The Law on Countering the Legalization of Criminal Proceeds is amended accordingly. The changes will affect credit institutions, professional participants of the securities market, insurance companies, MFIs and other organizations, as well as their clients. The latter will be able to provide these companies with documents and (or) information that they had no reason to refuse to conduct a transaction with money or other property. The same opportunity can be used in the event of a credit institution's refusal to conclude a bank account agreement (deposit). We are talking about cases of refusal due to the fact that: - the client did not provide the necessary documents (if he needs to perform the operation); - there are suspicions that the client intends to legalize criminal proceeds or finance terrorism (if he needs to make a transaction or open an account, a contribution). These organizations will have to review documents, information and no later than 10 working days from the date of their submission to inform the client whether the grounds for refusal have been eliminated. If the grounds are resolved, organizations will need to notify Russian Financial Monitoring about this. Deadline - no later than the working day following the date of elimination. Specific notification rules will be set separately. If the organization has not revised its refusal, the client will be able to contact the interdepartmental commission under the Central Bank of the Russian Federation Thus, the amendments will reduce the time to resolve a dispute about the legality of refusal of financial organizations to conduct operations or open bank accounts and deposits for AML / CFT considerations. Now such a pre-trial mechanism in this case is no longer provided. Document: Federal Law of December 29, 2017 N 470-ФЗ (the considered provisions enter into force on March 30, 2018).
To whom will they come with an inspection in 2018: the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation has published a consolidated plan? In a special section on the agency's website, it's enough to specify the TIN of the organization to find out: - which department will conduct a scheduled check of the company; - what will be the purpose and form of verification; - in which month the test will take place and how long it will last. If the search on the site did not give any results, your company is not in the plan. Please note: the plan does not include information on inspections within the framework of tax, currency, customs and a number of other types of control (supervision). Document: Information of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation (http://genproc.gov.ru/smi/news/genproc/news-1312198/).
The contract of sale can be terminated due to non-payment of goods The seller has the right to demand to terminate the contract if the buyer has not paid for the goods received. A violation by the buyer is essential. It allows the seller to demand termination of the contract in court. By law, in this situation, the seller may require to recover the cost of the goods and interest under Art. 395 of the Civil Code. However, this does not exclude the possibility of terminating the contract due to a material breach. Such a conclusion was reflected by the Supreme Court in paragraph 8 of the last review of the practice. However, previously, the Armed Forces considered otherwise. Document: Review of judicial practice of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation N 5 (2017), approved by the Presidium of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on 12/27/2017 (http://www.supcourt.ru/documents/practice/26303/).
Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation explained who can stand behind the "corporate veil" of the bankrupt company. Explanations will be useful to creditors to bring to justice the controlling persons of a bankrupt legal entity. Among the important conclusions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation are the following: - the actual control over the debtor is possible not only in the presence of formal signs of affiliation. Considering a specific case, the court will check how significant the influence of the person held to subsidiary liability is on making the debtor's significant business decisions; - the head of the company who actually did not control it can be considered the controlling person. This is due to the fact that the nominal manager must still ensure the proper operation of the management system of the legal entity; - A third party may be controlling if it has received a substantial asset of the debtor in the transaction with its manager. This is the case when they made a deal to the detriment of the interests of the debtor company and its creditors. For example, on knowingly unfavorable conditions for a company or with a one-day firm; - the court will not support the requirements for the controlling debtor of a person who acted within the framework of ordinary business risk and did not want to violate the rights of creditors. In this case, the negative consequences will not be considered unfair behavior.Document: Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 21, 2017 N 53 (http://www.supcourt.ru/documents/own/26273/).