Banksters reluctant to pay fines for imposed “services”

Russian bankers are worried about a government bill proposing to fine banks for imposing services. The Association of Russian Banks (ARB) appealed to the State Duma with a proposal to review the bill and instead of fines introduce a two-week “cooling period”, during which, the borrower can refuse the imposed service. If of course, the bank client has time and is able to figure it out…

Government Bill No. 942236-7 on amendments to the Federal Law “Regarding consumer loans (credit)” was introduced by the government and adopted by the State Duma in the first reading on July 9. It provides for a double refund by the bank for a service which was “imposed” (provided without consent).

In the Russian banking sphere, imposed services are viewed as a commonplace banking practice, such as the inclusion in the lending agreement of a paid “information service” via SMS, paid legal support, the obligation to purchase a paid card in order to pay off the loan, etc. Bankers are not only concerned with the proposal to introduce a fine system, but also to its unlimited nature. This means it will be possible to challenge the imposed “service” during the entire period of the loan repayment.

Kommersant publications cite the opinion of Elman Mehtiyev, head of the Union of Microfinance Organizations, who believes that the bill creates “legal risks” for the lender. After all, a defrauded citizen can file a complaint about an imposed “service” even years after the loan has been issued and this is utterly inconvenient for the business of banks. A similar opinion is shared by the Association of Russian Banks, which even sent a letter to Anatoly Aksakov – the head of the State Duma Committee on the Financial Market. The ARB bankers believe that the adoption of the bill will upset the “balance of interests” of lenders and borrowers – by expanding the rights of borrowers.

It is interesting that the numerous facts of fraud and deception of citizens by banks in themselves are already considered “normal” and even habitual. Strictly speaking, legal casuistry and notes in small print in contracts are also an indirect means of deception. However, banks do not hesitate to use harsher methods, for example, deception when setting the lending rate in the hope that the borrower will not notice this when signing the agreement. Another example can be the requirement to pay for consideration of an application for a deferred payment. The “bankster’s” tricks do not provoke indignation either, both in the government or in the State Duma.

After all, a market economy simply cannot function without its foundation – legaliыed deception, short-term miscalculation and wage-robbery of workers.

 

 

 

 

Post Tagged with , , ,
Comments are closed.