For some reason, it does not occur to citizens who believe in this fairy tale that the Central Bank of the Russian Federation is the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, just as the government of the Russian Federation is the government of the Russian Federation, and the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation is the Ministry defense of the Russian Federation.
However, the fact that the obvious does not occur to such citizens is quite understandable: it’s boring without conspiracy, the States don’t scold them much, and if you start thinking about the causes of real problems, you come to the conclusion that it’s not the Fed and the State Department that are to blame for them, so it is much more pleasant to believe in a non-existent enemy than to understand the causes of what is happening, risking at the same time to destroy the system of one’s own beliefs.
However, lovers of fairy tales, characterized by paradoxical "logic" and thirsting for victories, cause particular affection: in their opinion, the recent endowment of the American agent, whom they consider the Central Bank, functions of the mega-regulator and the powers of the Federal Service for Financial Markets is a victory agent and the transfer of all the levers of influence in the financial sphere of the country should lead to getting rid of the bondage of the dollar. In their opinion, this should also contribute to the appointment of the head of the Central Bank of the controlled liberal Nabiullina. Although than Nabiullina is more controlled than, for example, Ignatiev, who has been appointed as head of the Central Bank three times without alternatively before her, they cannot explain - just as they cannot explain what it means to nationalize the Central Bank.
Meanwhile NATIONALIZATION is the transfer of property owned by individuals or joint stock companies to state ownership.that is, in relation to the topic we are discussing, it is the replacement in a number of regulatory acts of a part of the text stating that the Central Bank is privately owned, on a text stating that the Central Bank is the property of the state.
For understandable reasons, it is impossible to make the above mentioned: the law on the Central Bank and the Constitution already state that the Central Bank of the Russian Federation is the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, that its authorized capital and property are federal property, and this in turn means that the founder of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation is Russian Federation. As a result, there can be no talk of nationalization of the Central Bank due to the fact that the Central Bank of the Russian Federation is a public institution.
But despite the stupidity of fairy tales about the nationalization of the Central Bank, these tales continue to live and multiply.
For the first time about the attempt to nationalize V. V. Putin, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation was talked about by sensational journalists in 2000.
In particular, “Kommersant” in the 190 number from 11.10.2000 wrote:
“Around the new law on the Central Bank of passions boil for a long time. But until recently the president did not interfere in them. At the end of September, Vladimir Putin made his own amendments - later, by the way, a month and a half after the official deadline for their submission expired; The Duma Bank Committee had to specifically extend it, otherwise they could not be legalized. The meaning of presidential amendments is the nationalization of the Central Bank. ”
And everything would seem to be good, but nobody can find the draft law with the text of the amendments on the nationalization of the Central Bank, and the actions of the banking committee on the legalization of amendments, which Kommersant told, will not tally with the subsequent actions of the Duma to prevent these amendments.
But the fairy tale is a fairy tale, and after 13 years after its appearance thousands of lovers of fairy tales, fueled by the belief in the infallibility of deputy Fedorov, who is the main peddler of fairy tales about nationalization, happily claim that there were attempts at nationalization (though they confused in testimony - the variation of dates for the unsuccessful attempt to nationalize the Central Bank varies from 1998 to 2004, and the number of attempts varies from one to two).
So - maybe the truth, fairy tales do not lie, maybe there was an attempt to nationalize the Central Bank of the Russian Federation?
The answer is unequivocal - no.
Of course, every fairy tale is based on some real fact, but the interpretation of this fact has nothing to do with reality - therefore the fairy tale is a fairy tale.
In order to understand what was in fact, it suffices to find in the network a passport of the draft Federal Law No. 99113823-2 “On the Central Bank of the Russian Federation (Bank of Russia)” (which is a prototype of the current 86-FZ) and history its adoption, highlighting only what is even remotely related to nationalization.
So: after the crisis 98 of the year, some of the dogs decided to hang on the Central Bank, in connection with which the decision of the State Duma No.3804-II from 19.03.1999 A working group was created to draft the Federal Law “On Amendments and Addenda to the Federal Law on the Central Bank of the Russian Federation”.
In the new draft law, in particular, it was supposed to clarify the status of the Central Bank, as well as the ownership of property and authorized capital (not nationalization, but still ...)
