Parex Bank gave Vladimir Putin’s friend $111 million UPDATED

Here is an article about an interesting transaction that Parex Bank booked as a “loan.”

Parex transferred $111 million to Vladimir Putin’s good friend Eduard Khudainatov in 2006.  Apparently, there was no collateral.  The auditors from Ernst & Young must have known about this.

Now in 2012, Khudainatov refuses to pay the money back.  The entire loss will be suffered by Latvian taxpayers.  Nobody is being prosecuted, as usual.

UPDATE:  A new article has been added below with more details.  An amazing quote is included from the Reverta lawyer, speaking about Parex Bank, “During change of ownership in 2008, the former shareholders stole certain documents pertaining to key bank deals with Russian customers.”  The implication is that this “loan” money has been stolen and documents have been stolen to protect the thieves and the EBRD lied to the world when it claimed in 2009 that Parex Bank was a wonderful investment for taxpayers.

pdf snapshot of Pietiek article from 18 March 2012:

Putin loan

link to article, unless it has been censored by the Latvian authorities:

http://www.pietiek.com/raksti/parex_no_putinam_pietuvinata_uznemeja_strukturas_grib_piedzit_100_miljonus

pdf snapshot of BNE article from 12 November 2012:

www-bne-eu

link to article, unless it has been censored by the Latvian authorities:

http://www.bne.eu/storyf4214/Latvias_bad_bank_gunning_for_Rosneft_deputy

Transparency International, Delna, Parex Bank

Transparency International’s Latvian affiliate Delna announced the 2011 Corruption Perceptions Index at the former office of Parex Bank.  Here is a comment from Delna Director Kristaps Petermanis:

On a more jolly note, we announced the 2011 CPI in the former Parex premises on Valdemara Street 8 http://twitpic.com/7mh7tb, because Parex to a great extent symbolizes the corruption related ills we have in Latvia. We made the 2010 CPI announcement at the Southern Bridge that was that year’s corruption symbol.

Isn’t it interesting that Transparency International believes that Parex “symbolizes the corruption” in Latvia and yet Parex is funded directly by the EBRD and Latvian government and indirectly by the European Union, World Bank, and IMF?

Here is a photo of the event:

Transparency International at Parex Bank

EBRD fraud explained in 2011 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

Alstom, Swiss Federal Prosecutor’s Office, Parex Bank

On 22 November 2011, the Swiss Federal Prosecutor’s Office announced that it ordered French company Alstom to pay 31 million euros for bribery in Latvia, Tunisia, and Malaysia.

According to the Latvian press, the bribe recipients were Karlis Mikelsons, Aigars Melko, and Gunars Cvetkovs at state energy company Latvenergo.

The Latvian project was financed by Parex Bank, however this fact has been omitted from all Latvian media articles.

The Latvian authorities are refusing to prosecute the bribe recipients and bribe intermediaries.

pdf snapshop from 18 March 2012:

DB Alstom

link if not yet censored by Latvian authorities:

http://www.db.lv/razosana/energetika/sveice-soda-alstom-par-kukuldosana-latvenergo-mikelsonam-melko-un-cvetkovam-248528

 

AP Bank, Switzerland, Parex Bank, EBRD

AP Bank was the Swiss subsidiary of Parex Bank.

Parex president Valery Kargin openly said that Parex established a Swiss subsidiary because many deposit clients at Parex wanted to move their deposits to Switzerland when Latvia joined the European Union so that records of the deposits would not be in European Union computers.

As it turned out, there was no reason for Parex depositors to worry.  Parex had thousands of offshore shell-company deposits and the European Union has not taken any legal action against the account holders.  In fact, European Union taxpayers funded part of the bailout of these accounts.

Parex attempted to sell AP Bank to Latvijas Krajbanka before handing liabilities over to the Latvian taxpayers.  The sale was never completed and the public has never been told the reason.

Now in 2012, AP Bank is owned by Parex successor Citadele Bank which is owned by the Latvian government and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD).  Interestingly, even though AP Bank is funded with public money, it still offers illegal deposit services.

Specifically, AP Bank offers to open deposit accounts with “foreign banks” in its own name but on behalf of clients.  This service is illegal by Latvian law, Swiss law, and the law of (almost every) “foreign” country as well.

Even though this service is illegal, it has been openly advertised on the AP Bank website for many years.

pdf snapshot from 18 March 2012:

AP Bank

link, if the website has not suddenly been changed:

http://www.apbank.ch/services/deposits.html

United States Department of Justice, Daimler, Parex Bank

On 1 April 2010, the United States Department of Justice announced a settlement with Daimler AG of $185 million for paying bribes in Latvia and other countries.

Latvian authorities refuse to prosecute the bribe recipients and intermediaries.

The Latvian media refuses to mention Parex Bank in articles about the Daimler settlement even though Parex financed the transaction.

pdf snapshop:

USDoJ Daimler

link:

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/April/10-crm-360.html

 

United States Department of Justice, Daimler, Russia, Latvia

The following document contains some details from the United States Department of Justice case against Daimler AG, dated 22 March 2010.

Bribes to Russian officials went to Latvian bank accounts.

Shortly after the announcement of the Daimler settlement came an announcement that HP also paid bribes to Russian officials through a Latvian bank.  Those bribes were paid to the Russian Prosecutors Office.

Nobody has been prosecuted anywhere for any of these crimes.

pdf snapshop:

Daimler Russia

link:

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/daimler/03-22-10daimlerrussia-info.pdf