The essence of HOME BURNING is as follows:
  The "robbery" must begin with preparation. The entire operation can be performed both on behalf of a citizen and on behalf of a legal entity, that is, a commercial company. There is no difference here - to whom it is more convenient. We, again, for convenience, will talk about the company.
You can start simple. Namely, the fact that the company concludes agreements with its good business partners or just close friends - private individuals, according to which it allegedly borrows considerable sums of money from them at interest. It is made out in the most serious way. Contracts, receipts, obligations, guarantees and so on. In fact, everything remains only on paper - money can not be borrowed, because for our scheme we need only the contracts themselves. They hide in the table and lie there until a certain time.
  After that, Mr. N, as a representative of the company, goes to the bank selected for the "robbery" and asks for a loan for some kind of profitable transaction. However, it is possible not for a deal, but for the acquisition of real estate, equipment, land or anything else quite valuable and profitable - so that the bank pecks faster. At the same time, Mr. N can agree to any interest - you don’t have to give it anyway.
  After the loan is received, and the fun begins.
  Having received the money, Mr. N returns to the office of his native company and opens the beloved and respected Civil Code to everyone. Opens it, of course, in the right place. Namely, that chapter of it, which deals with trust management of property. More specifically, article 1018.
  And it says the following: "The collection of debts by the founder of trust on property transferred to him by management is not allowed, with the exception of the insolvency (bankruptcy) of this person. In the event of bankruptcy of the founder of trust, trust management of this property is terminated and it is included in the bankruptcy estate." The end of the quote.
  We will clarify the terminology. The founder of trust management is the one who gives his property to management. And the manager, in turn, is the one who undertakes to manage this property. The essence of the operation is that the property transferred to trust management legally remains in the ownership of the founder. The manager undertakes to competently dispose of this property and pay the income received from it. For this, the founder pays the manager a certain percentage of the profits.
  After thinking a little about all this, Mr. N must do the following: go on the very first ad in any newspaper and buy the securities for the entire amount received from the bank. Better, of course, profitable. For example, shares of oil industry workers or some other.
Having bought all these shares (solely for solidity and so as not to cause unnecessary suspicion of anyone), Mr. N waits a week or two. After that, he goes to the same bank that issued the money to him and concludes with him the same trust management agreement for the securities purchased in advance.
  However, it’s better not to mention to Mr. N that these securities were bought exactly for the money that was recently received at the same bank.
  The conclusion of such an agreement gives Mr. N reason to joyfully rub his hands, since he has already done half of his work. Meanwhile, an unsuspecting bank will carefully manage the securities entrusted to it. And pay Mr. N profit from these operations.
  And if he doesn’t, then the named gentleman will indicate to the bank lawyer article 1022 of the Civil Code, which says: "The trustee, who, while trusting the property, did not take due care of the interests of the beneficiary or founder of the management, shall compensate the beneficiary for the lost profit during the time of trusting the property .. . "
  In human language, this means that in the event of a poor disposal of Mr. N’s securities, this bank must also compensate for the losses.
  So, having given the money received from the bank to him for management, Mr. N can go for a couple of months to rest somewhere in the south. Money, meanwhile, will be “drip” from the bank to the cunning gentleman.
  Returning with a fresh tan and in a good mood, the cunning gentleman discovers that it is time to pay the bank on a previously granted loan.
  The gentleman immediately makes an honest face and says that the deal fell through, the goods were stolen, the container turned upside down, the container was broken and, in general, life failed. Having estimated what was happening, the bank, naturally, wants to be compensated for the losses caused. Moreover, they didn’t just compensate, but according to the full program - with all percentages, forfeits, penalties and so on.
The question arises: from what, in fact, Mr. N and the firm behind him (the loan, we recall, was taken for it) all this should compensate? And then the bank remembers (if he doesn’t remember it, then Mr. N can tell him) that the same bank controls the securities brought by Mr. Exactly the amount of the loan issued by the bank. That's just one snag. Namely, that phrase from the Civil Code, which we have already talked about: levy on the debts of the founder of the management for property transferred to trust, is not allowed, except for cases when the founder is declared bankrupt. That is, here it is - the property through which N and his company can pay off the debt to the bank. True, you can take money only if the company is declared bankrupt.
  And then a dilemma arises before the bank. If he does not declare N and his company bankrupt, then the company will not pay on the loan. If the company is nevertheless bankrupt, the bank will lose profit for trusting your property.
  Most likely, the desire to repay the loan will prevail here. However, if he doesn’t win, then N and his company will simply continue to receive the profits put in handing over the property to the bank for management.
  But suppose that the desire to make insidious borrowers bankrupt at the bank did win.
  In order to conduct bankruptcy proceedings, you need to contact the arbitration court. What the bank is happy to do. A hearing is scheduled. This is where the contracts that the company and Mr. N concluded at the beginning of the whole operation come up.
  At the court hearing are good friends and partners of Mr. N’s business firm. And it turns out that the company owes not only to the bank, but also to a bunch of all the people.
  Naturally, during the entire trial, the lawyers of the borrowing company repent that, they say, “this happened” historically and there was no malicious intent here. The court, having studied all the sins of Mr. N’s company, of course, agrees with the opinion of the lenders that the borrower should be bankrupt. By agreeing, he terminates the asset trust agreement. But here is a bad luck - the money received from Mr. N’s securities owned by the company cannot be taken and simply given to the bank. They need to be distributed among all creditors - in proportion to the amount of debt. Which is happening.
That is, the bank, by court order, receives back only a small part of the loan issued. The rest is received by business partners and acquaintances of Mr. N. Here you can already celebrate a complete victory. And the whole company to go around the world. Or, exchanging roles, go to a new bank.
  The combination is absolutely clean. And not only from the point of view of civil law, but also from the standpoint of the criminal code.
  At first glance, it smells of fraud. However, do not rush to conclusions. There is no crime here. The fact is that fraud, by the way, like all other types of theft, by definition is "gratuitous seizure or appeal to one’s own property of others." Gratuitous! Mr. N, as an honest businessman, did nothing of the kind free of charge. He brought the money received from the bank to the same bank. And he didn’t just bring it, but gave the bank the opportunity to receive income from them in the form of interest on the management of securities. That is, he gave the bank on his beloved also earn money. So there can be no question of gratuitousness. In addition, the bank received some compensation in the bankruptcy of Mr. N.’s company. Small, but received.
  So Mr. N is clean before the law and can even count on sympathy - the company has gone bankrupt. And it’s hard to look at the death of one’s own business.