Since July 28, the Bank of Russia has withdrawn a license from Yugra Bank. Thus ended the story of the confrontation between the Central Bank and the owner of Yugra, Alexei Khotin. On July 10, the Central Bank introduced a temporary administration and a moratorium to the bank to meet creditors' claims, citing the Bank's unsustainable financial situation.

The proprietor of Ugra secured the support of the Prosecutor General's Office. The Office tried to appeal against the orders of the Central Bank to introduce a temporary administration in "Yugra" and a moratorium on payments to its creditors. In addition, prosecutors suggested that the Central Bank suspend payments to depositors of Yugra. And later the bank filed a lawsuit challenging the introduction of the administration and the moratorium, as well as a prescription for additional reserves.

Since July 20, the Deposit Insurance Agency has begun to pay reimbursements to investors, despite the protest of the General Prosecutor's Office of Russia. On July 26, the representative of the DIA reported that the depositors had already received over 100 billion rubles from agents, or 58% of the payments due.

A source close to the supervisory block of the Central Bank pointed out recently that during the period of the work of the DIA, the bank's capital became negative. This is the basis for revoking the license.

"Yugra" is in the top 30 in terms of assets and in the top 20 in terms of attracted funds from the population. Ugra's take-off was rapid: in 2012 the bank held the 272nd place in terms of assets, but only three years later entered the top 35. During this time, the bank owned 12 natural persons, but market participants pointed out that all these years the bank was de facto controlled by Moscow developers, owners of Gorbushkin yard Yuri and Alexei Khotin. The Central Bank repeatedly demanded that the bank bring the structure of shareholders in compliance and disclosed the real owners. This happened only in January 2016, when Alexei Khotin appeared among the owners of Ugra. Now he is the majority shareholder of the bank - he owns 52.42% of the bank's shares through the Swiss Radamant Financial AG.

The bank's activity was focused on attracting people's money "and placing them in assets of unsatisfactory quality," the CB press service explained. According to the regulator, Yugra alone did not create reserves for possible losses adequate to the risks assumed. DIA as an interim administration has studied the financial situation of the bank. In the first days, the interim administration found that the bank conducted "transactions with accounts" in order to conceal the real financial situation. "The result of the survey was an objective reflection of the value of assets in the reporting of the credit institution, which led to the complete loss of its own funds (capital)," the CB reported.

The business model of Ugra was based on the financing of business projects related to the beneficiaries of this bank at the expense of attracted funds from individuals by issuing loans to companies whose "scale of activities did not correspond to the volume of loans received," the Central Bank said. "The credit organization did not actually carry out in any significant volumes lending to individuals, as well as legal entities not associated with the bank's owners. At the same time, the supervisory authority in the activities of the credit institution has repeatedly identified transactions that have signs of withdrawal of assets and quality collateral, dubious transit operations, facts of submitting materially inaccurate reporting data, schematic execution of the requirements of the Bank of Russia regulations and violation of imposed restrictions. In 2017, the Bank of Russia informed the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation six times about the facts of the withdrawal of assets by the credit institution and twice - Rosfinmonitoring about the bank's implementation of dubious transit operations, "the Central Bank said.

The Central Bank recalled that it repeatedly applied measures of supervisory response against "Ugra", including three times imposed restrictions on attracting deposits from the population. In these conditions, the bank "continued to pursue an aggressive policy of attracting the population's funds, including using a scheme aimed at circumventing the regulator's requirements (investor's depositing shares in the bank)." The bank's actions "did not lead to an increase in its financial stability, improvement of asset quality and were of a formal nature, aimed at camouflaging assets of poor quality."

According to the DIA, the recovery of the bank is economically impractical "due to the extremely low quality of assets and the magnitude of the imbalance between the value of assets and liabilities" and taking into account the fact that Yugra is not a systemically important credit institution.

The financial rehabilitation plan presented by the bank's owner is recognized by the Bank of Russia as unrealistic in terms of the terms, volumes and sources of capitalization proposed by the owner, and some of its provisions do not correspond to the current legislation. In this situation, the Central Bank "fulfilled the duty to recall" the license from Yugra.