Talat Kurşat | UK High Court Judge accuses him of helping Gary Robb to defraud Aga Victims

It seems there is some sympathy for the Talat Kurşat legal firm from some quarters. One has to wonder why, but then we all see people differently and all live by different standards.  Fortunately the law requires a certain level of decency and honesty from us all. Those that choose to make a living from the law should set an example. Now the Talat Kurşat example appears to leave a lot to be desired.

We all remember the ISO9001 that wasn’t (wrong issuing body) that became the ISO9001 that was, but only for a short period and certainly became the ISO9001 that should not have been advertised and eventually disappeared from the website. Then the matter of the memberships of both the English and RoC Bars that were claimed but definitely were not and also eventually claims of these memberships too disappeared from the website. We also remember the claim of membership of the TRNC Bar… only kidding… that was and probably still is true.

Now coincidentally Talat Kurşat also represent Akfinans Bank Limited in their legal battle to gain possession of the home of the group of pensioners known collectively as Kulaksiz 5. Did they advise their clients against illegally repossessing the villa belonging to Pauline Read or Eva McCluskey? Did they advise their clients that 250% interest on a loan of £1,600 was somewhat excessive or that to give another loan of 100,000 lira to the same borrowers some 8 months later was not really a good plan considering no payments had been received on the first loan? Did they advise their clients that having seen Contracts on the villas already sold before the loan was given could be construed as fraud since each Contract contained a clause affirming there was no mortgage on the Freehold land and that the Freehold land would be kept that way until transfer of title? Did they advise their client that to actually advance money using this land and villas as security would be colluding in the committing of a crime?

Let us look at what the Judge had to say about Talat Kurşat in the SOCA v Gary John Robb case. In no. 68: “By the beginning of February, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, the defendant had formed the intention to extract with the help of Talat Kurşat and others as much cash from the business as he could, and that the incentive schemes, often the hallmark of FRAUD in such circumstances were introduced to that end.” Now I understand that Talat Kurşat, fellow shareholder with Mr Robb, also acted for some purchasers. Did he not think to tell the client of this connection as a possible conflict of interests? How could he see that it was in his client purchaser’s best interest to watch the company being stripped of cash and how did he think the company would be able to complete his client purchaser’s villa without money?

No 68 also says “For the whole of the period from 1 February 2005 until the attempted transfer of the 22 July 2005 he was acting dishonestly and fraudulently, and was conspiring with others principally Kurşat to achieve this end”. Well perhaps I have answered my query above. Mr Kurşat clearly put his fellow shareholder’s interest before that of his purchaser clients, the significant difference being that his fellow shareholder’s interest was felonious whereas his client purchasers was legal. Now as an Advocate, which of those two interests should have been paramount, rhetorical question.

No 70 “Those funds were then transferred to the defendants account 1. Subsequently from the time that the business became fraudulent Talat Kurşat transferred property obtained through unlawful conduct, namely running of the by now bad business, into the same account where two sources of funds became mingled; there were also withdrawals from the account”. Careless, no I don’t think so, not where money is concerned. An attempt to confuse, almost certainly.

No 71. “This was achieved by the defendants acting in a conspiracy to defraud investors with Talat Kurşat and probably other employees at AGA in the TRNC.”

A very professional and thoroughly dedicated team of men and women at the Serious Organised Crime Agency have investigate this crime. Robb has lost £1.6m of the much larger sum of money he stole from innocent purchasers. This is just a small portion of the overall amount that was stolen. Gary Robb did not act alone. There are those still living in the TRNC who should be made to answer for their crimes. That a crime took place is clearly demonstrated. What now are the TRNC Government going to do to ensure all those also implicated in this major fraud are punished and forced to make restitution to their victims?

Source: soca-v-robb.pdf

Peter Wright

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.