The essence of HOME ROBBERY is as follows:
The "robbery" must begin with preparation. The entire operation can be carried out both on behalf of a citizen and on behalf of a legal entity, that is, a commercial company. There is no difference here - whatever is more convenient for you. We, again for convenience, will talk about the company.
It's easy to get started. Namely, from the fact that the company enters into agreements with its good business partners or simply with close acquaintances - private individuals, according to which it allegedly borrows significant sums of money from them at interest. Everything is handled in the most serious manner. Agreements, receipts, obligations, guarantees and so on. In reality, everything remains only on paper - you don’t have to take money, since our scheme only requires the contracts themselves. They hide in the table and lie there until a certain time.
After this, Mr. N, as a representative of the company, goes to the bank chosen for the “robbery” and asks for a loan for some profitable deal. However, it is possible not for a transaction, but for the acquisition of real estate, equipment, land or something else valuable and profitable enough - so that the bank takes the bait faster. In this case, Mr. N can agree to any interest - he still won’t have to pay it back.
Once 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. It opens it, of course, in the right place. Namely, that chapter where we talk about trust management of property. Even more specifically - Article 1018.
And it says the following: “Foreclosing on the debts of the founder of trust management on property transferred by him for management is not allowed, except for the insolvency (bankruptcy) of this person. In the event of bankruptcy of the founder of trust management, trust management of this property is terminated and it is included in the bankruptcy estate.” 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 into trust management legally remains the property of the founder. The manager undertakes to competently manage this property and pay the income received from it. For this, the founder pays the manager a certain percentage of the profit.
Having thought about all this a little, Mr. N must do the following: follow the first advertisement in any newspaper and buy securities with the entire amount received from the bank. Better, of course, than profitable ones. For example, shares of oil companies or some others.
Having bought all these shares (solely for the sake of respectability and so as not to arouse unnecessary suspicion in anyone), Mr. N waits for a week or two. After this, he goes to the same bank that gave him the money and enters into a trust management agreement with the same bank for the securities purchased in advance.
True, at the same time, it is better for Mr. N not to mention that these securities were purchased with exactly the same money that was recently received from the same bank.
The conclusion of such an agreement gives Mr. N reason to rub his hands joyfully, since he has already done half of his work. In the meantime, the bank, unsuspecting for now, will carefully manage the securities entrusted to it. And pay Mr. N the profit from these operations.
And if not, then the named gentleman will point the bank lawyer to Article 1022 of the Civil Code, where it is written: “A trustee who has not shown due care for the interests of the beneficiary or the founder of the management during the trust management of property, compensates the beneficiary for lost profits during the trust management of the property.. "
In human language, this means that the bank, in the event of poor management 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 on vacation somewhere in the south for a couple of months. Meanwhile, money will gradually “drip” from the bank to the cunning gentleman.
Returning with a fresh tan and in a good mood, the cunning gentleman discovers that the time has come to pay off the bank for the previously granted loan.
The gentleman immediately puts on an honest face and says that the deal fell through, the goods were stolen, the container turned over, the container broke and, in general, life was not good. Having figured out what's what, the bank will naturally want to be compensated for the losses caused. And they didn’t just compensate, but in full - with all interest, penalties, penalties, and so on.
The question arises: how exactly should Mr. N and the company behind him (the loan, we remind you, was taken out for it) compensate for all this? And then the bank remembers (if it doesn’t remember, then Mr. N can tell him) that the same bank manages the securities brought by the gentleman. Exactly the amount of the loan issued by the bank. There's just one catch. Namely, that phrase from the Civil Code that we have already talked about: foreclosure of the debts of the founder of the management on property transferred into trust management is not allowed, except in cases where the founder is declared bankrupt. That is, this 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 the bank faces a dilemma. If he does not recognize N and his company as bankrupt, then the company will not pay off the loan. If the company does go bankrupt, the bank will lose profit 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’s assume that the bank’s desire to make malicious borrowers bankrupt still prevailed.
In order to carry out the bankruptcy procedure, you need to apply to the arbitration court. Which the bank does with pleasure. A hearing is scheduled. This is where the agreements that the company and Mr. N concluded at the beginning of the entire operation come to light.
Good friends and business partners of Mr. N’s company are attending the court hearing. And it turns out that the company owes not only to the bank, but also to a bunch of other people.
Naturally, during the entire trial, the lawyers of the borrower company repent that, they say, “this is how it happened” historically and there was no malicious intent here. The court, having studied all the sins of Mr. N’s company, will, of course, agree with the creditors’ opinion that the borrower needs to be bankrupt. Having agreed, he terminates the agreement on trust management of property. But here’s the problem - the money received from securities belonging to Mr. N’s company cannot be taken and simply given to the bank. They need to be distributed among all creditors in proportion to the amount of debt. Which is exactly what happens.
That is, the bank, by court decision, receives back only a small part of the issued loan. The rest goes to business partners and acquaintances of Mr. N. Here we can already celebrate a complete victory. And the whole company goes on a trip around the world. Or, switching roles, go to a new bank.
The combination turns out absolutely pure. And not only from the point of view of civil legislation, but also from the point of view of the criminal code.
At first glance, this smells like fraud. However, don't rush to conclusions. There is no crime here. The fact is that fraud, like all other types of theft, by definition is “the gratuitous seizure or conversion to one’s own benefit of someone else’s property.” Free! Mr. N, as an honest entrepreneur, did not do anything like this for free. He brought the money he received from the bank to the same bank. And he didn’t just bring it, but made it possible for the bank to receive income from them in the form of interest for managing securities. That is, he allowed the bank to make money on his beloved one. So there can be no talk of gratuitousness. In addition, the bank received some compensation during the bankruptcy of Mr. N.’s company. It was small, but it was 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.