We get 4% from Amazon so when ordering CLICK BELOW


North Cyprus Law – Looking at the K5 v Akfinans Evidence


North Cyprus Law – Looking at the K5 v Akfinans Evidence

Let me take you back to the Cyprus Today write up on the main case hearing that took place last week.

This is a little of the evidence given by Mehmet Kader:

“Mr Kader said the bank had no knowledge of the buyers at the time it launched its case, and had only found out about them later. Meanwhile the bank had made offers “in good faith” as late as January 15th 2009, to resolve what was then a 350,000 TL debt.

Commenting on evidence given earlier on the buyers’ behalf by Guney, he added that he did not understand “how a man who took 600,000-700,000 from the English could come and testify in their favour”.

Now let’s look at the fact that Mr Ertug Kader had a meeting with two of the K5 owners, Guney and his side kick on the 9th July 2008, so they most definitely have a diarised event that proves they knew about us before the judgement giving them repossession on the 20th November 2008; did they not tell the Judge this, before he made the judgement that was to change everything? Would the Judge have made that order if he had ALL the facts? Of course they knew about us before then, all our Contracts were registered against the Kocans at the Tapu, some as early as February 2008. Is he saying his Advocate never renewed any of the searches at any point?

Very importantly look at Mehmet Kader admitting the debt was 350,000 TL on the 19th January 2009, yet by the 6th June 2010 it had reached the astronomical sum of 2,077,000 (TWO MILLION AND SEVENTY SEVEN THOUSAND TL.) In just 17 months the debt had grown by a whopping 1,727,000 TL which has to be all interest. A situation facilitated by a District Court Judge putting an interest rate of 80% per quarter compound. Now I am no expert, but even the most innumerate amongst us can see, this is just plain lunacy. All that for loaning a paltry 80,000 TL in November 2005.

Mehmet Kader’s comments about Abdurrahman Guney make no sense. That he was a party to the loan, I agree was wrong.
However, the money he took did provide us with villas, albeit very badly built villas, and in return he did give the landowner the three villas he promised. He did try to give us something for our money, now the Bank mean to take it away from us, or in the case of myself and Eva McCluskey did take it without waiting for a court order which has to be a criminal offence, but hey with a judge giving an order with a 80% quarterly compound interest rate, who is going to do anything?

It seems Mr Guney has a conscience about the whole stinking affair.

Court order in Akfinans favour of the 20th Nov 2008 showing 80%

Never give in never give up

Pauline Read

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.