The Latvia EBRD “put option” fraud, committed in 2009 for the purpose of covering up the truth about the collapse of Parex Bank, is still getting larger. It was bad enough that the EBRD destroyed the Latvian economy to protect two KGB-linked Oligarchs. But now the EBRD threatens to undermine the European economic recovery by helping Latvia to enter the euro currency with falsified financial statements. EBRD and Parex employees have already informally confessed to the fraud. When will the EBRD make a full public confession? Please share to fight corruption!
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…
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.
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.
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.
One of the items from John Christmas’ Parex Bank whistleblowing list from 2004 was that Parex secretly owned a bank in Russia.
Christmas claimed that Parex owned and operated Extro Bank. For example, the Parex Credit Committee approved the loans that Extro Bank extended. Latvian State Controller Inguna Sudraba was on that committee.
The fraud claim is backed up by an email written by Parex vice president Gene Zolotarev. The claim is also backed up by a Skype conversation (below) with former Parex manager Christa Rubstein. She also confirms in the conversation that Parex paid employee compensation illegally.
Even though three witnesses wrote that Parex owned Extro Bank, the auditors at Ernst & Young did not care at all and ignored the huge fraud.
Therefore, Parex was able to sell Extro Bank to Banco Santander. Santander is one of the largest banks in Europe and has millions of shareholders in Spain and the United Kingdom.
According to emails (below) from a private investigator who contacted Christmas, Banco Santander got “robbed” in the purchase. The loss could have been 40 or 50 million euros.
Law enforcement is not interested at all, as usual. Also, the media is not interested.
John Christmas was the whistleblower from Parex Bank. He gave fraud information to Ernst & Young in 2004. He gave fraud information to the Latvian government in 2005. He was terrorized with threats and fled from Latvia. Ernst & Young and the Latvian government ignored the information.
The Parex fraud grew much larger and caused the Latvian Financial Crisis in 2008.
Now in 2012, there still has never been any investigation of the whistleblowing by Latvian (or European) authorities even though the fraud occurred in Latvia (and Europe).
This is a declaration written by John Christmas in January 2010. The declaration was written at the request of Varu Tautai. A translation (with a few errors) used to be online at VaruTautai.lv. Most of the information in the declaration has been censored in the Latvian media.
One note: In January 2010 when the declaration was written, it appeared that the FBI and United States Department of Justice were not going to use the information that they received from Christmas in October 2007. However, in April 2010 it was revealed that the information was used in the USA versus Daimler settlement. The FBI was back in communication with Christmas immediately after the announcement of the settlement.
John Christmas was told by representatives of Parex Bank that he can “never come to Latvia anymore” as recently as 2009. The implication is that the bank is threatening to murder or arrest the whistleblower if he returns to his home. Christmas has received many similar threats from many different people since the whistleblowing. Fortunately, this threat was recorded.
Parex was owned by the Latvian government and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in 2009. Christmas forwarded this transcript to the EBRD and they ignored it, just as they have ignored all of the other criminal information about their subsidiary.
Excerpts of the transcript and audio file are below, with commentary written by Christmas in capitals. In the beginning is a discussion between Christmas and a Latvian friend about his apartment. Even though Christmas is a Latvian citizen and this apartment is his home, he has not been there since 2005 because of repeated terror threats from Parex and absolute refusal by the Latvian State Police to investigate.
The threats are in boldface and appear toward the end of the transcript.
Parex Bank whistleblower John Christmas provided fraud information to the German regulator BaFin in May 2006. BaFin gave the information to the Latvian authorities even though Christmas explained that they already had the information.
BaFin could have confirmed that some of the fraud information was true in a few hours. However, BaFin chose to do nothing. As a consequence, Deutsche Bank will lose millions of lats. Also, German taxpayers are bearing some of the burden of bailing out Latvia.
The email below shows that BaFin received information about Parex from Christmas and gave the information to the Latvian authorities. The article below shows that Deutsche Bank owned some of the 52.8 million lats (twice as many dollars) subordinated debt of Parex.