Bank of Russia makes Khanty-Mansiysky Bank face administrative liability

August 7, 2013. The Central Bank of the Russian Federation made Bank24.ru face administrative liability and pay a fine; this information is available from the regulatory body's website. Bank24.ru was fined for violating Article 15.27 of the Russian Federation Administrative Offense Code by failing to meet the legal requirements on countering money laundering activity and terrorist financing. The bank had to face administrative liability on the basis of the first part of the Article. The Central Bank's decree has already come into full effect.

May 28, 2015. Some 35% of Yekaterinburg drivers with fines fail to pay them, the city’s road police report. According to the police data, 199,963 fines (totaling to 154,396,200 RUR) were issued to Yekaterinburg drivers in the four months of 2015. 99,562,700 RUR worth of fines, or 64.5%, were paid. 431 offenders had to face administrative liability for non-payment of fines, with charges based on Article 20.25 (Part 1) of the Russian Federation Administrative Offense Code. ‘Failure to pay a fine in time or in full is an offense that results in administrative liability. Besides, the Federal

Ural Federal District’s division of the Federal Financial Market Service ruled that Serov Ferrous Alloys Works should face administrative liability and pay a 700,000-ruble fine. It was declared that the enterprise had not followed the established order of making data publicly available on the securities market, which violates Article 15.19 (part 2) of the Russian Federation Administrative Offense Code.

The public prosecution authorities of Sverdlovsk Region checked the local dwellers for compliance with registration and migration rules recently. As a result, numerous violations of the rules were detected and the culprits had to face administrative liability, the spokesperson for the authorities informed UrBC. In fact, over 450 cases of non-compliance with the federal law were revealed in the course of the checks, which resulted in 128 orders (84 of which have already been considered and enforced). Besides, sixty-one people had to face administrative liability. Since the beginning of the

Sverdlovsk Region division of the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) looked into Bank24.ru’s alleged administrative offense case. The regional public prosecution authorities had investigated the bank’s advertising materials and papers earlier and placed their files with the division so that the latter might decide whether the bank’s loan ads violated the existing legislation. The division did declare Bank24.ru’s ads violated Article 28 (part 3) and Article 5 (part 7) of the Federal Advertising Act. For example, the bank’s Outstanding Loans advertisement did not provide any information as to