EBRD Fraud: Media Articles

As more articles appear in the media about the EBRD/Latvia/Parex “put option” fraud, it will be more difficult for EBRD employees, police, regulators, and auditors to pretend they don’t know about it.  The fraud caused an economic and demographic crisis in Latvia.  The problem will continue to grow until the responsible people are exposed and prosecuted.  Each article has a link and pdf, in case the EBRD is able to force some of the articles offline.  The EBRD already forced the original leaked document (the Nomura document on www.Kargins.com) offline.

“Il Manifesto” 21 April 2013 by Mauro Caterina

http://www.ilmanifesto.it/area-abbonati/ricerca/nocache/1/manip2n1/20130421/manip2pg/06/manip2pz/339238/manip2r1/lettonia/

Il Manifesto 21 April 2013

“Lithuania Tribune” 1 March 2013 by John Christmas

http://www.lithuaniatribune.com/30931/the-ebrdparex-bank-mystery-widens-201330931/

Lithuania Tribune Mar 2013

“Lithuania Tribune” 12 November 2012 by John Christmas

http://www.lithuaniatribune.com/18678/the-ebrdparex-bank-mystery-201218678/

Lithuania Tribune Nov 2012

New video about the EBRD/Parex fraud! UPDATED

Why is the Media ignoring this clearly-evidenced, multi-billion-euro fraud that threatens to bankrupt a European Union country?

                               Parex Bank

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBiYCPfIWFA

UPDATED WITH EBRD CONFESSION

New evidence has emerged that the EBRD purchase of Parex Bank shares from the Latvian government was a fraud, probably committed for the dual purpose of covering-up Oligarch crimes and defrauding the IMF, EU, and World Bank.

Here are quotes from the Parex Bank 2009 annual report:

“Among Parex banka’s top priorities in 2009 was concluding the deal with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development about its involvement in the shareholder structure, signalling about the vitality and development potential of the institution.”

“In January and February 2009, the EBRD performed a complete due diligence of Parex banka”

“On 7 April 2009, the EBRD Board of Directors approved a financial package for Parex banka, including the acquisition of 25 percent plus 1 of ordinary shares of Parex banka for LVL 59.5 million (EUR 84.2 million) and a subordinated loan of EUR 22 million.”

“On 16 April 2009, the Share Purchase Agreement was signed providing that following the increase of equity capital the EBRD will purchase 57,506,825 ordinary shares comprising 25 percent and one share of Parex banka’s equity capital.  On 23 July 2009, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development signed the subordinated loan agreement with Parex banka.”

“Finalising the deal, on 3 September 2009, 25 percent and one share of Parex banka were transferred from the Privatisation Agency to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.  In this initial transaction, the EBRD acquired 51,444,325 ordinary shares with voting rights.  As part of a future capital increase at Parex banka, the EBRD plans to purchase a further 6,062,500 shares, thus maintaining its stake of 25 percent and one share.”

“The signed agreement indicates not only the stabilisation of the Latvian financial system and gives a positive signal about the investment environment in Latvia, but also evaluates Parex banka’s future development potential and increases the Bank’s value.”

On 29 October 2009, the Latvian government put more capital into Parex Bank.  The EBRD did not increase its “investment” and therefore the EBRD ended 2009 with 22% rather than 25% of the shares.

In 2010, Parex Bank was split into a New Bank (Citadele Bank) and a Resolution Bank (Reverta).

The 2011 Youtube video titled “Latvia versus EBRD” informed the public that the EBRD refused to communicate with the Parex Bank whistleblower (John Christmas) when supposedly conducting “complete due diligence” on the 2009 purchase of Parex Bank shares and that the EBRD already knew that Parex Bank was worthless and criminal prior to purchasing the shares.  The purchase was apparently carried out not because of “vitality and development potential” as stated in the Parex annual report, but rather because of a secret, and therefore illegal, put option revealed in the leaked Nomura document.

The 2012 Youtube video titled “Latvian Financial Crisis – the multi-billion-euro Parex/EBRD/Ernst&Young fraud” repeated the same information and received many more views because it was professionally produced.  As of today it has over 119,000 views, making it one of the most popular videos ever about Latvia.

Finally, a journalist has begun to ask questions to Reverta and the EBRD about the crimes.  This journalist wrote two emails addressed to the whistleblower evidencing more frauds.

26 October 2012:  “I’ve heard from sources that it was normal for the Kargins and Krasovitskis to take a personal cut / kickback from the loans the bank made, is this something you heard about when you worked there?  According to the Reverta lawyers, K and K also destroyed much of the documents pertaining to loans before nationalization.”

