate clients to update information about legal entities that are already being serviced by the bank, as well as when assessing risks and considering issues of terminating contracts with companies. But at the same time, such lists can help lenders verify information about employment potential borrowers that they indicate in their loan applications.

Even though the lists provided The Central Bank takes note when studying client data, bankers rightly believe that this is still not enough and such information should be confirmed, at a minimum, by a telephone call to the employer. And if, as a result of the audit, evidence of falsification is discovered, then such a borrower is unconditionally denied a loan, and his identification the data is entered into a blacklist, which contains information about non-payers and fraudsters. At the same time, the bank will definitely tell its colleagues about this in order to protect them from cooperation with a dishonest client. And considering that often one fraudster tries to apply for a loan simultaneously in several banks using similar documents, such a preventive measure allows you to reduce the risks of lending to a reasonable minimum.
Lenders do not forget to enter information about scammers into the Credit History Bureau. Then the person has a record in his personal file that he tried to get a loan by providing false data. And, having such a reputation, he is unlikely to be able to regain the trust of banks and get a loan in the future.

But experts also focus on another problem – low financial literacy of the population. The fact is that citizens do not always intentionally indicate false information about the employer in applications; sometimes this happens by mistake (for example, the TIN was indicated incorrectly). In addition, it is possible that the borrower simply does not want the employer to find out about the loan, considering it an invasion of privacy.

According to market participants, the problem of borrower fraud at the stage of submitting loan applications would be completely resolved if banks had access to information from the Pension Fund. And now, in most cases, lenders are forced to simply factor in their risks into loan interest rates and take borrowers at their word.

Fraud in the field of lending has been a crime since December 10, 2012, that is, since the appearance of Article 159.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Taking into account the increasing incidence of fraud in the field of lending, as well as the increased social danger of the act associated with the destabilization of the financial market, the legislator introduced a special rule - Art. 159.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

In accordance with this provision of the Criminal Code, fraud in the field of lending is understood as the theft of funds by a borrower by providing knowingly false and (or) unreliable information to a bank or other credit institution.

The identification of fraud in the field of lending as a separate crime did not lead to changes related to the procedure for proving this crime, so the method of committing the crime and evidence of its commission remained the same.

The crime of fraud in the field of lending

The subject of this crime is a sane individual who has reached the age of 16 years.

The subjective side of this crime is direct intent. That is, when receiving a loan, the criminal’s intent is deliberately aimed at its non-repayment.

The objective side is the commission of theft by a person who is a borrower under a loan agreement by providing a credit institution with knowingly false and (or) unreliable information.

The method of committing this crime is deception, which consists of providing the lender with knowingly false and (or) unreliable information.

In paragraphs 2, 5 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 27, 2007 N 51 “On judicial practice in cases of fraud, misappropriation and embezzlement”, explanations are provided on the issue of methods of deception and circumstances indicating the intent of the fraudster.

In paragraph 2 of this Resolution, deception can consist of deliberately communicating false information that does not correspond to reality, or in keeping silent about true facts, or in deliberate actions aimed at misleading the owner of the property or another person.

False information can relate to any circumstances, in particular to legal facts and events, quality, value of property, the identity of the perpetrator, his powers, and intentions.

The presence of intent to steal may be evidenced, in particular, by:

1) the borrower obviously lacks a real financial ability to fulfill the obligation under the loan agreement or lacks the necessary license to carry out any activity;

2) the borrower’s use of fictitious charter documents or false letters of guarantee;

3) concealment of information about the existence of debts and pledges of property;

4) creation of false enterprises acting as one of the parties to the transaction.

The listed circumstances in themselves cannot prejudge the court’s conclusions about a person’s guilt in committing fraud. In each specific case, it is necessary to establish that the borrower obviously did not intend to fulfill his obligations under the loan.

The crime is considered completed from the moment when the loan amount came into the illegal possession of the perpetrator or other persons, and they received a real opportunity to use it or dispose of the funds at their own discretion.

For criminal prosecution under this offense, the size of the stolen loan is important. If the amount of stolen funds does not exceed 1000 rubles, the person may be brought not to criminal, but to administrative liability under Art. 7.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, subject to the conditions specified in this article and the note to it.

In addition, the amount of theft is important as a qualifying criterion for prosecution under Parts 3 and 4 of Art. 159.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. A loan size exceeding 1,500,000 rubles is considered large, and especially large – 6,000,000 rubles.

