In the first working week of 2018, Agrosoyuz Bank stopped accepting deposits. This may be due to the Central Bank's instruction to prohibit the reception of client funds.

Similar regulations are issued by the regulator in the absence of a proper level of liquidity: when a priori it is known that the bank will not be able to return the depositor its deposit.

This is confirmed by the fact that the current deposits and accounts, as specified in the "Agrosoyuz" itself, continue to be serviced - for technical reasons, as the bank tries to do, it is difficult to explain this.

So what happens to a credit institution with a 27-year history?

Point of no return?

Expert Agency "Expert RA" in December awarded "Agrosoyuz" ruB rating, which indicates a low level of creditworthiness, with a negative outlook.

According to the portal of bank analysts, the business of the bank does not go very well, to put it mildly.

For the year (all data are presented as of December 1, 2017 compared to December 1, 2016), the volume of highly liquid assets decreased from 4.56 billion to 3.85 billion rubles. The expected outflow of funds, as well as the total amount of current liabilities at the same time increased, which is a bad sign for the bank.

Liquidity standards are unstable: H2 fluctuated significantly during the year, and H3 gradually decreased. Predictably, the bank's expert reliability also declined: in September it reached a minimum of 90%, and then grew a bit.

The capital adequacy ratio, which at the beginning of 2017 was 13.4%, for the year significantly approached to a minimum and amounted to 11.3%. As a result, the bank can be classified as unstable: if the Central Bank has decided to ban the acceptance of deposits by Agrosoyuz, then its condition is completely deplorable.

And if you take into account that the volume of deposits in the bank's accounts reaches 8.343 billion rubles, and it is not a fact that they are all on the accounts of Agrosoyuz, it's time for the owner to pack his things in the SIZO or abroad. And immediately.

Throw Evtushenkov

Since November 3, 2017, the only owner of the Agrosoyuz bank is Andrei Zakharovich Shlyakhova. He could have been called an experienced banker, after all, he founded the Far Eastern Bank "Dalcombank", was exposed in "MTS Bank", "Asia-Pacific Bank" and even East-West United Bank from Luxembourg. But this experience is more than negative.

In 2007, Shlyahova joined the board of the Moscow Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), and in 2010 became chairman of the board. The same bank bought from him "Dalcombank". In 2012, MBRD turned into MTS Bank, and Shlyahova remained predpravleniya, but not for long: in 2013, he was fired. The reason, presumably, were the losses that the IBRD, and then MTS Bank carried under his leadership: in 2012 alone, the credit organization lost 4.16 billion rubles.

Then MTS Bank announced that it intends to continue cooperation with the financier, for example, within the framework of the AFK Sistema project. It was only in 2016 that the way of Shlyahovy to the heart of Felix Evtushenkov was cut off forever.

In March 2016, Shlyahovoy was sued by MTS Bank for 1 billion rubles. In this amount, Yevtushenkov estimated the actions of the former government when he was still at the head of the subsequently sold MBRD Dalcombank. Then it turned out that Shlyahovoy had delivered large numbers of buyers, having previously engaged in the withdrawal of real estate.

In 2001-2003, the president of Dalcombank got rid of the head office in Khabarovsk, selling it to Inotech. In this case, the buyer for the transaction allegedly used the money borrowed in his own bank - and at extremely low interest rates, which leads to certain suspicions. Then from "Inotka" four companies were withdrawn, at the head of which stood under the control of Shlyahovoy - they were given most of the premises. Needless to say, that the new owners of the bank had to rent premises from buyers?

That is, Shlyahova, in the opinion of the plaintiffs, made a profit, and through the controlled offices he himself took a rent from Evtushenkov's bank! Truth is said: arrogance knows no boundaries. And the greed for profit - even more so.

"Warning" from CB

In 2015-2016 - some time after the dismissal from MTS Bank - Shlyahova entered the board of directors of the Asia-Pacific Bank. Then there were no big scandals, and he left quite quietly. But did he put his hand to the current gradual "flooding" of this "Titanic"? You can suspect everything.

Yes, and the reasons for the likely (and soon!) Collapse of the "Agrosoyuz" cause more and more doubts: how well from there "banker Zaharych" managed to withdraw everything that was not nailed to the floor? For example, for the holidays. Maybe that's why the deposits stopped accepting, that the Central Bank somehow suspected something? Behind such "figures" only eyes and eyes!

The story of Ildar Klebleev, shadow owner of the bank "European Standard", which occurred in 2016, is also interesting. Then he came to "Agrosoyuz" and made it clear that he was aware of the problems of the bank. At the same time he waved in front of Shlyahovoy and the securities from the Central Bank: an assignment for checking the credit organization and analytical materials on the accounts and the resource base. For the bank to keep the work, Klebleev offered to pay the head of the Central Bank Elvira Nabiullina 1 million euros.

Of course, Nabiullina there at all to do with it: "racketeer" acted in their own interests, for which he fell under the investigation. But the reason Shlyahovoy went to "knock" at him at the FSB was not that Klebleev was lying, but that the amount of the bribe seemed to him unbearable. That is, he did not deny the problems at the bank even then and knew that the Central Bank was getting ready to deal with it - it seems that he had time to "prepare" for stolen his own "Agrosoyuz"! Or not only him?

"UM" for the mind

Shlyahova is also a sole proprietor of Ural-based UМ-Bank. Here the turnover is much smaller: as of December 1, 2017, the volume of highly liquid assets did not exceed 468 million rubles. Net assets at the same time - 4.33 billion rubles. But the expected outflow of money - 1.26 billion rubles. As a result, the ratio of highly liquid assets to the outflow is only 37.19% - there is practically no margin of safety for UM Bank.

Liquidity standards even beat "Agrosoyuz" indicators, periodically almost reaching 500%. With the capital ratios, everything also looks normal. But do not forget that the sanitized banks in the summer of 2017 also did not seem to be a threat to the Russian banking system ...

So, perhaps Shlyahova opened her mouth not for one, but immediately for two banks, which means that twice as many Russians are afraid for their contributions.