banks are not responsible for high-quality forgeries of payment documents – Kommersant

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (SC) published a decision on the dispute over the bank’s liability for payments using false documents. The bankruptcy manager of the bankrupt Tatneft-Arkhangelsk LLC demanded compensation from Sputnik Bank, according to payment orders allegedly signed by which the bank transferred 198 million rubles from the debtor’s account. in favor of U-Capital. The manager insisted that both the signature and the organization’s seal on the bills were forged. The arbitration courts decided that the bank is obliged to “monitor the legality of write-offs” and ensure “an appropriate level of reliability.” The claim of the bankruptcy trustee of the LLC was satisfied, and losses were recovered from the bank (for more details, see “Kommersant” dated December 21, 2023).

But Sputnik succeeded in transferring the case to the Economic College of the Supreme Court, stating that it was impossible to visually identify the fake; this required special knowledge, as well as a microscope. As a result, the economic board overturned the court orders to recover losses from the bank and sent the case for a new trial. In its decision, the Supreme Court explained that the bank’s behavior “can be qualified as unlawful only if it violated the obligations prescribed to it by legal norms or the obligations established by the terms of the contract with the client.”

The bank must indeed check the authenticity of the documents “for the authenticity of the signatures of persons authorized to manage the client’s funds and his seals,” the decree of the Supreme Court, and is responsible for writing off money “on a false order.” However, in this case, Sputnik’s responsibilities were limited to comparing the seal and signature with the samples contained in the card handed over to the bank, and visually they matched in appearance, the board’s decision says.

Accordingly, “the bank showed the degree of care and prudence that was required of it by law and agreement in this matter,” the Supreme Court concluded. The dispute was sent for a new consideration, since a number of circumstances remained unclear by the courts, in particular, who exactly brought the counterfeit payments and what was related to the revocation of the key to the Internet bank by the bankruptcy trustee of the LLC.

Read more in the material “Higher quality of fake orders”.

Anna Zanina