The Supreme Court once again pointed out that there is no need to prove that the guarantor has the status of the final beneficiary
The commented definition has not actually developed a new legal approach when considering disputes on recognizing a security transaction as invalid in the context of causing harm to the interests of the creditors of the person who issued the security.
Obtaining a surety from a person included in one group of persons with the borrower is standard practice and therefore this circumstance cannot indicate the presence of signs of unfairness in the behavior of the credit institution and the guarantor even in the case when the guarantor assumes obligations exceeding his financial capabilities.
The Supreme Court once again pointed out that there is no need to prove that the surety has the status of the ultimate beneficiary. It seems obvious that when lending to one of the members of a group of persons, in the end, all its members should receive some benefit, since in the aggregate the property base of this group grows.
In addition, in the absence of the bank’s affiliation with the borrower and guarantors, even if the bank does not provide a credit dossier, which confirms that the credit institution has positively assessed the financial condition of the borrower and guarantors, the bank’s actions cannot be qualified as unfair if they do not deviate from the standard of conduct of an ordinary credit institution.
Read the details in the material of the Advokatskaya gazeta.