Pauline's Opinion - Kulaksiz v K5 Appeal


Property Laundering…..yes property laundering. Well we have all heard of money laundering, so why not property laundering?

As I see it that is exactly what has happened to my villa at 5. Demokrasi Sokak, Karsiyaka, north Cyprus.

Firstly, it was broken into, locks changed and further access denied to me, not just by Akfinans Bank Limited, but by the Girne police too. Even though the police were made aware that there was no court order giving Akfinans Bank Limited authorisation to take my villa, indeed my then Advocate Naomi Mehmet termed it a crime. The bank used my property as security against a loan by the landowner and builder AFTER they had legally sold it to me. This happened on the 30th July 2010.

I have been denied access for six years plus and I am told the bank were given an order by the courts forbidding me from going near my home back in 2015. Now how is it possible in a civilised legal system for such an order to be given against someone who is involved in litigation over the ownership of the property and not even present in court when the order was issued? Does this sound like justice to you?

That the property was subject to litigation at the time the bank broke in was known by them, how could they not know, they had been to court many times in the Kulaksiz 5 v Akfinans Bank Limited case which is still ongoing in that we are awaiting the final outcome of the Appeal against the lower court decision of the 4th December 2016 when the judge found that the bank had acted fraudulently in both using our property as security and then auctioning (and buying) our property.

With the connivance of the Land Registry office, the bank were able to parcelise the site and put each property on to separate title deeds (kocans).

So this is how the ‘laundering’ of my villa became possible. The bank then proceeded (on paper) to sell my villa to Mustafa Guner, who just so happens to be the father-in- law of the one of the director/owners of Akfinans Bank Limited, thus moving my property a further step away from me. It is common knowledge that the bank use my property and always have. You can see where I am going with this … laundering is a crime, so surely is property laundering? That a bank should be involved is reprehensible. Changing ownership on paper does not legitimise what they have done, and the new owner is a close relative and former director of the bank makes it even more cunning.

I cannot believe this will make a difference to the judgment if the High court upholds the judgement from the lower court. The judge in the lower court has ordered that all the properties on Kulaksiz 5 be put back on to their original deeds (kocans) and he did not single mine out for special treatment.

I await the Appeal judgement with interest…..the hearing was on 4th October 2016, we have been waiting for it for 4 months plus so far. I wonder how much longer it will be. If it goes against us, I do intend to pursue it through the ECHR, we will have exhausted all domestic remedies and so the ECHR will have no reason not to accept the case.

I told Agile I would never give up. It is sad he is not here to support me now, well not in the flesh, but I know he is never far away.

Never give in, never give up.

Pauline Read

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

4 comments to Pauline’s Opinion – Kulaksiz v K5 Appeal

  • Polly Marples

    The case in the lower court was on 4th December 2014

    The Appeal was 4th October 2016

    When will we hear the result….God knows and he is not telling.

  • fluter

    I doubt that you will. It will most likely just fade away in true Cypriot fashion.

  • Polly Marples

    Yes….I bet they just love Pauline keep bringing up…..which she will continue to do.

    As for the rest of can bet they are under orders not to mention it and loathe Pauline keeping doing so. Sod them.

  • fluter

    Sod them indeed!