The EBRD apparently did not conduct “complete due diligence” or else it would be aware that Parex had transferred a huge amount of money to cronies, booked the transactions as “loans,” and then destroyed the documents so that the “loans” would not have to be repaid.  Or else, the EBRD did conduct “complete due diligence” and therefore already knew this but anyway co-conspired with the Latvian government to cover up the crimes.

4 December 2012:  “The EBRD say they cant comment on the specifics of the transaction (taking a stake in Parex) but say they sometimes use put options.  They also say that the 22% figure you mention refers to the stake in Parex bank they took, not the profit.”

Since, the EBRD refuses to deny that they have a put option on the Parex shares, we can conclude that they are guilty of fraud.  And, even worse, the EBRD claims to have committed the same fraud multiple times with different deals.

Regarding the 22%, they are referring to this quote from the leaked Nomura document, “Compensation of EBRD, 22%, Resolution Bank 2014E BV 38,164, Compensation for nominal investment 57,569.”  Now we know that the 22% number refers to the EBRD’s percentage stake.  The other numbers appear to be amounts in Latvian lats:  38,164,000 and 57,569,000.  What those numbers mean is still unclear.  The term “compensation” suggests that there is a “put option,” as stated earlier in the same report, because otherwise there would be no reason why the EBRD would receive “compensation” from the Latvian government.

The EBRD can be prosecuted in many jurisdictions for its crime.  Most obviously, prosecution could take place in London or Latvia.  But also, all of the 61 countries that fund the EBRD could commence prosecution.  The secret put option is a material fraud on (1) the EBRD financial statements, (2) the Republic of Latvia financial statements, and (3) the Parex Bank financial statements.  The scope of the crime in Latvia is already huge, and according to the EBRD the same fraud has been committed in other deals as well, thus indicating an absolutely enormous criminal racket affecting millions of people in multiple countries.

Let’s hope law enforcement somewhere will take action.  The EBRD has lost its “plausible deniability” excuse by sending an email in which they confess that they know about their fraud.  They have not been covering their eyes and plugging their ears carefully enough.  The Latvian people deserve large compensation from the EBRD and the Parex auditors.

EBRD fraud explained in video

This is a video that appeared on Youtube in October 2011.

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) committed a multi-billion-euro fraud against the whole world by conducting a fake purchase of Parex Bank stock in 2009.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlqoTPM2LA4

 

SFO Director Richard Alderman signed false letter to Parex Bank whistleblower

The British Serious Fraud Office (SFO) refuses to take action regarding the multi-billion-euro fraud crime committed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) with regard to Parex Bank stock.

The first item below is a letter from the SFO to Parex whistleblower John Christmas and is signed by SFO director Richard Alderman.  The letter claims that there was no EBRD fraud, even though Christmas’ original letter contained clear evidence of a huge fraud.

Christmas requested clarification from the SFO.  The second item below is an email from the SFO to Christmas.  This second reply contradicts the first reply.  The reason why the SFO will not take action is because they don’t want to get involved, even though the EBRD is based in London and therefore is in the jurisdiction of the SFO.

That is a shame, because the refusal of the SFO to act only means that the Latvia/Parex fraud bubble continues to grow with the ironic result that thousands of Latvian people are forced to move the United Kingdom every month as economic refugees…

letter from SFO

email from SFO

Parex Bank fraud at London Stock Exchange

This is the false document that Parex Bank filed with the London Stock Exchange in May 2010.

The document claims that all Parex shareholders have equal status.  However, in reality the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) had a higher status because it had a secret “put option” negotiated with the majority shareholder, the Latvian government.

This is the most likely explanation why, when Parex split into “bad bank” Parex and “good bank” Citadele, the only minority shareholder receiving Citadele stock was the EBRD.

Sadly, the false filing is unlikely to result in legal action.  The British Financial Services Authority (FSA) knew about fraud and money laundering crimes at Parex for many years and chose to take no action while Parex borrowed hundreds of millions of euros in London.  That money disappeared and the loans were paid back by the Latvian government using bailout money borrowed from the European Union.

This story has been completely censored in the Latvian media.

pdf snapshop from 20 March 2012:

false London filing

link:

http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/8408L_-2010-5-13.pdf

EBRD fraud explained in letter

This letter by John Christmas to the British Serious Fraud Office (SFO) explains a multi-billion-euro fraud crime committed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) against all of the people in the world.

Specifically, the letter explains the “put option” fraud when the EBRD bought Parex Bank stock from the Latvian government.

This fraud has been censored in the Latvian media.  Some attachments to the letter used to be at dissident website Kargins.com, but that was later censored by the Latvian government.

EBRD fraud letter

Riga Transportation, Solaris Bus, Dienas Bizness, Viktors Zakis

Dienas Bizness is one of the oligarch-controlled newspapers in Latvia.