Punishment for fraud in the lending industry may or may not involve imprisonment.

Evidence of the crime of credit fraud

To establish a person’s guilt in committing fraud in the field of lending, it is necessary to prove not only the fact that he provided false information to the lender, but also the intent to fail to repay the loan.

Evidence indicating the presence of this composition can be divided into the following groups.

1. Evidence related to the unreliability of information provided to obtain a loan

The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not contain a list of this information and does not indicate its content, that is, about whom and what it may be about. Inaccurate data is recorded in the documents provided by the borrower, as well as in the bank’s forms, which the borrower fills out and signs.

In judicial practice, there are the following categories of documents that may contain false information:

Documents proving the identity of the borrower - an individual (passport) or the legality of the creation and activities of a legal entity or individual entrepreneur (constituent documents, certificate of registration as a legal entity or entrepreneur, extracts from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, licenses, decisions of the management bodies of a legal entity, etc. .). They confirm the legal capacity of the borrower.

- documents confirming the position and salary of the borrower - an individual or the financial position of a legal entity or individual entrepreneur. These include a copy of the work book, a certificate of income in form 2-NDFL, a balance sheet, tax reporting of a legal entity, etc.;

— documents confirming that the borrower has property (including property pledged), the absence of overdue or other debts to third parties (including debts on taxes and other obligatory payments), the presence of stable economic ties with third parties, etc. These include the borrower’s application form, contracts, invoices, invoices, technical passports, certificates of ownership, extracts from the Unified State Register, certificates from the tax office, banks, etc.

- documents confirming the purpose for which the borrower intends to receive a loan, and the sources of loan repayment: business plan, feasibility study, agreements with third parties in whose favor it is intended to make payments from the loan, etc.

Documents containing obligations of third parties to repay the loan for the borrower in the event of his failure to fulfill this obligation. These are surety agreements, bank guarantees, pledge agreements and documents confirming the mortgagor’s ownership of the property, as well as the financial position and legal status of the guarantors, pledgors and guarantors.

All of the above documents may be completely forged or contain deliberately false information.

Evidence of the unreliability of the submitted documents may include:

— expert opinions;

— inspection reports;

— records of seizure and search;

- testimony of witnesses, victims;

— documents received from tax and other government authorities or from the borrower’s counterparties.

1. Evidence indicating that the loan received (in whole or in part) was used for personal needs not related to the purposes for which the loan was issued and (or) for purposes not related to the financial and economic activities of the borrower

Such evidence may include account statements, payment orders, expense orders, contracts, invoices, invoices, testimony of witnesses and victims, inspection reports, searches, seizures, etc.

The transfer of funds received on credit under a fictitious agreement, that is, on far-fetched grounds in favor of a fly-by-night company, with their subsequent cashing out indicates that the borrower has no intention to repay the loan.

1. Evidence indicating the borrower’s actions related to preventing the lender from foreclosure on the borrower’s property by removing assets (including the collateral) from foreclosure, challenging collateral agreements, guarantees, bankruptcy (including intentional) of the borrower, etc.

Such evidence may include contracts, expert opinions, judicial acts, testimony of witnesses, victims, extracts from the Unified State Register, etc.

This type of evidence is used if, when receiving a loan or subsequently (during the validity of the agreement), the borrower had property with which he could repay the loan, but he prevented the creditor from foreclosure on this property.

As evidence of fraudsters' intent to steal loans, investigators widely use data obtained from electronic storage devices, servers seized during a search or seizure, printouts of electronic correspondence, and contact lists obtained from seized mobile phones.

1. Evidence confirming intent to steal a loan

In objecting to the charges, defendants may refer to the fact that the loan was not repaid as a result of the failure to fulfill civil obligations to the borrower by third parties and was due to the unsuccessful commercial activities of the borrower, since business activities are always associated with risk. Often, defendants indicate that they carried out a partial repayment of the loan and (or) its partial intended use.

When recognizing the guilt of defendants in loan theft, courts take into account various circumstances, the presence of which in a particular case, together with other circumstances, may indicate the defendant’s intent.

