of Association “Group A”
which is promoting judicial state in Lettic Latvia
to all media publishing and broadcasting
about current developments in Latvia
This is our appeal to you – to all media, the representatives of the 4th power, with hope and faith that at least one of you is that very journalist or group of journalists in Latvia which is capable not only of narration of facts but which is able to supply analysis of chain of events, and is not afraid to search for truth and to voice it.
Periodically, in media there is published a retelling about some hustle around “Parex banka”, but there are no queries and consequently – no answers are searched for. Regrettably.
The main thing that needs to be understood – illegitimacy does not produce rights.
The first millions from the Treasury were taken illegally (with no permission granted by the Saeima (Parliament of Latvia)); nobody except the Saeima of Republic of Latvia is entitled to make decisions how to spend the state budget. And, the Saeima has to do this by passing a law about the state budget for the current year as well as making any amendments to this (see The Constitution of the Republic of Latvia, Article 64).
When the first deeds are illegal then all the next ones which are consequences of the previous can not become legal.
Up to now, only the “Group A” is the only association/person who has reacted to illegalities regarding acquisition of Parex bank.
But, law enforcement institutions still are doing nothing to reveal the truth.
More than shocking is news in portal Delfi.
“Financial Ministry is preparing necessary amendments to “Parex banka” acquisition agreement in order to make it possible to publish the bank’s takeover deal, informed representative of the Ministry.
In the near future, amendments of the agreement will be distributed to all involved parties for its reconciliation and signing.
It has already been reported that the state took over the “Parex banka” on November 8.”
Some questions arise that need to be answered immediately:
1) What are the “necessary amendments”?
2) What is the initial version of the agreement? Was there any?
3) What does it mean – “to make it possible to publish”?
4) Did any agreement exist? How anyone can be sure that reconciled is the agreement, not amendments to the (nonexistent) agreement?
5) Does not the bank’s takeover is made like all agreements in the state sector or business should – when obligations take effect as soon as an agreement is signed?
6) Exactly when the agreement was signed? Financial Ministry says that it occurred on November 8 (to take over a bank means to sign a proper agreement) but Financial and Capital Market Commission says – on November 10.
7) If Mr. Ivars Godmanis in his interview to NRA declares that Prosecutor general office has been “present” all the time during acquisition of Parex, then whose interests it was protecting? Nation’s and state’s?
8) Is it possible that by these so-called “Amendments to the Agreement” becomes feasible cover-up of the most serious crime in Latvian history? Besides, under supervision of the law enforcement institutions?
Take notice that the fact that no law enforcement institution has investigating the case and is not searching for answers on at least the aforementioned questions does not imply that:
– no state abstraction has taken place;
– everything was done legally;
– the nation has to pay debts (actually, nation is to gradually perish) so that a couple more “Einars” get education (once, Mr. Einars Repše named G-24 credits as “my tuition fee”).
It’s interesting and not less important also that the state is not paying dividends to Mr. Kargins and Mr. Krasovickis, it is paying interest on deposits, and that is 200 000 Latvian lats per month for each of them!
Owners of the bank are always only shareholders (it’s the only possible form of the ownership), this status of both men has not changed, changed only number of shares they posses.
About the money that was deposited:
NRA informs: “Former owners of the bank are denying allegations of ex-Prime Minister Ivars Godmanis (LPP/LC) that “before acquisition of the bank, Mr. Kargin approached him and insisted on a condition that interest rates on deposits of Kargins and Krasovickis families in “Parex banka”, which are approximately 36 millions lats, are raised”. Mr. Kargins and Mr. Krasovickis has distributed information that, actually, Mr. Kargin has proposed, and that can be proved by correspondence between “Parex banka” shareholders and the government, to set deposit interest rates according to mean actual market value because at that moment bank’s deposit rates were lower than the mean market rates.”
Is it possible that Kargins and Krasovickis arrange a loan in their own bank (it’s not clear what for, but it’s known that purpose of a credit may not be “to deposit money”, this can be acknowledged by any bank of the world), afterwards they place the “received – arranged by themselves” money on deposit in their own bank, and determine their own interest rate?! And then, the state takes over the “troubled” bank with all the forthcoming consequences! And now, responsibility to pay interest is a headache of all Latvian people…
Where is honor? Where is “without fraud, fallacy and coerciveness”? Where is “in good faith”? Where are they? Yes, these are legal terms, but all this has happened not without lawyers.
Each decision has been made by concrete persons, and each agreement bears signatures of concrete persons, and now these persons have to account for their activities or inactivities, negligence, malicious mismanagement of authority, etc.
N.B. If bad people’s power is in their unity then good people have to do the same to become powerful./Leo Tolstoy/
We encourage you and every Latvian resident not to stand idly by, and to find reasonable answers to aforementioned and many other questions!
Chairman of the Board
Association “Group A”
August 19, 2009.