How To Screw A Bank

aloyisious

Russian man who altered credit card contract small print sues bank for not sticking to terms

It's a rule most of know and most of us ignore - and one often thrown back at borrowers by banks facing complaints over terms and conditions.

Dmitry Argarkov, a Russian man who was sent an unsolicited letter offering him a credit card, has turned the tables, however, arguably striking a blow for customers everywhere.

Instead of simply ignoring the offer of credit Mr Argarkov, 42, scanned the agreement into his computer, changed the terms of the contract and returned it to the lender, Tinkoff Credit Systems.

According to Russia Today his version of the agreement was rather more favourable than that from the bank. It had an unlimited line of credit, no fees and a zero per cent interest rate.

He also added a provision stating that the customer "is not obliged to pay any fees and charges imposed by bank tariffs", and an extra clause to the contract should the bank seek to break or change the agreement.

Crucially when the document was returned to the Russian credit card provider they failed to follow their own instructions and didn't check the small print - sending him out his credit card, which unbeknown to them had sufficient credit for Mr Argarkov to purchase a small island.

After two years of use the bank attempted to terminate Mr Agarkov’s credit card in 2010 because he was late paying the minimum required amounts. They tried to sue Mr Argakov for 45,000 rubles for fees and charges that were not in his altered version of the contract.

Earlier this week a Russian court backed Argarkov and ordered him to only pay the outstanding balance of 19,000 rubles (£371).

"They signed the documents without looking. They said what usually their borrowers say in court: 'We have not read it',” said the judge.

Not content, however, with winning his day in court Mr Argarkov is now taking matters even further and attempting to sue the bank for 24m rubles for not honouring the contract he created. For their part the bank is also taking action, accusing Mr Argakov of fraud.

Oleg Tinkov, founder of the bank, tweeted: "Our lawyers think he is going to get not 24m, but really 4 years in prison for fraud. Now it's a matter of principle for @tcsbanktwitter."

ectoraige

aloyisious wrote: »

Crucially when the document was returned to the Russian credit card provider they failed to follow their own instructions and didn't check the small print - sending him out his credit card, which unbeknown to them had sufficient credit for Mr Argarkov to purchase a small island.

I don't understand this bit - how was the credit limit set so high? Did they use a machine-reader to extract it from the document?
The fact it was unsolicited from the bank is part I like, people wouldn't generally be in near as much debt if it wasn't offered to them on a plate.

Oh, and in Soviet Russia...

Fukuyama

Do companies in Ireland send out credit cards unsolicited?

I know it happens in the US and some EU countries, but have never heard of it in Ireland?

Either way the Russian was lucky a court ruled in his favour.

I'm pretty sure that in Ireland contract law is stricter in that both parties have to be informed of changes in the document.

Ray Palmer

He may get 4 years in prison not sure how good that is at screwing the bank.

It sounds like fraud to me.

Jester252

How to destroy your credit rating. Even of cleared of fraud he won't find another bank who would give him a credit card or any sort of loan

FatherLen

I don't really see how this could be considered fraud.

Amirani

Dean0088 wrote: »

Do companies in Ireland send out credit cards unsolicited?

I know it happens in the US and some EU countries, but have never heard of it in Ireland?

Either way the Russian was lucky a court ruled in his favour.

I'm pretty sure that in Ireland contract law is stricter in that both parties have to be informed of changes in the document.

They were informed of the changes, he sent them to the company? Him sending the contract back was essentially a counter-offer, which they accepted by issuing the card.

Amirani

Ray Palmer wrote: »

He may get 4 years in prison not sure how good that is at screwing the bank.

It sounds like fraud to me.

It's definitely not fraud.

Nemeses

I presume that is perfectly legal as he changed the terms and the bank accepted?

Sueing the bank further is pointless.

Ray Palmer

FatherLen wrote: »

I don't really see how this could be considered fraud.

He changed a contract issued by the bank without informing them and successfully passed it off as their original document. You don't see how that is misleading and therefore fraud? He is lucky the judge allowed it and it will most likely be appealed.

da6xsi

Clearly not fraud from a legal point of view

The bank hasnt a leg to stand on as he sent them a contract which they ACCEPTED the minute that card landed in his front door

The fact the bank admitted to not reading the contract means its game over for them

A contract is a contract it doesnt matter which side of the contract your on i.e bank/customer whats in the print is in the print

Excellent idea all the same

Amirani

Ray Palmer wrote: »

He changed a contract issued by the bank without informing them and successfully passed it off as their original document.

He sent it back to them and they accepted it? How is that not informing them?

Cale

Ray Palmer wrote: »

He changed a contract issued by the bank without informing them and successfully passed it off as their original document. You don't see how that is misleading and therefore fraud? He is lucky the judge allowed it and it will most likely be appealed.

But surely the bank was informed to the changes as much as the customer was to the initial contract outlaid on the back of the form?

Spannend

Ray Palmer wrote: »

He changed a contract issued by the bank without informing them and successfully passed it off as their original document. You don't see how that is misleading and therefore fraud? He is lucky the judge allowed it and it will most likely be appealed.

The contract he sent back was different. When the bank signs the contract the legally agree to the terms in the contract. You are supposed to read a contract before you sign it.

Dean0088

Dean0088 wrote: »

Do companies in Ireland send out credit cards unsolicited?

I was sent a student credit card by my bank unsolicited many years ago now.

Ray Palmer

Spannend wrote: »

The contract he sent back was different. When the bank signs the contract the legally agree to the terms in the contract. You are supposed to read a contract before you sign it.

If you issue out a contract to somebody and they returned what appeared to be the same contract without notifying you they changed it that is fraud in this country.
Intentionally misleading anybody in this manner is a bait and switch which is fraud.

It will be interesting to see if he changed the identification of the document such as the template number, barcode etc.. That would certainly mean he tried to dupe their systems if he didn't.

What some people don't get is a human is very unlikely to have processed this nor any employee of the bank signing anything

Grayson

Ray Palmer wrote: »

He changed a contract issued by the bank without informing them and successfully passed it off as their original document. You don't see how that is misleading and therefore fraud? He is lucky the judge allowed it and it will most likely be appealed.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

If you issue out a contract to somebody and they returned what appeared to be the same contract without notifying you they changed it that is fraud in this country.
Intentionally misleading anybody in this manner is a bait and switch which is fraud.

It will be interesting to see if he changed the identification of the document such as the template number, barcode etc.. That would certainly mean he tried to dupe their systems if he didn't.

What some people don't get is a human is very unlikely to have processed this nor any employee of the bank signing anything

he could have added a line into the small print at the beginning stating that changes had been made

Ray Palmer

Grayson wrote: »

he could have added a line into the small print at the beginning stating that changes had been made

Not valid here if you do that. It is just like the nonsense about being a freeman.

shane9689

to be honest, i like the idea of fcucking the banks over, yet at the same time, if the banks had done the same thing back to the costumer, everyone would be up in arms, double standard. it think the bank should take this as a lesson and the greedy man should just be happy he stuck it to them and not push his luck. Nothing more dangerous than digging a knife into a busniness mans ego