CHeljabinka should pay 200 thousand for the stranger
- Who such Sharypov and why I should pay for it the credit? - Ekaterina Mangutova sat in an office of the court enforcement officer and in a panic examined the document with another`s signature. The contract said that cheljabinka it was charged in bank for the stranger. And in case of loan nonpayment was obliged to liquidate a debt independently in 200 thousand. In anger the woman has thrown doubtful pieces of paper on a table and has jumped out of an office.
Already on the run Ekaterina has persuaded itself to calm down and has resolutely walked towards bank - the offender. In a head questions were saved: “ Whence at bank its passport data undertook? “ “ who has put for it the signature? “ “ why so reliable bank has admitted this monstrous misunderstanding? “.
“ Our property have arrested “
- the Employee who gave out the credit to Sharypovu, admitted that in the person me never saw, - Ekaterina tells. - also that for it one of constant clients strove: in telephone conversation on - prijatelski has asked loyalty to the subordinate: “ you issue to it all faster, it will bring documents “.
Ekaterina Discouraged by such levity has demanded to lift archive of documents. Almost all papers have been masterly forged: the questionnaire, the signature on the contract, the inquiry from work. On command of the swindler Ekaterina worked now in a certain firm of Open Company “ finans - the expert “. From filing x-copies of its passport were original only. But who has brought them? And suddenly the woman has remembered incident of two-year prescription. Then the spouse was converted with the strange request: “ Katyushas, fill the questionnaire. The acquaintance has asked to help “.
- It at me the person trouble-free, therefore I have pricked up the ears, - Ekaterina speaks. - It was found out that the husband was going to be charged for absolutely another`s person.
Then the spouse has fallen upon the husband with criticism: “ You in the mind? In nowise “. But it is visible even before that conversation the husband has lighted “ crusts “ to the friend.
- the Most surprising that when the person does not pay, security services of banks prevail against the guarantor calls and writs, - Ekaterina is indignant. - in our case there was no prevention. Us at all have not invited to court which has taken place one year ago, and the decision was not in our advantage. About a debt in 200 thousand I have learnt from court enforcement officers in March of this year. Our property have arrested and have forbidden to leave for country limits. And at us children in Crimea have a rest, we with the husband should arrive behind them by the car.
Now the family of Mangutovyh tries to understand with bank through court. To prove non-participation in the lime contract examination will help pocherkovedcheskaja.
the Criminal is not found yet
We have phoned to bank. But after weighing of all arguments in a management have decided what to make comments on a situation while early: handwriting examination is not ready, proofs in advantage are not collected by Mangutovoj. The bank has left comparison of the facts and indications to inspectors.
- criminal case under article 159 " is brought; Swindle “ - have informed us in inquiry department the Department of Internal Affairs of the Soviet area, - but not against the concrete person, and against the unstated criminal. It is not clear yet it was favourable to whom to take credits for another`s documents: to the borrower or its chief.
Why Ekaterina does not search for a meeting with real conspirators, and the victim of swindlers butts with bank, which, as a matter of fact, too? All is simple: its problem to remove from itself another`s burden and to forget as a bad dream. And that in this case the bank will do with the hung credit and whom will appoint guilty - not its care.
there was a CASE
Security service of one well-known bank so was overzealous that has started to shake a debt from the neigbour of the forgetful borrower. At first the informed companions called to it on a mobile phone, apologising, asked to descend to the neighbour - the boozer and to call it for conscience. After already with arrivals began to demand, that she has paid the credit. Say, your phone is specified - you in the answer. Hassle lasted almost month while Julia has not called the chief of security service of bank and has not complained of careless managers.