Such circumstances may include:

1. overvaluation of property pledged to the bank in order to create an opinion about the security of the loan.
2. partial targeted use of the loan in order to create the appearance of good faith.
3. concealing information about an outstanding loan from the bank, submitting false documents to the bank confirming the existence of receivables and a stable financial position.
4. initiation by the borrower of court hearings for the purpose of removing real estate from the borrower's ownership, followed by encumbering this property with collateral from other banks.
5. the presence of sufficient knowledge and skills of an entrepreneur, higher education and sufficient work experience, allowing the defendant to knowingly know about the falsity of the information he submitted to the bank, which distorted the real financial condition of the individual entrepreneur.
6. transfer of a loan to the accounts of a shell company that does not conduct real financial and economic activities, and whose founders and employees deny involvement in the establishment and activities of the company.
7. Submission to the bank of a balance sheet and other documents on economic activities and financial position containing deliberately unreliable information.
8. The use by defendants of counterfeit civil passports, documents confirming ownership of the pledged item, payment orders and powers of attorney; legalization of credit funds using shell companies.
9. The fraudster’s use of the figure of the borrower’s nominee director, to whom the fraudster gave instructions.
10. Evasion of registration of a mortgage agreement.
11. The sale by the borrower of property pledged to the bank without the bank’s consent and the use of the proceeds not to repay the loan.
12. Search for persons who are ready to receive a loan on the basis of forged documents received from the defendant.
13. Search and acquisition of lost passports, production and falsification of documents for obtaining a loan, acquisition of blank work record books, acquisition of typesetting stamps and certification of work records with seal impressions of non-existent enterprises.
14. Using fictitious companies as guarantors to the bank.
15. Encumbering the borrower and his property with guarantees and pledges for the obligations of controlled companies in order to make it impossible to foreclose on the borrower's property.
16. Submitting falsified contracts to the bank, etc. documents confirming that the borrower is conducting income-generating business activities and the need to obtain a loan to continue it.
17. Pledging to the bank property previously pledged to third parties and concealing this circumstance from the bank.
18. Confirmation of the borrower's insolvency by an arbitration court decision declaring the borrower bankrupt.

Use in proof of circumstances established in a civil case to establish guilt in loan theft

As part of a criminal case, it is often established that, in the presence of numerous unfulfilled financial obligations, the defendant continued to borrow money, hiding information about existing debts and pledges of property, knowingly without any real financial ability to fulfill the obligations.

The courts in such cases point out that the convicts did not commit civil transactions permitted by law, but a series of complex veiled actions that were outwardly legal in nature, but in essence were stages of a general criminal intent aimed at committing a criminal act in order to give the appearance of legality these illegal actions.

The fact that there was or is a civil dispute between the bank and the borrower, which is being considered by the arbitration court, does not in itself indicate the absence of corpus delicti in the actions of the borrower’s managers.

A defendant in a criminal case for theft of funds in the field of lending may try to refer to Article 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, according to which the circumstances established by a court decision that has entered into legal force are recognized by the court, prosecutor, investigator, or interrogator without additional verification.

However, the subject of proof in a civil case on debt collection on a loan does not include circumstances related to the borrower’s intent to steal funds. Moreover, the court in this case is not interested in the reason for the non-repayment of the loan, as well as the reason why it was issued. The court also does not examine the circumstances of how exactly the funds received were used and why the borrower provided the bank with false information about his financial situation, the availability and condition of the property being pledged.

Thus, the existence of a civil dispute related to the collection of a loan debt does not in itself confirm the absence of intent to steal.

In criminal legal procedures, issues that are not included in the subject of proof in a civil case are examined - about the deliberate actions of the organizer of the crime and his accomplices, about the presence of signs of fictitiousness in the companies used to commit the crime, about the falsification of evidence, about the cashing out of funds, etc. P.

Complicity in lending fraud

A qualifying sign of fraud in the field of lending is the commission of a crime by a group of persons by prior conspiracy or by an organized group.

Judicial practice shows that the theft of funds by a borrower by providing the bank with knowingly false and (or) unreliable information is often carried out by a group of persons or even an organized group.

The fraudster is not interested in assigning him a more severe punishment by imputing these qualifying characteristics. Moreover, he may not give up accomplices based on ideas about thieves' ethics.

As a result, accomplices to the crime often remain undetected and are indicated in the verdict as unidentified persons who helped the fraudster “in an unspecified place at an unspecified time.”

