Akfinans Bank accuse Boysan Boyra of libel

It seems that not content with effectively silencing the local press in the TRNC, Akfinans Bank Limited have now taken a further step in trying to silence the Legal team acting for Kulaksiz 5.

It has been alleged that Akan Kursat, Advocate acting for Akfinans Bank Limited, has had a Writ served on the Advocate leading the legal team for the Kulaksiz 5; Boysan Boyra, Principal of the Law Firm named after him. My sources tell me that Boysan Boyra is allegedly being accused of Libelling Akfinans Bank Limited, whilst at this stage I have not been able to ascertain the exact nature of the alleged Libel, I have been made aware that a second Writ will be served on another member of the same Law Firm.

Whilst I do not have full details of exactly where this alleged Libel has been published, mention was made of the two most widely read newspapers in the TRNC.

Whilst Akfinans Bank Limited appear to have a stranglehold on all reporting on the Kulaksiz -v- Akfinans Bank Limited conflict, to date they have not silenced the Advocates acting for Kulaksiz 5. It would be unfortunate if this unprecedented move by Akfinans Bank Limited did in fact achieve this.

It has to raise many serious questions. How can a Bank be allowed to effectively gag the press on any subject? What exactly is the motive behind these moves on the part of Akfinans? The more they try to suppress the news, the more the public will wonder, why, what are they trying to hide?

From a Public Relations point of view, the handling of the whole sad saga has been pretty dire. On the one hand you have a wealthy family the Kaders owning the Bank in question. The granting of the mortgage to Abdurrahman Guney and Yuksel was questionable at best and possibly misguided, even fraudulent. In taking as security land on which stood the homes of the innocent victims without checking the provenance of that land was negligence of the highest order and also possibly fraudulent, something all the victims claim.

On the other hand you have 17 elderly, frail pensioners, but forget that fact. It is not important when assessing the situation. Yes they are old, yes some, but not all, will be left homeless and penniless. That is also unimportant when assessing the situation. Even if they were all in their 20’s and 30’s, it is wrong to use someone else’s property as security against a loan. It was wrong for the Builder and Landowner to offer it, it was wrong for Akfinans Bank Limited to accept it. Not only is it wrong, it is allegedly fraud and that fraud is a crime regardless of the age or state of health of the victim.

I have read reports that the Bank consider the victims to be partly to blame because they could have resolved the situation. How? Paying someone else’s mortgage would have been a solution for the Bank, but why would anyone want to pay someone else’s debt and where do the law books say it is the responsibility of the victim of the crime to make restitution to, for all we know, one of the fraudsters.

This saga looks set to run for some time yet. I wouldn’t even begin to hazard a guess at its outcome in the TRNC. However, if it becomes necessary for it to be decided at the ECHR Court in Strasbourg. I cannot see it being anything other than a resounding victory for Kulaksiz 5 and most importantly for Justice.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.