Akfinans Bank v Pauline Read | “a violation of my privacy and my Human Rights”

Pauline Read has sent the following to me as an answer to, in my opinion, libellous statements against her made by Akfinans Bank in Yeniduzen newspaper. She is now terrified that Akfinans Bank will issue writs against everything she publishes and, as you will see, is afraid to even mention their name when defending herself against the untruths they are spreading about her. Tom Roche in Cyprus Today wrote that Akfinans Bank “has shown its true colours; attempting to wash its hands of any responsibility towards those it intends to make homeless and using classic bully boy tactics to silence its critics.” I cannot agree with this statement because a writ might be issued against me in Germany which I would have to defend in a court in the south. However, you may come to your own opinion by reading what follows (for legal reasons, published with errors unedited):

“I will now endeavour to answer the accusations by the bank and deal with them in order as per the translation.


1. I have never claimed to represent Kulaksiz 5 or the people resident there or in the UK. At the Press Conference hosted by the Teacher’s Union on the 29th February 2012, I told the assembled media that I was there as Pauline Read, a victim from Kulaksiz 5 and I listed all the things that had happened to ME as a villa owner there. This is a unfair comment by the legal team acting for the bank to create doubt as to the unity of the litigants in all the domestic cases and the ECHR case. You will all recall that although the Judge ruled against us in the case that finished on the 26th August 2011, he did in fact deny the bank their request to have me removed from the case. You will also recall that costs were awarded against us and the Judge wrote the conditions of the award in such a way that the bank were given leave to collect the costs from either one of us or all of us. The bank chose to collect the costs from me and a Bailiff presented himself at my home whilst I was in the UK with Writs, one of which was a demand for the costs which he said was 2800 lira. The bailiff, with two police men present did serve me with both Writs, one for the costs and one for Libel. Chris went with the bailiff to pay the costs which turned out to be 2565 lira, i.e. 2000 lira as per the Judgment and 565 lira taxes. The costs were demanded even though there is an Appeal pending for this case.

2. This point also is put in such a way as to have the reader believe I simply changed my mind about buying the K5 villa. I received my Permission to Purchase 11.06.2008, my Advocate invited the builder to meet us at the Tapu to to transfer title as per his Contractual obligation, Because of the mortgage held by the bank and his inability to repay it the builder was unable/unwilling to fulfil his Contractual obligation. I commenced my Breach of Contract action and won the case on the 6th November 2009. Now I would have thought a legally trained person knows the meaning of the word BREACH…an act of breaking, as in breaking the Contract, so by the time the Advocate wrote to the home office (Ministry of the Interior) the Contract of Sale no longer existed and by association, neither did the Permission to Purchase. In light of this my Advocate though it might help to save us time by using the same file to apply for my new Permission to Purchase. So NO, Talat Kursat, I did not give up buying my villa at Kulaksiz 5, it was forced upon me by the builder’s inability to honour his obligations under the original Contract of Sale because your clients gave two mortgages to unsuitable applicants. One in March 2005 for £1,600, one in November 2005 for approximately 100,000 lira. The second one being giving some eight months after the first and even though NO payments had been received, I ask you Sir, do you consider this a prudent decision? Do you consider this good use of the Bank’s money? Do you consider that whoever made that decision applied DUE DILIGENCE?

3. Yes I did apply for Permission to Purchase for a house 140m2 with a swimming pool at Edremit. But I am sure the readers, like me would like to know, how do you know that? I am not your client, nor have I ever given permission for my private and confidential business to be released to you. For you to know is bad enough, for you to publish this in a newspaper is a gross invasion of my privacy and a violation of my Human Rights.

4. Pauline Read is writing on the internet, really. Many people write on the internet. Your legal team has applied to court more than 10 cases against Pauline Read and more to come. Well since you state that it is for writing on the internet, why then is it not one case encompassing all your allegations. Could it be that drip feeding them is an attempt to coerce and frighten? Could this constitute harassment?

5. Pauline Read had a court case against Kulaksiz and the builder Abdurrhman Guney. Everyone knows that, so your point is?

6. She pulled out of the case against landlord Yuksel Yilmaz, obviously a decision made by her advocate without reference to her, she always thought the case was Pauline Read -v-

Kulaksiz Construction Limited, Abdurrahman Guney and Yuksel Yilmaz. Why this is relevant or indeed how you know this when she doesn’t, begs the question again, how do you know since she is not your client?

