Republic Bank threatens legal action against KN

-demands apology, retraction
Republic Bank Limited (Guyana) is threatening legal action against Kaieteur News for two articles that implicated the commercial institution in an allegation of money laundering.
According to a letter sent out by Cameron and Shepherd Law Firm, yesterday, Republic Bank said that it is seeking an apology and retraction for the articles appearing in Kaieteur News on January 6 and January 7, 2016 in addition to $5 million worth in damages.
The document stated that the Bank will proceed with legal action, if the newspaper fails to comply with these demands within the next seven days.
The articles in question appeared on the pages 3 and 7 of Kaieteur News on January, 6 and January 7, 2016 under the headline “SARU probes local Bank accused of money laundering” and “Probe into money laundering by SARU: No evidence of wrongdoing by Republic Bank — says Central Bank” respectively.
The legal correspondence outlined that the said articles, which name Republic Bank are replete with untruths, are false, malicious and inaccurate statements, conclusions and inferences that have been maliciously contrived to irreparably injure the impeccable reputation of our client, which is the largest commercial bank in Guyana with a reputation for excellence in all aspects of its business and a subsidiary of Republic Financial Holdings Limited, which owns other banks throughout the Caribbean.
According to the letter, the first untruth in the article published on 6th January is that a deposit of $82,068,617: was effected to the bank account of a sitting government minister on June 16, 2011.
The second untruth is the insinuation that the alleged deposit of $82,068,617 was effected by Haresh Narine “Chinee” Sugrim, the proprietor of Guytrac.
According to the letter the first article also insinuated that because Mr. Sugrim was accused in the United States of money laundering, the Bank was somehow involved in money laundering.
It was noted that following this article, the Bank of Guyana, which has sole statutory regulatory control over commercial banks, issued a statement that after a full investigation it had found no wrongdoing by our client.
However, the document from Cameron and Shepherd pointed out the article published on January 7, while mentioning the statement of the Bank of Guyana, improperly, irresponsibly and recklessly sought to defend the untrue statements in the preceding article and to repeat the untruths falsehoods, misrepresentations, and insinuations.
“Had you chosen the path of responsible journalism by making enquiries, you should have ascertained that the circumstances of the matter relate to the failed business of Precision Woodworking Limited, which has been placed in receivership by our client, (Republic Bank) for recovery of a debt of over half a billion Guyana dollars, which debt was personally guaranteed by its directors, Ronald and Rustum Bulkan.” the letter said.
After the company was put in receivership, the document stated that, three legal actions were filed by the company and its two directors against the Republic Bank.
Only one of those actions, Precision Woodworking and Ronald and Rustum Bulkan —v- Kashir Khan and Republic Bank Guyana Limited — Action No. 298/CD of 2012, Demerara survived.
In that action, the lawyer’s letter noted that very issue of the alleged deposit of $82,068,617 was raised by the plaintiffs (Ronald and Rustum Bulkan) and has been fully answered and explained by Republic Bank in paragraph 20 of its defence and counterclaim and paragraph 33 of the witness statement filed on its behalf, both of which are public documents and in which it is stated:
“[T]he loan facilities granted by the Bank to the Company because of the admitted inability to pay by the Company and the voluntary closure of its business became non-performing and the Bank was obliged under the provisions of the Financial Institutional Act and the Rules and Orders made there under to make book provision for the Company. In so doing, the Bank provisioned for the sum of $82,068,617 which appears as a credit to the company’s account.”
“The said sum of $82,068,617 however represents a provisioning entry passed in accordance with the Financial Institutions Act and the Rules and Orders made there under,” the legal letter explained
It went on to note that “by virtue of the failure of the company to pay its indebtedness to the Bank, to which the Financial Institutions Act and its Rules, Regulations and Orders apply, could no longer recognise the sum of $82,068,617: as an asset on its books and an accounting entry was passed through equity to reflect this. This accounting entry does not have the effect of reducing the indebtedness of the Company nor does it represent a credit to the Company’s account.”
It was noted that the matter was explained to the Plaintiffs and their Attorneys-at-Law and their failure to understand it does not mean that the explanation was incoherent.
“The provisioning entry was not, therefore, an actual deposit and it is false and untrue to say that it was. Moreover, it is completely false, malicious and untrue to suggest that the alleged deposit of $82,068,617: was made by Haresh Narine Sugrim and that our client was somehow involved in money laundering.”
The letter therefore said that the two articles published by Kaieteur News are false, malicious, irresponsible and amount to serious libels committed by the publication.
In the circumstances, the Firm was instructed to demand, an immediate retraction of the articles and an unequivocal apology from the newspaper and an undertaking not to write and/or publish any further articles relating to this matter, save and except the apology.
“Our client also demands damages for the loss and damage it has suffered as a consequence of the aforesaid libellous publications in the sum of $5 million to be donated to a charity of our client’s choosing.”

Is this explanation by the bank reasonable?  What you accountants think?