Failure to prove the fraudster's involvement in the forgery of documents submitted to obtain a loan makes it impossible to bring him to justice under Art. 327 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

When investigating cases related to consumer loans, it is often established that the defendants did not work anywhere for a long time, had no source of income and needed cash. They were offered to commit a crime by unidentified persons, who provided the defendant with forged documents and explained that they would not have to make payments on the loan.

Often, the persons who produced counterfeit documents used by the fraudster, who denies his involvement in their production, remain undetected and are indicated in court verdicts as unidentified persons.

In this regard, the question arises about the possibility of qualifying the actions of a fraudster who received a loan as committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy. In a number of cases, courts point out that multiple actions of producing forged documents by a person not identified by the investigation indicate that the head of the borrower, who submitted these documents to the bank to obtain a loan, committed fraud by prior conspiracy with an unidentified person, that is, fraud was committed group of persons.

Sometimes the criminal group includes bank employees, which forms a qualifying feature of Part 3 of Art. 159.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (acts committed by a person using his official position).

The role of an accomplice—a bank employee—may be as follows:

1) providing information on the basic conditions of the bank necessary to calculate the solvency and rating of borrowers, allowing the latter to qualify for the maximum possible loan amount;

2) entering into the borrower’s application form information that is obviously untrue about their financial condition and economic situation;

3) certification of knowingly forged copies of documents submitted to obtain a loan;

4) drawing up fictitious opinions on the feasibility of issuing a loan and its conditions;

5) assistance in opening a bank account as quickly as possible, assistance in obtaining cash at the cash desk;

6) depositing part of the stolen funds into the bank’s cash desk to pay for previously received loans;

7) drawing up a fictitious conclusion on the results of the borrower’s inspection.

An accomplice - a bank employee - can find the text of a fictitious extract from the minutes of a meeting of the credit committee that was not actually held.

In some cases, the commission of a crime becomes possible due to direct collusion between bank employees and fraudsters. The bank does not comply with its own procedures for issuing a loan, verifying the legality of creation, the financial condition of the borrower, the actual availability of property and the authenticity of documents confirming the borrower's ownership of the property.

From court verdicts it often follows that when issuing a loan, the bank relied exclusively on accounting documents and agreements presented by the borrower as confirmation of its financial position. At the same time, visiting the place where the borrower carries out its activities, inspecting its premises, products, raw materials, getting to know the borrower’s employees, its counterparties, etc. actions are often not implemented in practice. The history of the creation and activities of the borrower and the involvement of the borrower’s founders in its creation and activities are not always verified.

From the court verdicts it is clear that in a number of cases, with a more careful check of the financial and economic activities of the borrower, the bank could prevent the theft of the loan.

In practice, a situation may arise in which a borrower who wants to receive a loan provides false information about his financial situation, but expects to repay the loan from business income or other sources.

Proving that, by deceiving the bank regarding his financial condition, the fraudster did not initially intend to repay the loan, is much more difficult than proving that the lender was provided with knowingly false (unreliable) information about the economic situation or financial condition of the borrower.

If the intent to steal is not proven, the borrower can be held liable only for providing the lender with knowingly false information about the business situation or financial condition.

Depending on the amount of damage, this liability may be administrative or criminal.

If the damage is large, that is, exceeds 1,500,000 rubles. If the damage is less than the specified amount, the person may be held administratively liable.

There are no similar articles yet.

Even when paying for a purchase in a store, there is a sign above the cash register: “Count your money without leaving the cash register.” When receiving a loan, such warnings can be read on the stands.

If, when paying for a loan, the payer incorrectly specifies the details, the receiving bank is not responsible for such errors. But there are cases when, when applying for a loan, employees of a credit institution make a mistake in entering the borrower’s personal data. Therefore, when receiving documents for credit services, the borrower must:

1. Carefully read the terms of the contract.
2. Pay special attention to the percentage specified in the contract. Intentional typos are possible.
3. Make sure your details are spelled correctly - last name, first name and patronymic. Otherwise, payments may be considered invalid.

But this does not mean that money paid to an invalid address is lost. If the issue is resolved correctly, the money will return safely to the sender.

How can I get my money back?

If an error is made in the details when making a payment through a third-party organization or payment terminal, you must immediately submit an application to this institution. The applicant must provide:

1. Receipt of payment through this organization.
2. Passport and identification code (original).
3. A loan agreement for which a fee was paid.

