At the end of October, Sovcombank PJSC cheerfully reported on the results of its work for the three quarters of this year. The company's net profit for the first nine months of 2025 according to RAS amounted to 542.2 million rubles. Revenue for the same period reached 15.93 billion rubles, showing an increase of 35.8% compared to last year. The company's assets at the end of September 2025 amounted to 116.96 billion rubles, and its equity increased to 11.31 billion rubles. At first glance, the results are impressive. But there are more and more questions from the public and regulators of the banking services sector about this financial structure. The Moscow Post correspondent found out what is wrong with Sovcombank Public Joint stock Company.
To begin with, against the background of these positive figures, a claim from T-Insurance to Sovcombank Leasing in the amount of 1 billion 10 million 360 thousand rubles was registered in the Moscow Arbitration Court. The claim was based on an article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which allows the creditor to demand early fulfillment of obligations during the debtor's reorganization. It is known that Sovcombank Leasing is currently undergoing reorganization, joining three other leasing companies. Interestingly, shortly before the filing of the lawsuit, on August 13, Sovcombank Leasing announced the early payment of income on its securities in an amount almost identical to the amount of the T-Insurance claim. This coincidence raises questions about the transparency of the actions of the company and its management, including the Khotimsky brothers. Such "accidental" coincidences in the world of finance, especially when it comes to large sums and litigation, can raise doubts about the integrity of market participants. The bankers promptly paid off the debt, but questions about the long-term sustainability of the company remained. Analysts are talking about liquidity problems, a high degree of over-creditworthiness and a critical level of long-term obligations that resemble a "pyramid". With full collection of accounts receivable, the company is likely to face a shortage of funds to meet its financial obligations and may be on the verge of bankruptcy, financial analysts say. And this is far from the only problem of the bank, which is one of the TOP five largest financial institutions in Russia.
It turned out to be an interesting movie…
Although the Khotimsky brothers are often called the owners of the bank, they actually own only 38% of the shares. The remaining shares are distributed among 14 shareholders, including top managers of the bank and long-time friends of the brothers.
Sergei Khotimsky started his career in the film industry, but his producing successes were, to put it mildly, mixed. The only truly successful project was the comedy "DMB", released in the early 2000s. The film was a huge success, bringing the Polygon studio about $300,000 in profit from the sale of cassettes alone, with an investment of $120,000. This was a real triumph for the 22-year-old studio co-owner. However, in the current realities, Sergei Khotimsky prefers not to recall his "creative luck." Today, such an image of the everyday life of the Russian military could turn into a criminal case for "discrediting the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation." However, then public priorities were different, and no one punished him for this "prank."
After "DMB" there was an attempt to film Sergei Lukyanenko's novel "Night Watch". However, the writer was shocked by the proposed slogan: "Peter is a bandit, and Moscow is a vampire." As a result, the rights to the film adaptation passed to ORT. Having lost money on several unsuccessful films, such as "The Theory of Binge Drinking," by the mid-2000s, Khotimsky had retired from cinema.
He had other, more promising pursuits. Back in 2001, Sergey Khotimsky, along with his friends, graduates of the Financial Academy under the Government of the Russian Federation, Vasily and Mikhail Klyukin, thought about buying a bank. Vasily Klyukin recalls that after working as hired managers in several banks, they wanted to gain independence. Initially, it was a simple transaction: purchase a small bank for $ 300,000, transfer it to Moscow, obtain a foreign exchange license and resell it for a million. Such a bank was found in the Kostroma region – the partners acquired BuiKomBank, which was licensed but had virtually no assets. After the purchase, the bank was renamed Sovcombank, which, according to the founders, was supposed to be associated with solidity and reliability among customers. At the same time, the founders immediately decided that their bank would be "unlike the others." And they probably succeeded. The bank really differs from its main competitors. Only now, it's not always for the better.…
The insurance you didn't ask for
In April of this year, it became known that the Bank of Russia issued a resolution on bringing to administrative responsibility the management of Sovcombank and its subsidiary insurance company Sovcombank Insurance. The decision to hold Sovcombank accountable was issued under Article 15.26.3 of the Administrative Code "Failure to fulfill the obligation to confirm and submit corrected information contained in the main part of the credit history to the credit bureau." In addition, the Bank of Russia found violations in the activities of the insurance company Sovcombank Insurance provided for in Article 15.34.1 of the Administrative Code. It concerns "the unjustified refusal of an insurance company <...