North Cyprus Law | Akfinans Bank v K5 | Cross Examination

 North Cyprus Law | Akfinans Bank v K5 | Cross ExaminationWITHOUT PREJUDICE

North Cyprus Law | Akfinans Bank v K5 | Cross Examination

I am sure the Judge in the Kulaksiz 5 -v- Akfinans Bank Limited case would be the first to confirm that his decision in the case now being played out in the Girne District Court will be based on points of law only. Whatever anyone else has to say outside the case on the matter will in fact not influence him in his decision. To imply otherwise would be a nonsense and an insult to the learned Judge.

A great deal about the case is already in the public domain. This is what was reported by Cyprus Today on the first three days of the current hearing of the main case:

K5 Evidence Cyprus Today from hearing 17th April 2014

It seems that Mr Yilmaz had been approached to have the three properties that were still in his name substituted for the whole of the site as security at one stage and he refused (see the report above). I am sure he did refuse since he clearly intended to hang on to those. So what has changed since that time? Well for one thing, the choice is no longer his, the three properties now belong to the bank and have done so since the 6th June 2010. Why then did the bank not use the three properties as security and release those owned by the Brits at that time instead of demanding £55,000 from each of the ten owners?

Another change is that Mr and Mrs Andrew Clark broke ranks with the other nine British owners during the latter half of 2010 and allegedly agreed to pay the Bank for their villa. Indeed according to the above report they are now allegedly actively helping the bank against their neighbours by giving them access to a personal email between them and Mr French, of course we all know emails can be altered, added to and detracted from, but the main question is, why would they give the bank access to any material that should be between the two parties involved in the email exchange? Since they were very involved in the campaign against the bank and cannot surely have changed their stance so dramatically as to think what the bank is doing is morally acceptable, what is their motive? Whilst they made the decision to pay the bank, which is their right, why do they think it is acceptable to act against their neighbours interest, the neighbours who made a very different and much braver decision in my opinion? Will the Clarks take that one step further and be witnesses for the bank? We must all remember the decision in the K5 case can have huge implications on all those that follow, the 1400 plus victims of stealth mortgages.

What is indisputable is the Bank loaned Yuksel Yilmaz and Abdurrahman Guney £1.600 and approximately 83 000 Lira.

Yuksel Yilmaz gave as security the then two Kocans knowing he had indeed already sold his interest in the land to the British owners. The then Director of Kulaksiz Construction Limited, Abdurrahman Guney, was complicit in this action. This I can prove since I hold a Contract of Sale stating clearly there was no impediment, encumbrance or lien on the freehold land and that they undertook to keep it that way until transfer of title into my name. I also have both of their full signatures attesting to that fact.

My legally binding Contract with stamp duty paid.

The bank described the security as land only, even though by this time they had in their possession a Survey commissioned by them describing the buildings on that land and the approximate value of the building up until March 2005. The usurious interest rate of 250% appeared on that mortgage document which does describe the security as land (Tarla). We are led to believe that by not telling the Tapu of that building they denied the Tapu the right to enquire whether the building had been sold and the legal obligation to tell the buyers of the mortgage and request a signature from the buyers confirming they had no objection to the mortgage. Mortgage Law 11/78 applies in this instance.

All this information in this blog is out in the public domain and some of it has appeared in a Turkish language newspaper.

Today the second day of the hearing is taking place and Bob French is still being cross examined.

Never give in never give up.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share

Comments are closed.