In that action, the lawyer’s letter noted that very issue of the alleged deposit of $82,068,617 was raised by the plaintiffs (Ronald and Rustum Bulkan) and has been fully answered and explained by Republic Bank in paragraph 20 of its defence and counterclaim and paragraph 33 of the witness statement filed on its behalf, both of which are public documents and in which it is stated:
“[T]he loan facilities granted by the Bank to the Company because of the admitted inability to pay by the Company and the voluntary closure of its business became non-performing and the Bank was obliged under the provisions of the Financial Institutional Act and the Rules and Orders made there under to make book provision for the Company. In so doing, the Bank provisioned for the sum of $82,068,617 which appears as a credit to the company’s account.”
“The said sum of $82,068,617 however represents a provisioning entry passed in accordance with the Financial Institutions Act and the Rules and Orders made there under,” the legal letter explained
It went on to note that “by virtue of the failure of the company to pay its indebtedness to the Bank, to which the Financial Institutions Act and its Rules, Regulations and Orders apply, could no longer recognise the sum of $82,068,617: as an asset on its books and an accounting entry was passed through equity to reflect this. This accounting entry does not have the effect of reducing the indebtedness of the Company nor does it represent a credit to the Company’s account.”
It was noted that the matter was explained to the Plaintiffs and their Attorneys-at-Law and their failure to understand it does not mean that the explanation was incoherent.
“The provisioning entry was not, therefore, an actual deposit and it is false and untrue to say that it was. Moreover, it is completely false, malicious and untrue to suggest that the alleged deposit of $82,068,617: was made by Haresh Narine Sugrim and that our client was somehow involved in money laundering.”

Republic Bank to sue Kaieteur News

Republic Bank Limited (Guyana) is set to take legal action against the controversial Kaieteur News media outlet following the publication of two misleading articles that implicated the commercial bank in questionable activities linked to money laundering.

Kaieteur News Editor–in –Chief
Adam Harris

Kaieteur News Publisher Glenn Lall

Republic Bank is demanding that Kaieteur News issue an apology and retraction of the articles published and in addition pay $5 million in damages.
However, Kaieteur News Publisher Glenn Lall has indicated that he has no intention of complying with the commercial banking institution’s request.
Contacted for a comment on the matter, Lall pointed this newspaper in the direction of the satirical “Dem Boys Seh” column which surmised that the media outlet will not take the Bank’s threat seriously.
According to the column, “Dem boys ain’t know wha dem saying sarry for or wha dem must pay $5 million for… Dem boys get so much of threat in dem lifetime that dem don’t know wha fuh tek serious and wha fuh mek joke.”
The commentary then deduced that the threat “got to be a joke”. It went on to say that if Republic Bank was serious about the money, then its legal representatives should “come to de Waterfalls paper Monday morning, bright and early”.
Meanwhile, Republic Bank said it will proceed with legal action if the Kaieteur News failed to comply with the demand after January 16.
In the first article published under the headline “SARU probes local Bank accused of money laundering”, the newspaper alleged that the State Assets Recovery Unit (SARU) is probing money laundering activities at the local Bank following reports of “a huge deposit of $82,068,617 (that) was effected to the bank account of a sitting Government Minister on June 16, 2011” without the knowledge of the account holder.
The article further mentioned that Precision Woodworking Limited (PWL) Managing Director, Minister Ronald Bulkan, had written the Bank’s external auditor, Christopher Ram, in June 2014 informing him that he (Bulkan – the account holder) was in possession of information that could prove the deposit of $82,068,617 was effected by Haresh Narine “Chinee” Sugrim, the proprietor of Guy-Trac.
The second article, headlined “Probe into money laundering by SARU: No evidence of wrongdoing by Republic Bank — says Central Bank”, published the statement of the Central Bank but according to Republic Bank, Kaieteur News still defended its untrue statements.
Following the publication of the article, Republic Bank and Central Bank both issued statements condemning the media entity for publishing such spurious information.
Businessman Sugrim also came forth to deny the allegations.
“Not me. That’s a lie. I would be glad if somebody could give that kind of money now. The only money I deposit in my account are monies in relation to my business that has to do with supplies,” he revealed.
Chartered Accountant Ram also denied the allegations made in the article.
“Ram & McRae wishes to make it very clear that the firm was never provided with any proof of any deposit of $82,068,617 to any account holder of Republic Bank Limited, including Precision Woodworking Limited,” he said in the statement.

This thing smells fishy.  

Ram said there was not deposit, but the bank said there was a deposit to "make book provision for the Company" and later “by virtue of the failure of the company to pay its indebtedness to the Bank, to which the Financial Institutions Act and its Rules, Regulations and Orders apply, could no longer recognise the sum of $82,068,617: as an asset on its books and an accounting entry was passed through equity to reflect this."