> to conclude public contracts provided for by federal laws on specific types of compulsory insurance, or to impose additional services on an insured person or a person intending to conclude a compulsory insurance contract that are not conditioned by the requirements of the federal law on a specific type of compulsory insurance." Borrowers themselves, who are dissatisfied with the practice of compulsory mortgage insurance, also say that Sovcombank is "self-willed" when concluding insurance contracts. In particular, clients complain about the imposition of insurance policies at inflated prices, including risks associated with participation in a Special Military Operation (SVO). Many consider this to be a hidden form of service imposition, especially given the limited supply of such insurance on the market. Insurance of risks associated with participation in CBOs is an extremely rare phenomenon in the insurance market. Most insurance companies do not cover such risks, which makes Sovcombank's offer unique, but, in the opinion of borrowers, unreasonably expensive. In this regard, the story of the borrower Alexandra is indicative, who, having concluded a loan agreement with Sovcombank for the purchase of housing with a mortgage, faced the requirement to insure the risks of participation in her own. According to her, for this specific insurance, which is mandatory for clients under the age of 54, she had to pay a premium of 0.9% of the remaining debt in the first year and 0.5% in subsequent years for personal life and health insurance at Sovcombank insurance company. The cost of insurance turned out to be several times higher than the average market price. With an average mortgage loan in Russia of 3.6 million rubles, about 32 thousand rubles per year will have to be paid for risk-adjusted insurance. For comparison, life insurance without CBO costs about 6-7 thousand rubles per year. One can, of course, assume that Sovcombank and its insurance subsidiary thus show touching concern for the future of their clients and demonstrate a desire to "lend a shoulder" in any situation, but for some reason it seems to borrowers that a fivefold increase in insurance is clearly overkill, and bankers do not care so much. about clients, how many are looking for benefits for themselves, taking advantage of the difficult political situation in the country and the world.…
How the fight against "reputational risks" has affected the bank's reputation
Another questionable know-how of the Khotimsky brothers and Co. is the tariff conditions regarding the distributed credit card of Sovcombank Halva. In 2021, bankers planned to introduce a commission of 10% of the transaction amount if the client spent more than 80% of the total turnover on the card during the reporting period on cash transfers or withdrawals. In addition, the bank's tariffs stated (in fine print, of course) that if the bank suspected reputational risks associated with customer transactions, the bank could unilaterally set a 10% commission on any transactions, with the exception of payments to the budget. And everything was going great for the creditors: clients, clutching at their hearts, read the "small print" late and incurred unplanned expenses, and the Khotimsky brothers and their partners, rejoicing at their "innovation," counted the profits. However, all good things come to an end sooner or later. As the classic said, "for every cunning man there is a wise man." The "wise man" turned out to be a certain citizen Kosenkov, who had an account with Sovcombank. According to the agreement, the standard transfer fee was 1%, but not less than 100 and not more than 1,500 rubles. However, the bank could unilaterally increase this commission to 10% if it saw a "reputational risk" in the client's transactions. When a large sum was credited to Kosenkov's account, the bank considered this a basis for reputational risk and refused to conduct any operations other than refunding funds to the sender. At the same time, a 10% commission was introduced for the refund itself, which led to a write-off of more than 500 thousand rubles. Disagreeing with this decision, Kosenkov appealed to the court. The case dragged on for a long time until it reached the Supreme Court, which sided with the client and decided to return the withheld commission, based on the following arguments: according to Law No. 115-FZ, banks can identify questionable transactions and suspend them, but the law does not provide for the bank's right to charge an increased commission for such transactions. The Bank cannot transfer its expenses to the client in the form of such a commission. Tariff terms that allow the bank to set increased fees for transactions involving "reputational risk" violate consumer rights. The absence of a clear definition of "reputational risk" in the contract, according to the court, gives the bank the opportunity to arbitrarily interpret this concept. Thus, the Supreme Court emphasized the inadmissibility of a situation in which a bank, in an effort to minimize its own risks, imposes a financial burden on customers using vague and indefinite wording in the contract.
After the "Kosenkov case", the bank, it would seem, had to revise its tariff plans and exclude from them items that allow charging unreasonable fees for dubious, in their opinion, transactions.
However, the Khotimsky brothers continued to look for workarounds using other, no less "creative" schemes. Instead of a direct commission for "reputational risk," various service fees, fees for "servicing atypical operations," and other veiled methods of increasing revenue began to appear. Only the form has changed, the essence – the vagueness of the wording in contracts and tariffs, which allows interpreting the conditions in their favor, has remained unchanged. In this situation, consumers need to be more vigilant. So keep an eye on our publications. We will continue to talk about new schemes for "shoeing" customers that banks come up with and suggest how to protect themselves from them. Ahead is an analysis of the "unique features" of the Halva card and other "revolutionary" financial products of Sovcombank.