To the credit of DB, they did publish a story about John Christmas’ 2004/2005 whistleblowing against Parex Bank.  However, they did not publish the story until 2007.

The story contains some details of the material fraud at Parex that related to the corrupt sale of buses from Solaris to Riga Transportation.

At the time of this story in 2007, Viktors Zakis was spokesperson for Parex.  He is quoted in the article claiming, falsely, that Christmas’ whistleblowing was investigated and was not truthful.  When Parex handed its liabilities to the Latvian taxpayers in 2008, Zakis became spokesperson for Riga Transportation.

When the United States Department of Justice confirmed that Christmas’ whistleblowing was truthful in its Daimler settlement announcement in 2010, the Latvian media went silent again.  DB refused to link the 2007 story to the 2010 USDoJ announcement.

pdf snapshot from 18 March 2012:

DB Riga Transportation

link, if not yet censored by Latvian authorities:

http://www.db.lv/citas-zinas/vairakus-gadus-censas-pieradit-nelikumibas-parex-204411?cp=1

 

Parex Bank and Solaris Bus fraud explained

It is a great mystery why nobody in Latvia (new managers at Parex Bank, auditors at Ernst & Young and PWC, raters at Moodys and Fitch, Latvian regulators, Latvian law enforcement, etc.) is able to prove that Parex Bank committed a material fraud crime when financing the sale of buses from Solaris of Poland to Riga Transportation since the proof only takes a few minutes using numbers from Parex Bank and Riga Transportation annual reports.

This bus sale included kickbacks, according to the United States Department of Justice.

This is an email written by John Christmas explaining the proof.

Most likely, this loan is now owned by Parex’s so-called “good bank” successor – Citadele Bank.  Obviously, Riga Transportation has no legal obligation to repay this loan and therefore Citadele should announce a 100% loss.

Proof of Parex Solaris fraud

Inguna Sudraba, Parex Bank, Southern Bridge

Inguna Sudraba was a member of the Parex Bank Credit Committee from 2003 to 2004 and therefore was responsible for (1) making undisclosed-related-party loans, (2) making loans that exceeded the bank’s lending limit, and (3) acting as credit committee for secret subsidiary Extro Bank of Russia.

In 2008 and 2009, the Latvian people learned that half of the loan portfolio of Parex was bad, thus indicating severe problems with the Parex Credit Committee.

Was this the end of Sudraba’s career?  No!  Now in 2012, she is the Latvian State Controller (Auditor)!

Sudraba, working as State Controller, cannot find any corruption in Latvia.  For example, Parex arranged financing for the “Southern Bridge” in Latvia.  Latvian taxpayers will pay 1,000 million euros for a bridge that is worth 300 million euros.  Sudraba cannot figure out where the other 700 million euros went.

Latvian newspapers keep naming Sudraba as a wonderful person who should be President or Prime Minister in the future.  The articles never mention that she was on the Parex Credit Committee.

Southern Bridge

Valery Kargin, Viktor Krasovitsky, Ernst & Young, undisclosed compensation

Soon after the Parex Bank nationalization in late 2008, the Latvian media revealed several large and fraudulent deals between Valery Kargin and Viktor Krasovitsky’s families and the bank.  This was a rare time of honest reporting by the media.

The “auditors” at Ernst & Young must have known about all of these deals.  However, they signed Parex annual reports containing false statements that the Oligarchs received no compensation from the bank.

Latvian authorities refuse to prosecute the perpetrators in all of these cases.

One headline story was about the fleet of luxury cars transferred from Parex in early 2008.  The transfer occurred when the bank was still reporting profits every quarter and therefore before the surprise request for a bailout in late 2008.  The implication is that the quarterly reports were fake and the Oligarchs already planned to give bank liabilities to the taxpayers in early 2008, but wanted to keep the luxury cars.

Another headline story regarded subordinated loans from the Oligarch families to the bank, done for the apparent purpose of compelling the Latvian government to pay huge amounts of money to the Oligarchs after the handover of bank liabilities.

And, if that wasn’t bad enough already, the article below describes an unreported reciprocal loan/deposit deal that existed for many years.  It was revealed in December 2008 that Kargin and Krasovitsky each borrowed 28 million lats (twice as many dollars) from Parex and used it to make deposits at Parex at 36% percent interest.  The apparent motive was to transfer millions from the bank to themselves without reporting the compensation to creditors and minority shareholders and without paying taxes, since interest income was not taxed.

pdf snapshot from 20 March 2012:

Delfi looting article

link, if not yet censored by Latvian authorities:

http://www.delfi.lv/news/national/politics/kargins-un-krasovickis-aiznemusies-no-parex-56-miljonus-latu.d?id=22584768