In the presence of unfulfilled orders of bailiffs to seize funds held in the accounts of Bank customers, the execution of any collection orders is unacceptable.
By the resolution of the specialized interdistrict Administrative Court of Astana dated April 24, 2013, the director of the branch of JSC "N" of Astana, K., was brought to administrative responsibility under part 1 of Article 525 of the Administrative Code with the imposition of an administrative penalty in the form of a fine in the amount of 10 monthly calculation indices in the amount of 17,310 tenge. K. He was found guilty of the fact that on March 04, 2013, being an official of the branch of JSC "N" in Astana, without valid reasons, he failed to comply with the requirements of the bailiff related to the execution of the enforcement document, namely the requirement to execute the collection order. By the ruling of the Astana City Court dated May 27, 2013, the said resolution was left unchanged, K.'s complaint was dismissed. The protest of the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Republic of Kazakhstan raises the issue of the cancellation of the judicial act, the termination of the proceedings in connection with the inconsistency of the conclusions of the judge on the factual circumstances of the case, set out in the decision on the case of an administrative offense. The Supervisory Judicial Board of the Supreme Court has overturned the resolution of the specialized interdistrict Administrative Court of Astana and the ruling of the Astana City Court.
K. terminated the administrative proceedings against the director of the Astana branch of JSC "N" due to the absence of an administrative offense in his actions, provided for in Part 1 of Article 525 of the Administrative Code, stating the following. When considering the case, the court came to the conclusion that there was K. in the actions of the director of the branch of JSC "N" of Astana. an administrative offense, since the branch of JSC "N" unreasonably refused to issue collection order No. 158 dated March 04, 2013 to the settlement account of JSC "T" for enforcement proceedings to recover wage arrears in the amount of KZT 18,000,000 in favor of M. Meanwhile, the court's conclusions do not correspond to the circumstances of the case. and the current legislation. It follows from the case file that earlier, JSC "N" based on bailiffs' orders dated July 20, 2009, August 20, 2010, February 18, 2011 and September 18, 2012, the accounts of JSC "T" were seized for a total amount of 382,997,931 tenge. From the statement of the representative of JSC "T" by proxy Zh. It follows that the Company's Bank account had funds in the amount of 25,302,693 tenge, therefore, the amount of the previously imposed arrests exceeded the amount of the collection order. According to paragraph 2 of Article 58 and paragraph 2 of Article 62 of the Law "On Enforcement Proceedings and the Status of Bailiffs", the collection of monetary amounts of the debtor located in Banks or organizations engaged in certain types of banking operations is carried out by the bailiff by issuing a collection order.
In the presence of unfulfilled orders of bailiffs to seize funds held in the accounts of Bank customers, the execution of any collection orders is unacceptable.
The seizure of the debtor's property consists in prohibiting the disposal of this property, as well as declaring a ban on the use and disposal of the debtor's funds held in Banks and other organizations engaged in certain types of banking operations, on which a resolution is issued. In accordance with paragraphs 5 and 7 of Article 740 of the Civil Code, the order of authorized government agencies with the right to suspend spending operations on a client's bank accounts does not apply to the amount of money that has been seized based on a decision of authorized government agencies or officials to seize. Other decisions of authorized state bodies or officials on the seizure and orders of authorized state bodies with the right to suspend spending operations on the client's bank accounts are executed in the order of priority of their acceptance by the Bank after the lifting or cancellation of the arrest imposed in order to secure the claim or execution of the executed documents. Thus, the current legislation provides for the possibility of collecting the debtor's monetary amounts held in the Bank by issuing a collection order. A collection order, which was not preceded by the seizure, cannot be executed until the previous arrests are lifted according to other enforcement documents, since they imply a ban on the disposal of funds, and a collection order is only the withdrawal of money. By virtue of the requirements of Article 740 of the Civil Code, in the presence of unfulfilled orders of bailiffs to seize funds held in the accounts of Bank customers, the execution of any collection orders is unacceptable. The order of priority for the withdrawal of the client's money, provided for in Article 742 of the Civil Code, applies only to collection orders that were preceded by the arrest. Under such circumstances, there is no element of an administrative offense in K.'s actions, since the Bank was guided by the norms of current legislation, accordingly, it was not legally able to execute the collection order of the bailiff, since the arrest on the account of JSC "T" as part of the execution of a court order to collect wage arrears in the amount of 18,000,000 tenge in favor of M. not imposed.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