Information about outstanding payments is processed within 5 days. If the payment is not credited to the recipient, then it is returned to the sender. In this case, this is the bank branch from which the payment was sent. Based on the application left, the money will be transferred to the address specified by the applicant.

Difficulties may arise if you send money through an ATM and indicate the wrong card number. The money will go to an unauthorized user. It will take more time to return your funds that ended up on someone else’s card. This may harm your credit history.

How to avoid becoming a debtor?

If you find yourself in a situation, you should not expect your funds to be returned. Pay your current debt immediately. If the bank that issued the loan to you has nothing to do with your error, you will be credited for the late monthly loan payment.

To avoid unforeseen situations, when applying for a loan, indicate your phone number, which will receive messages about card transactions or warnings about the need for payment.

If you have made your monthly payment but receive a non-payment notice, please try to resolve the issue by the 25th of the current month. Otherwise, penalties are inevitable.

In Russia, cases are quite common when ordinary citizens or private entrepreneurs, trying to get approval for an application in any way, provide false information to the bank for a loan or loan. They believe that if they “forget” to report any negative information or embellish their income a little, then no one will be worse off. Is it really?

False information to a bank for a loan is information that a person provides to a credit institution when applying for a loan, understanding and realizing in advance that he is telling a lie.

Examples of knowingly false information:

False documents confirming the identity of the borrower and his place of registration/residence;

Any documentation that indicates a person's significantly improved financial situation;

False letters of guarantee or inaccurate information about the employing company or its managers;

Falsified contracts, financial statements, audit reports, bank statements, etc.

If security staff or other banking specialists discover that the information provided by a potential client is unreliable, then, as a rule, the person simply receives a negative decision on his application. But if the fraud was discovered after the required loan amount had been provided, and this most often happens only during education, then the situation will develop in a slightly different direction. The bank will definitely take this person to court or contact law enforcement agencies, who will definitely check whether the attacker managed to submit an application to several banks at once. Let us consider in detail what types of punishments a persistent defaulter may face.

Legislative framework and penalties

Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation Art. 14.11 about illegal receipt of a loan

If, when applying for a loan or receiving it on preferential terms, deliberately distorted data was provided, the following administrative penalties will be imposed:

On legal persons (fine 20-30 thousand rubles);

For officials (fine 2-3 thousand rubles);

For ordinary citizens (fine 1-2 thousand rubles).

Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Art. 159 about fraud

In particular, Article 159.1 regulates the types of punishment for fraud in the field of lending. Under this article, citizens can be convicted when:

1) Provided false information to the lender when receiving a loan. Such an action is regarded as theft. Possible punishment:

Money penalty. The maximum amount is 120 thousand rubles.

A monetary fine, the amount of which is equal to the annual income of the defaulter.

Conditional restriction of freedom for up to two years.

Imprisonment for a maximum of 4 months.

Mandatory work up to 360 hours.

Forced labor for up to two years.

Correctional labor for up to a year.

If law enforcement agencies manage to prove the participation of several persons in such an act, then the punishment will be more significant.

2) Participated in the theft of a large sum of money from 1.5 million rubles. by applying for a loan using distorted data. The following types of punishment are provided for such an act:

Monetary fine (100-500 thousand rubles).

A fine equal to 3 years of the defendant's income.

Forced labor for up to five years and 2 years of probation.

Imprisonment for up to five years and a fine of up to 80 thousand rubles. etc.

3) They took out a loan for a particularly large amount (from 6 million rubles), indicating false information, and did not pay on it. The punishment is possible imprisonment of up to 10 years and a fine of up to 1 million rubles.

Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Art. 176 about illegally obtaining a loan

The article concerns individual entrepreneurs and heads of organizations who, when applying for a loan from a banking institution, indicated falsified data on their financial or economic status, respectively. Moreover, such an act led to major damage. Punishment options:

Fine up to 200 thousand rubles.

Fine equal to 18 months' income.

Forced labor for up to 5 years.

Mandatory work up to 480 hours.

Arrest up to 6 months.

If the state the targeted loan was not issued legally or the funds received were not directed for the intended purpose, while major damage was caused to any citizens, organizations or even the state, then the defendant faces:

Monetary fine (100 - 300 thousand rubles).

A fine equal to 1-2 years' income.

Restriction of freedom from 1 year to 3 years.

Imprisonment up to 5 years inclusive.

Forced labor for 5 years.

If you want to compare consumer loans, be sure to use our convenient service!