TRNC Legal System | The Gap Between Judgement and Enforcement

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

When you read the article HERE written on the 2nd October 2010, an account of the hearing where Pauline Read was given permission to enforce her Memorandums on the properties she had previously applied for and been given Injunctions on. You might well think, at last a Brit is going to get justice. You would be wrong.

Pauline Read was was given 3/8ths of Kocan 3881 and 4/7th of Kocan 4155 and she does have in her possession the very flimsy yellow paper headed:

Tapu ve Kadastro Dairesi

HUKUK MUHAKESMELERI USULU YASASI

FASIL 6

(KISIM V)

HACIZ – (MEMORANDUM) KABUL BELGESI

This is the paper that confirms the existence of the Injunctions which becomes a Memorandums when you win a case.

Bear in mind that the Judge gave the enforcement order MES 87/2010. Now a search dated the 23/12/10 shows something very fishy. According to this search, purchasers have their Kocan for 4/7ths of Kocan 4155 but on the 03/02/10 – 2/7ths of the land went into the name of Yildic Dansic and 1/7th went into the name of Kulaksiz Construction Limited. Now how can that be possible since Pauline Read had an Injunction on the site dated 08/04/2009, although the Injunction does say 1/7th? Further, and very importantly, Latif Dansic is a Director of Kulaksiz Construction Limited, he replaced Abdurrahman Guney and had attended the court almost getting Pauline thrown out of the penultimate hearing back in October 2009 when she tried to tell the Judge she thought he was a plumber and not a Director.

There is some very questionable movements on this search, one being a Memorandum in favour of Akfinans Bank Limited with the usual 80% interest showing and a further 1/7th is allocated to them. Do the maths, 4/7ths to purchasers, 2/7ths to Yildic Dansic, 1/7th to Akfinans Bank Limited and there at the bottom of the search if 1/7th to Pauline Read. How can there be 8/7ths? Looks like a Brit is being shafted yet again.

Question 1 – How can a relative of the Director Latif Dansic own 2/7th and have it registered with the Tapu after an Injunction dated the 08/04/09? Surely the Injunction prohibits this? How can that 2/7th be entered at the Tapu after after two memorandums were in place?

Question 2 – How can Akfinans Bank Limited have a memorandum lodged when all the land is accounted for? Unless of course there really has been something dishonest going on? In which case the 2/7ths registered into the name of a relative of the Director Latif Dansic is fraudulent. Oh dear but then fraud is a civil offence in North Cyprus.

Clearly there is something that needs explaining and needs explaining urgently.

The way I see it, if the 2/7ths are returned to the pot, the poor lady who stands to lose her property would retain it and Pauline Read should be above Akfinans Bank in priority and get her 1/7th. Akfinans Bank would then get their 1/7th, although I would like to know why they continued to dish out money to a known defaulter of the Bank?

Power to the people

Citizen Smith

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.