AZE.US
Azerbaijani lawyer Akram Hasanov has warned bank depositors about a court case involving an old deposit that, according to him, was not returned to the heir of a deceased client.
In a Facebook post, Hasanov said the case concerns a deposit placed with TuranBank in 2009. The depositor died in 2012. Years later, the heir found the bank deposit agreement among family documents, along with a property extract for a land plot. The land was transferred to the heir without difficulty, but the bank did not return the deposit, according to Hasanov.
Hasanov wrote that the bank informed the notary handling the inheritance case that the depositor’s account had been closed in 2021. He questioned why the account of a person who died in 2012 was closed nine years later, and who could have withdrawn the money.
After the case went to court, the bank said the depositor had allegedly withdrawn the deposit in 2010, Hasanov wrote. The lawyer said the bank did not answer why the account was then closed only in 2021.
The claimant’s side asked the bank to present the cash withdrawal document showing that the deposit had been paid out. According to Hasanov, the bank said the documents related to the depositor had been destroyed in 2016, citing Central Bank rules on archive retention and a minimum five-year storage period.
Hasanov disputes that argument. He said the minimum retention period does not mean a bank can destroy documents needed to prove that it fulfilled an obligation to a client. He also noted that deposit claims are not subject to a limitation period, meaning a depositor or heir can demand the money even many years later.
The lawyer said the bank presented an act on the destruction of documents, but the act did not name the depositor. Instead, it listed documents in bulk, without identifying individual clients.
Hasanov also said the bank did not provide a document confirming the closure of the account in 2021, even though less than five years had passed since then. Instead, he wrote, the bank relied on its internal software system.
According to Hasanov, an on-site review showed that the bank had been using that software for only about three years, meaning it did not exist in 2009 or 2010. He said the bank printed a cash withdrawal order from the system and submitted it to court, but the document had no signatures from bank employees, no depositor’s signature, and no stamp or seal.
Hasanov also said the bank did not provide proof that interest had been paid on the deposit.
Despite these arguments, the first-instance court rejected the claim.
The lawyer criticized the court’s reasoning, saying it effectively treated the bank’s internal records and statements as sufficient evidence while placing the burden on the claimant to disprove them. In his view, that approach could create risks not only for old deposits but also for money held in bank accounts more broadly.
The case appears likely to continue beyond the first-instance court. For depositors and heirs, the dispute is already a warning: old bank contracts, cash orders, account statements and inheritance-related documents should be kept for as long as possible, especially when a bank deposit may later become part of an estate.
AZE.US