They decided to make it more difficult to issue loans: borrowers will be required to report on the purpose of receiving money

The initiative is aimed at protecting against fraud, but may harm citizens

It was proposed in the Federation Council to oblige lenders to find out from potential borrowers the purpose of receiving a loan and the planned sources of its repayment. Such a bill was developed by Senator Artem Sheikin. According to the document, the lender, in addition to clarifying the purposes of lending and ways to repay financial obligations, will also have to make sure that the citizen is taking out the loan voluntarily and not under the influence of deception, violence or threat. Experts told MK whether this bill will help protect Russians from scammers using social engineering and what consequences the adoption of such a legal innovation could have.

According to the proposed bill, it will be necessary to find out the purposes of lending and the sources of loan repayment in banks and microfinance organizations using audio recording, with the exception of cases where the borrower provides a certificate of hearing impairment. If the lender does not clarify the above issues before executing the loan agreement, the citizen has the right not to return the money received. In an explanatory note to the bill, Senator Sheikin said that the document was developed in connection with the increasing cases of telephone fraud, when a person is forced to take out a loan using fake phone numbers, as well as “methods of psychological influence, pressure, manipulation of consciousness, hypnotechnology,” that is, what the police and press usually call social engineering.

Currently, the bill has been sent for evaluation to the Bank of Russia, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice, but human rights activists have already approved this initiative. “Such a requirement, if it is enshrined in law, and if the regulator enforces it, will certainly contribute to the fact that the borrower will be able to make decisions more consciously,” says Dmitry Yanin, Chairman of the Board of the International Confederation of Consumer Societies (ConfOP). “Unpleasant questions when issuing a loan may dissuade a number of consumers from the need to use borrowed money.” This practice, which exists in a number of foreign countries, is in demand and shows that questions about the purpose of borrowing and sources of loan repayment are correct communication that should accompany the process of applying for a loan and its further consideration, the expert emphasized.

At the same time, financiers point out that the questions proposed by the bill have been asked in practice for a long time in financial organizations when applying for loans. “As for the proposal to find out the purpose of obtaining loans and from what sources the borrower intends to repay it, most banks already do this,” says Sergei Solovykh, head of the department for working with wealthy clients at Fontvielle Investment Company. — If we put this requirement into legislative form and indicate the purposes of the loan, then the very existence of a consumer loan without specifying the purpose is called into question. If the borrower provides information about the intended use of money received from the bank, then there must be a mechanism for verification and control on the part of the lender.” The sources of repayment of obligations are already being checked by financial institutions: a bank or microfinance organization will not issue a loan without certification that the borrower is able to repay the money, so how the proposed initiative will help in the fight against fraud is not entirely clear to the expert.

“The idea itself is good, but everything will depend on how the banks implement it,” Polina Gusyatnikova, senior managing partner of the law firm PG Partners, continues the conversation. “If they approach the issue formally, that is, issue loans as before with a click, including additional questions in the questionnaire where they need to be ticked, this is unlikely to change the situation.” According to Vladimir Kuznetsov, vice-president of the Association of Lawyers for Registration, Liquidation, Bankruptcy and Judicial Representation, it can be assumed that the legal innovation proposed by the senator will be able to protect citizens from rash actions that threaten to lead them to bankruptcy. At the same time, the amendments are unlikely to help in cases where fraudsters enter into loan agreements in online applications, since in such stories there is no personal communication between the borrower and the bank.

“Such an initiative will definitely face the problem of technical implementation,” warns Anna Gondusova, director of client relations at Alfa Capital Management Company. — The changes greatly increase the operational burden on credit institutions. In addition, it is unclear if one of the parties violates the agreement, what the punishment procedure will be.”

Audio recordings may subsequently serve as the basis for the removal of any obligations to credit institutions. “In general, this will help reduce both the number of problem borrowers and the opportunities for deceiving people and forcing them to take out loans,” says lawyer Alla Georgieva. “In addition, the initiative can also help when considering cases of division of property during divorce. The court usually establishes for what purposes the loan was taken, and if these are common purposes, then even if issued to one of the spouses, the loan can be recognized as common.”

If the initiative is nevertheless accepted, then, according to Associate Professor of the Department of State and Municipal Finance of the Russian Economic University. Plekhanov Mary Valishvili, we should expect that the lending market will decline significantly. This will affect not only banks and microfinance organizations, but also the entire economy as a whole, since its development is directly stimulated by effective demand. In addition, the bill in its current version contains a provision according to which the borrower can be released from the obligation to repay the debt if the lender issued money without confirming the purpose of the loan. Thus, we can talk about some bias in the legislation towards “pro-debt”, that is, complete and unconditional protection of the borrower even in the event of a loss for the creditor, the expert noted.