Akfinans Bank’s legal high loan interest rates could enter the Guinness Book of Records

The future for Kulaksiz 5 looks extremely bleak and I cannot see it improving without a Miracle or an about face by the present Government. I am not unaware that Akfinans Bank Limited are strong supporters of the UBP party and I cannot see that we elderly frail pensioners who have already invested all our life savings in this country will look an attractive proposition to the ruling Government. I would say though that doing the ‘right’ thing is not about who can offer the most but who is the most deserving. In this case, Kulaksiz 5 certainly do have the edge. That they have done absolutely nothing wrong has been said so often it may be becoming boring, it is nonetheless true.

The naked and unpalatable truth is this. Akfinans have many employees and many ancillary workers who can vote. This makes them an attractive proposition to any political party. The pensioners of K5 have no vote. This situation is not the responsibility of this present government alone, it is the collective responsibility of all governments. It is therefore incumbent on all political parties to get together and solve this problem.

Kulaksiz Construction Limited, Abdurrahman Guney and Yuksel Yilmaz are where the problem has its roots. Akfinans Bank Limited showed scant regard for the true owners of Kulaksiz 5 and in my opinion acted recklessly in lending money to the afore mentioned. The usury interest rate is beyond belief and beyond justification. (Editor: and a contender for the Guinness Book of Records’ highest legal loan interest rate.)

The fact that this sort of thing is happening in other countries has been used as an excuse to justify the fact that it is happening here. I challenge those using this excuse to find me one other example of a legal USURY interest rate of 80% per quarter compound in any of these other countries.

The one other obvious difference is that in other countries the victims do have recourse to a fair and just legal system, and a law that allows a mortgage to be taken out by the former owner of property would not exist in these enlightened countries.

(Editor: In the south miss-selling is about to be legally challenged in relation to EU directive 29/2005/EC. Perhaps the north could also show willingness to follow the same directive using the some  of the EU money earmarked for the north’s harmonisation with the EU. Perhaps Erhan Ercin, chairman of the EU Coordination Centre, could look into this?)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.