So why did the bank make this "book provision for the Company", WITHOUT the Company knowing about it??

asj posted:

Republic Bank threatens legal action against KN

January 9, 2016 | By KNews | Filed Under News 

-demands apology, retraction
Republic Bank Limited (Guyana) is threatening legal action against Kaieteur News for two articles that implicated the commercial institution in an allegation of money laundering.
According to a letter sent out by Cameron and Shepherd Law Firm, yesterday, Republic Bank said that it is seeking an apology and retraction for the articles appearing in Kaieteur News on January 6 and January 7, 2016 in addition to $5 million worth in damages.
The document stated that the Bank will proceed with legal action, if the newspaper fails to comply with these demands within the next seven days.
The articles in question appeared on the pages 3 and 7 of Kaieteur News on January, 6 and January 7, 2016 under the headline “SARU probes local Bank accused of money laundering” and “Probe into money laundering by SARU: No evidence of wrongdoing by Republic Bank — says Central Bank” respectively.
The legal correspondence outlined that the said articles, which name Republic Bank are replete with untruths, are false, malicious and inaccurate statements, conclusions and inferences that have been maliciously contrived to irreparably injure the impeccable reputation of our client, which is the largest commercial bank in Guyana with a reputation for excellence in all aspects of its business and a subsidiary of Republic Financial Holdings Limited, which owns other banks throughout the Caribbean.
According to the letter, the first untruth in the article published on 6th January is that a deposit of $82,068,617: was effected to the bank account of a sitting government minister on June 16, 2011.
The second untruth is the insinuation that the alleged deposit of $82,068,617 was effected by Haresh Narine “Chinee” Sugrim, the proprietor of Guytrac.
According to the letter the first article also insinuated that because Mr. Sugrim was accused in the United States of money laundering, the Bank was somehow involved in money laundering.
It was noted that following this article, the Bank of Guyana, which has sole statutory regulatory control over commercial banks, issued a statement that after a full investigation it had found no wrongdoing by our client.
However, the document from Cameron and Shepherd pointed out the article published on January 7, while mentioning the statement of the Bank of Guyana, improperly, irresponsibly and recklessly sought to defend the untrue statements in the preceding article and to repeat the untruths falsehoods, misrepresentations, and insinuations.
“Had you chosen the path of responsible journalism by making enquiries, you should have ascertained that the circumstances of the matter relate to the failed business of Precision Woodworking Limited, which has been placed in receivership by our client, (Republic Bank) for recovery of a debt of over half a billion Guyana dollars, which debt was personally guaranteed by its directors, Ronald and Rustum Bulkan.” the letter said.
After the company was put in receivership, the document stated that, three legal actions were filed by the company and its two directors against the Republic Bank.
Only one of those actions, Precision Woodworking and Ronald and Rustum Bulkan —v- Kashir Khan and Republic Bank Guyana Limited — Action No. 298/CD of 2012, Demerara survived.
In that action, the lawyer’s letter noted that very issue of the alleged deposit of $82,068,617 was raised by the plaintiffs (Ronald and Rustum Bulkan) and has been fully answered and explained by Republic Bank in paragraph 20 of its defence and counterclaim and paragraph 33 of the witness statement filed on its behalf, both of which are public documents and in which it is stated:
“[T]he loan facilities granted by the Bank to the Company because of the admitted inability to pay by the Company and the voluntary closure of its business became non-performing and the Bank was obliged under the provisions of the Financial Institutional Act and the Rules and Orders made there under to make book provision for the Company. In so doing, the Bank provisioned for the sum of $82,068,617 which appears as a credit to the company’s account.”
“The said sum of $82,068,617 however represents a provisioning entry passed in accordance with the Financial Institutions Act and the Rules and Orders made there under,” the legal letter explained
It went on to note that “by virtue of the failure of the company to pay its indebtedness to the Bank, to which the Financial Institutions Act and its Rules, Regulations and Orders apply, could no longer recognise the sum of $82,068,617: as an asset on its books and an accounting entry was passed through equity to reflect this. This accounting entry does not have the effect of reducing the indebtedness of the Company nor does it represent a credit to the Company’s account.”
It was noted that the matter was explained to the Plaintiffs and their Attorneys-at-Law and their failure to understand it does not mean that the explanation was incoherent.
“The provisioning entry was not, therefore, an actual deposit and it is false and untrue to say that it was. Moreover, it is completely false, malicious and untrue to suggest that the alleged deposit of $82,068,617: was made by Haresh Narine Sugrim and that our client was somehow involved in money laundering.”
The letter therefore said that the two articles published by Kaieteur News are false, malicious, irresponsible and amount to serious libels committed by the publication.
In the circumstances, the Firm was instructed to demand, an immediate retraction of the articles and an unequivocal apology from the newspaper and an undertaking not to write and/or publish any further articles relating to this matter, save and except the apology.
“Our client also demands damages for the loss and damage it has suffered as a consequence of the aforesaid libellous publications in the sum of $5 million to be donated to a charity of our client’s choosing.”

This is serious. KN is dealing with a major bank with deep pockets. 

It appears that Ram was involved in money laundering and now look to distance himself from this illegal activity. 

Is there anyone who hasn't threatened to sue someone in Guyana?