7. This has to be the most ludicrous claim of all. You say that both Pauline Read and Chris her lover attacked a bank official and locksmith going into her empty house. You do not mention the house was locked and secured, you do not mention the gate at the front of the house was chained and padlocked, secured against thieves and burglars. You also do not mention that you had no court order to carry out this ‘mission’. You also do not mention there was third adult and a child sitting on the wall, presumably the ‘look out’. On the evening of the 30th July 2010, Pauline Read received a phone call from a neighbour alerting her to the fact that there were men in her garden, looking in through her windows. Chris drove to the villa whilst Pauline stayed behind to phone the police and friends and also to e mail supporters to tell them that someone was most probably trying to break into her villa

By the time the Pauline arrived at her villa, the intruders had gone, leaving the villa with locks changed and a patio window that no longer shut properly because it had been forced open, assumedly the way the intruders gained access. Chris and a neighbour told me of the vehicular attack on Chris by a car with two occupants. The other intruder, presumably the locksmith had left in another car with the child. I did not witness this and was unable to give a witness statement. Chris tells me he did not attack anyone with a baseball bat, I was not there so obviously I did not attack anyone with a baseball bat. We have never owned even one baseball bat, never mind two. To refer to Chris as my lover and me as his mistress is clearly meant to insult and to give the readers the impression we are not respectable people. We have been together more than 28 years and to demean our very loving relationship in this way, not only insults us, but does the writer of this discredit. Shame on you.

8. The writer suggest that the authorities must watch Pauline Read for these anti propoganda to our country but deport her the act 105. Clearly the writer wants me deported, but why? I love the TRNC, I have never done anything to undermine the security of this country. If I had not loved the TRNC, the way of life and the people, would I have bought here not once, but twice. I know the Bank want me deported, but is their wanting this reason enough to do it? I do not know what act 105 is. I do know that the words used in this press release are very similar to those used in a letter to Havadis about me dated the 25th November 2010 written by someone calling himself Erkan Uygun and accusing me of being a Greek Propogandist and of owning two villas with pools in the south. That too was untrue. I am an old woman of 66 years who chose to retire here to spend her last days in peace and tranquility. I never wanted any of this. I have done nothing wrong. Why would anyone want to deport me?

9. The Make North Cyprus Better Movement was formed by a group of people some of whom are members of the BRS, although this is separate from the BRS. I did not form this group. I am not on any of their committees. I know they have had meetings at government level so I suggest the writer checks out his facts with the government. I am not a founder of any group or movement. I am a member and administrator of Stop the Blackmail in North Cyprus facebook group but I did not start this group. I do however support their aims which are pro TRNC and anti corruption, surely every law abiding person would agree with those aims. That my Advocate and I applied to the court on the 27.10.2010 for an order to tell the Tapu to sell the security cover in my memorandum is true. Again the writer is trying to be emotive and have the reader believe I am a bad person. My advocate told me that this procedure of actually selling the properties can take years and she is not allowed to chase the Tapu. This is the reason I am part of the K5 legal cases and the ECHR case, because I do not believe it will ever happen for me. Since you seem to know more about what is happening in my cases than I do perhaps you would like to explain what 125765/215800 relates to and 75459/215800 is, because this is what appears to be what my Memorandums refer to and how does that equate to the three houses owned by foreigners. I was always given to understand that my memorandums applied to one house on a long term let because the owner had died, a plot of land, another house that I do not know the provenance of and another house belonging to Abdurrhaman Guney on a different Kocan number at a different site. I did go to the Tapu, they got out my file and asked me, are there any properties on here? Since you seem to have the asnwers, maybe you can enlighten them.

In conclusion I would like to point out that the documents printed above the press release were published without my knowledge or consent and since the writer is not my Advocate, how could he have obtained them?

The information about my Permission to Purchase is confidential and the publication of it is a violation of my privacy and my Human Rights. As far as I am aware my Permission to Purchase application has been approved by the army, the land is fine, the Scotland Yard character reference submitted by me confirms I have never had any criminal convictions nor do I have a criminal record, the local police check was fine. The application was sent to the Ministry of the Interior in February 2011 and I have been told that there it sits in a drawer at the Bakan one year on. Yet the some of the information contained in this press release could only have come from access to my Permission to Purchase application. I am making no allegations but an explanation would be welcomed.

I am however taking legal advice on what has been said about me publicly with a view to legal action.

Pauline Read

DISCLAIMER the answers are as a result of the translation of the Press Release.”


“the bank has shown its true colours; attempting to wash its hands of any responsibility towards those it intends to make homeless and using classic bully boy tactics to silence its critics.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.