NIKOLAY TITOV, ATTORNEY, CO-FOUNDER OF A.T. LEGAL FOR "Ъ":

The Economic Collegium of the RF Supreme Court (SC) for the first time will consider the case on the long-standing problem of banks charging large commissions from businesses for money transfers to individuals. The banks explain the restrictive tariffs by the purposes of suppression of suspicious operations aimed, in particular, at money laundering and terrorism financing. Customers have repeatedly challenged such fees. It is possible that the Supreme Court will put an end to this issue.

Nikolai Titov in the Kommersant's article on the precedent case of Ekoil LLC on contesting the Russian Regional Development Bank fee for funds transfer - will the board's decision protect the interests of clients if it is not in favor of the bank? How common is the practice of banks charging such prohibitive fees so that the client refuses to transfer funds? And will limiting of commissions at the level of a law help clients to fight such actions of the banks - the amendments were already introduced in the State Duma (additional or increased transfer fees must not be used by banks to fight money laundering or cash withdrawal), but they were adopted only in the first reading.

Nikolai Titov: "The Supreme Court has repeatedly in its decisions provided a legal assessment of unfair actions of banks in establishing various kinds of commissions and other facultative charges. This time the practice of setting higher fees for operations that are qualified by a credit institution as suspicious in accordance with the "anti-money laundering" law became the subject for consideration by the highest judicial authority. The question of legality of these actions is of significant practical importance since it may affect each client of a bank. Depending on the decision of the Russian Federation Supreme Court such practice may become normalized in the banking sector and the rights and lawful interests of bank clients will be protected.

The existence of these fees, even if they are stipulated by individual terms of banking services, contradicts the constitutional principles of equality of rights and inadmissibility of discrimination. The application of higher transaction fees for "suspicious" operations, qualified as such often at the purely subjective discretion of bank employees, gives some clients, who, for example, have trusting relations with the bank management, advantages over other clients. Also, such fees actually have the nature of a sanction for violation of the Federal Law 115-FZ, despite the absence of reliable and confirmed data on the suspiciousness of the banking operation. It can be assumed that banks, by setting restrictive tariffs in such situations, contribute to customers' decision to cancel the operation, which removes from the bank the responsibility for its conduct, if it is really related to the "legalization" of criminal proceeds, and also relieves it of the risks of appealing against the blocking of funds." - said the lawyer.

You can read more details about the article and the lawyer's opinion HERE