The essence of HOME ROBBERY is as follows:
"Robbery" must begin with preparation. The entire operation can be carried out both on behalf of a citizen and on behalf of legal entity i.e. a commercial firm. There is no difference here - to whom it is more convenient. Again, for convenience, we will talk about the firm.
You can start easily. Namely, from the fact that the company enters into agreements with its good business partners or just with close acquaintances - private individuals, according to which it allegedly borrows significant sums of money from them at interest. Everything is done in the most serious way. Contracts, receipts, obligations, guarantees and so on. In fact, everything remains only on paper - you don’t have to take money, because our scheme needs only the contracts themselves. They hide in the table and lie there until a certain time.
After that, Mr. N, as a representative of the company, goes to the bank chosen for the "robbery" and asks for a loan for some kind of profitable deal. However, it is possible not for a deal, but for the acquisition of real estate, equipment, land, or something else valuable and profitable enough - so that the bank pecks faster. At the same time, Mr. N can agree to any interest - you still won’t have to give it back.
After the loan is received, the fun begins.
Having received the money, Mr. N returns to the office of his native company and opens the beloved and respected Civil Code. Opens it, of course, in the right place. Namely, that chapter of it, where we are talking about trust management of property. More specifically, article 1018.
And the following is written there: “Foreclosure on the debts of the founder of the trust management on the property transferred by him for management is not allowed, with the exception of the insolvency (bankruptcy) of this person. End of quote.
Let's clarify the terminology. The founder of trust management is the one who gives his property for management. And the manager, in turn, is the one who undertakes to manage this property. The essence of the operation is that the property transferred to trust management legally remains in the ownership of the founder. The manager undertakes to competently dispose of this property and pay the income received from it. For this, the founder pays the manager a certain percentage of the profits.
After a little thought on all this, Mr. N must do the following: follow the very first advertisement in any newspaper and buy securities for the entire amount received from the bank. Better, of course, profitable. For example, shares of oil workers or some other.
Having bought all these shares (solely for solidity and so as not to arouse unnecessary suspicion in anyone), Mr. N waits a week or two. After that, he goes to the same bank that gave him the money, and concludes with him an agreement on trust management of the purchased in advance securities.
True, at the same time, it would be better for Mr. N not to mention that these securities were bought with exactly the money that was recently received in the same bank.
The conclusion of such an agreement gives Mr. N a reason to rub his hands happily, since he has already done half of his work. In the meantime, the bank, unsuspecting for the time being, will carefully dispose of the securities entrusted to it. And pay Mr. N the profit from these operations.
And if not, then the named gentleman will point out to the banking lawyer Article 1022 Civil Code, where it is written: "The trustee, who did not show due care for the interests of the beneficiary or the founder of the management during the trust management of property, compensates the beneficiary for the lost profit during the trust management of property ..."
In human language, this means that the bank, in the event of a bad disposal of Mr. N's securities, must also compensate this gentleman for losses.
So, having given the money received from the bank to his management, Mr. N can go for a couple of months to rest somewhere in the south. Money meanwhile will be on the cunning gentleman little by little from the bank "drip".
Returning with a fresh tan and in a good mood, the cunning gentleman discovers that the time has come to pay off the bank on the loan provided earlier.
The gentleman immediately makes an honest face and says that the deal fell through, the goods were stolen, the container turned over, the container was broken and, in general, life was not successful. Having estimated what's what, the bank, of course, wants to be compensated for the losses caused. And not just compensated, but in full - with all interest, penalties, penalties, and so on.
The question arises: from what, in fact, Mr. N and the company standing behind him (we recall that the loan was taken for it) should compensate for all this? And then the bank remembers (if he doesn't remember, then Mr. N can tell him) that the same bank manages the securities brought by Mr. N. Exactly the amount of the loan issued by the bank. There is just one catch. Namely, that phrase from the Civil Code, which we have already talked about: foreclosure on the debts of the founder of the management on property transferred to trust management is not allowed, except in cases where the founder is declared bankrupt. That is, here it is - the property at the expense of which N and his company can repay the debt to the bank. True, you can take money only if the company is declared bankrupt.
And here a dilemma arises for the bank. If he does not recognize N and his company as bankrupt, then the company will not pay off the loan. If the company is still bankrupt, the bank will lose profits for the trust management of your property.
Most likely, the desire to repay the loan will win here. However, if he does not win, then N and his company will simply continue to receive the profit due for entrusting the property to the bank for management.
But let us suppose that the bank's desire to bankrupt the wicked borrowers still prevails.
To file for bankruptcy, you must contact court of Arbitration. What the bank is happy to do. A hearing is scheduled. This is where the contracts that the company and Mr. N concluded at the beginning of the whole operation come up.
Good friends and business partners of Mr. N's firm are at the court hearing. And it turns out that the company owes not only to the bank, but also to a bunch of all kinds of people.
Naturally, during the entire trial, the lawyers of the borrowing firm repent that, they say, "it happened" historically and there was no malicious intent here. The court, having studied all the sins of the firm of Mr. N, of course, will agree with the opinion of the creditors that the borrower should be bankrupt. By agreeing, he terminates the contract of trust management of property. But what a misfortune - the money received from the securities belonging to Mr. N's firm cannot be taken and simply given to the bank. They must be distributed among all creditors - in proportion to the amount of debt. What is happening.
That is, the bank, by a court decision, receives back only a small part of the loan issued. The rest is received by business partners and acquaintances of Mr. N. Here you can already celebrate a complete victory. And the whole company to go on a trip around the world. Or, switching roles, go to a new bank.
The combination is absolutely pure. And not only from the point of view of civil law, but also from the standpoint of the criminal code.
At first glance, this smells like a scam. However, do not rush to conclusions. There is no crime here. The fact is that fraud, however, like all other types of theft, by definition is "the gratuitous seizure or conversion in one's favor of someone else's property." Free! Mr. N, as an honest businessman, did nothing of the kind for free. He brought the money received from the bank to the same bank. And not just brought, but made it possible for the bank to receive income from them in the form of interest for managing securities. That is, he gave the bank more money on his beloved. So there can be no question of gratuitousness. In addition, the bank received some compensation in the bankruptcy of Mr. N's company. Small, but received.
So Mr. N is clean before the law and can even count on sympathy - his company went bankrupt. And it's hard - to look at the death of your own business.