North Cyprus Property | Akfinans Bank Press Statement

North Cyprus Property – Akfinans Bank Press Statement

Bank Law 39/2001 was it meant to protect banks? If so why is it being used to silence the press?

Akfinans Bank to sue Kulaksiz 5 pensioners they are evicting from their homes
Thursday, March 24, 2011 by Name & Address Supplied

Akfinans Bank Limited have published the following Press Statement in Kibris Gazetesi. I will leave you to voice your own opinions in the comment section.

It seems that the threat of legal action against us if we condemn the Bank for taking everything we own from us is very real. Another not so subtle form of intimidation or sound business practice? Was such a law put on the statute books for this purpose?

Please bear in mind that the original text was in Turkish and this is a translation. I hope the text has not suffered in translation.

Akfinans Bank Limited, it is a fact that I bought 5 Demokrasi Sokak, Karsiyaka. I never took a mortgage with you and yet it seems you now believe you have the right to take it from me. This is the case with every person who bought on Kulaksiz 5. Please tell me, in a civilised society that is entering the 21st century, how can this be?

“Akfinans Bank advert in Kıbrıs Newspaper – 23 March 2011, page 24

PRESS STATEMENT

Our Bank has felt compelled to issue a statement following lies and false written newspaper reports and visual news concerning the Kulaksız 5 site in Karşıyaka.

Akfinans Bank Ltd. holds the title deed for the said houses located in Karşıyaka Girne, which was undergoing construction. There are residents that are illegally residing on the site and action has been taken against a group of foreign nationals for eviction, which has come after they broke the locks of a house and caused damage to the house; they than intentionally made a statement claiming that they are the rightful possessors of the house and claimed that the locks in question were actually broken by our bank and they took the initiative of trying to make a wrongful impression to the public.

The bank immediately informed and has made a criminal complaint on the matter to the TRNC Attorney-General, Girne Police and Lapta Police. However unfortunately this matter was reported intentionally in certain press without making any kind of proper research into the matter and has distorted the matter by reporting in a one sided manner to the general public.

We would like to remind that according to the Banking Law 39/2001, Article 53, any unfounded reporting or news undertaken by the respective person which will damage the reputation or harm the bank is considered a criminal act, we therefore would like to reiterate our belief that the Police, the Higher Press Authority and other respective authorities will enforce the stipulated sanctions, and would like to inform the public that we have commenced legal proceedings against the respective press or people that have intentionally reported wrong news to the public as Akfinans Bank Ltd

Akfinans Bank Ltd”

Read the last paragraph again and then ask yourself, why is the law being used to silence dissent if there is nothing to hide? Was the taking of two of the villas without a court order (eviction notice) lawful? If so why did they need to break in? The production of a court order giving them the legal right would also, had it been shown to the owners, have been enough for the owners to hand over the keys. This did not happen. How is breaking and entering not a criminal act?

No one has ever implied the Bank is not a sound entity. What has been more than implied is that some of the bank owners/personnel have acted in very questionable ways. But who is brave enough to question them?

Who can forget this picture.

Is this the act of a honourable law abiding person/people? Mrs McCluskey is the owner of this villa, when she bought it her husband was alive, sadly her husband died whilst all this ugliness was happening. Was the stress a contributing factor that exacerbated his illness?

It is clear that with an age spread of 65 to 91, many of the Kulaksiz 5 will not live to enjoy their dream. Could this be the bank’s strategy? Very sad for the Kulaksiz 5 if it is. Catastrophic for all the other owners with Bank mortgages on their homes waiting for the outcome of the Kulaksiz case, losing spells the end for them too plus more than 1400 other owners. The biggest loser of all will be north Cyprus, this will never be swept under the Turkish carpet.

Anon

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.