01.12.1999, the finished bill was submitted to the DG.
Since all the regulations affecting the Central Bank in one way or another, in accordance with the law, are sent to the Central Bank for examination, this case was not an exception, which resulted in the Central Bank’s letter No.01-31 / 1249 from 27.03.2000in which, in particular, it was said:
“Clause 2 of Article 1 of the submitted draft provides for a new edition of Article 2 of the Federal Law, which states that the Bank of Russia exercises authority to own, use and dispose of property in federal ownership on behalf of the Russian Federation. Adoption of the proposed wording of article 2 of the Federal Law seems inappropriate, since the use of the term “on behalf of the Russian Federation” actually identifies Bank of Russia operations, as well as its participation in the capital of credit organizations, with operations of the Russian Federation. We believe that in the conditions of the unresolved problems of the external debt of the Russian Federation, this formulation can be used to hold the Bank of Russia liable for the obligations of the Russian Federation.
In addition, the possibility of withdrawing and encumbering the assets of the Bank of Russia in the cases provided for by the Federal Law provided for by the project is unjustified, since the provision prohibiting such withdrawals and encumbrances without the consent of the Bank of Russia is a legal guarantee that the Bank of Russia will comply with the constitutional provision on the issue of money.
Government Conclusion on this Project No.1529п-П13 from 15.05.2000 It was similar to the conclusion of the Central Bank, and there are good reasons: it is worth remembering the attempts of the West to arrest the property of the Russian Federation (for example, airplanes), estimate if there is a possibility of seizing the property of the Central Bank, then why not a “money machine”, and think hard, apparently, these are the evil boyars-deputies as a result they did (I also want to remind you that the State Bank of the USSR did not answer for the debts of the USSR, and the USSR for the debts of the State Bank, and this is no accident).
Finally, the most interesting thing is the president’s opinion: letter No. Pr-1873 from 21.09.2000 (that is, the very amendments, the purpose of which, according to Kommersant, is the nationalization of the Central Bank):
»As such, the state-legal status of the Bank of Russia is neither defined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation nor in the Federal Law“ On the Central Bank of the Russian Federation (Bank of Russia) ”(hereinafter referred to as the Federal Law). It is advisable in the proposed wording of the first part of Article 1 of the Federal Law (paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the draft) to provide that the Bank of Russia is a federal government body that is independent in its activities from other federal government bodies, government bodies, government bodies local self-government in the implementation of legislatively assigned functions and powers ”.
As you can see, nationalization does not smell like it - we are talking about clarifying the status of the Central Bank, and the proposals of the President, as can be seen from part 2 of the article 1 of the current 86-FZ, were partially accepted.
“Part two of Article 1 of the Federal Law (paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the draft) provides that the Bank of Russia is a legal entity and has a seal with its name. By virtue of the requirements of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a legal entity may be created in one of the organizational and legal forms provided for by the Federal Law, and the name of the legal entity must contain an indication of its organizational and legal form. It is also necessary to determine the civil legal status of the Bank of Russia, that is, its organizational and legal form as a subject of civil law - a legal entity.
In connection with the above, the second part of Article 1 of the Federal Law is proposed to be amended as follows:
“The Bank of Russia is a federal state institution with the rights of a legal entity. The Bank of Russia has a seal with the image of the State Emblem of the Russian Federation and its name, indicating its organizational and legal form. "
And again, talking about clarifying the status of the Central Bank and not its nationalization, although the proposal was rejected by the deputies.
Then, in the same vein, neither the responsibility of the obligations of the Russian Federation on the part of the Central Bank, the transfer of the issuing function under the control of the government or the president, or dependence on anyone for the implementation of the Central Bank of its functions and powers in the proposals of the president words - we are talking about clarifying the status of the Central Bank, about an insignificant redistribution of functions, about strengthening the control over financial activities and the board of directors (to steal less), but not about nationalization. And this is not surprising: it is impossible to nationalize the fact that, in fact, is in fact initially a state one.
PS For those who wish to familiarize themselves with the documents on the alleged “nationalization” of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, I recommend using the resource “Consultant Plus” to “search”: “Passport of the draft Federal Law No. XXUMX-99113823“ On the Central Bank of the Russian Federation (Bank of Russia) ” - everything is there.