Board didn’t know of harbour bond

April 11, 2012 12:45 PM

WILLEMSTAD - As the Central Bank of Curaçao and St. Maarten (CBCS) issued a press release to refute allegations on the role of its president-director Emsley Tromp made in the criminal case against First Curaçao International Bank (FCIB) in the Netherlands, questions are still being asked on the bond emission for St. Maarten of which apparently very few people other than him were aware.

After interim chairman Renny Maduro of the joint Supervisory Board of CBCS had already stated that he had known nothing of the loan for the Harbour Group of Companies, Chos Romer as one of the three directors declared that he was also kept in the dark and is actually against it. He did so also because Curaçao's Minister of Finance George "Jorge" Jamaloodin (MFK) at the time had warned the management members that he would hold them each individually responsible for any consequences of the decision made without consulting him.

All this is likely to increase tensions heading into the meeting scheduled for April 15, between CBCS, Jamaloodin and St. Maarten's Minister of Finance Hiro Shigemoto (UP). The latter has stated from the beginning that if the bond loan for the harbour is to be questioned, then so must the 300-million-guilder bond loan that the –then still Antillean- Central Bank had issued for Curaçao utility company Aqualectra earlier.

In Tuesday's press release reacting to statements made by the Dutch prosecution, CBCS explains that FCIB was active as off-shore bank on Curaçao in the seventies. The Central Bank on October 9, 2006, withdrew FCIB's license and had to issue an emergency ruling to place the troubled off-shore bank under its supervision, with as goal to wind down the operations. "The penal case in the Netherlands looks into the period before that," the release states.

CBCS refutes the claim that it showed no interest and had not even asked for the case file, stating that the prosecution is well aware that the Central Bank has full access to the file and has also taken note of its content.

"That the bank in 2006 paid the prosecution 40 million euros for FCIB is also a misrepresentation. The prosecution had served a worldwide conservatory attachment on FCIB based on its intended dispossession claim of US $100 million.

"This took away the possibility for FCIB to make any payments to among others cover outstanding amounts to its account holders. In an effort to get the payments to clients back on track, the Central Bank facilitated a guarantee deposit of 40 million euros, in exchange for which the attachments were removed.

"However, that amount was not for the account and risk of the Central Bank, but for that of FCIB. Moreover, the CBCS was approached lastly in 2011 by the prosecution with the request to use its authorities regarding FCIB in such a way that a settlement could be brought about in which the latter would pay the prosecution a minimal amount of 40 million euros plus interest.

"The Central Bank then informed the prosecution that –based on the case file and external advice- it had doubts over the dispossession claim. It asked to substantiate this claim factually and legally, but the prosecution did not wish to do so and terminated the negotiations it had started."

CBCS also reacts to the remark that Tromp was close to FCIB-owner John Duess who is now on trial director and that they usually met outside of the Central Bank offices. "This unjustly suggests wrongful actions.

"The reality is that most meetings with Deuss and FCIB took place at the Central Bank. Sporadically, such as in the margin of international gatherings of for example the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, consultations took place elsewhere, as also happens regarding other institutions one in a while."

The prosecution finds that the Central Bank's supervision "has not always been as stringent" and "notably kind," which was an important reason to keep up the appearance that it operated from Curaçao.

The bank refutes this opinion on the quality of its supervision "without going into details." The Central Bank is not free to do so because of its legal confidentiality under the law. "In any case the prosecution fails to recognise that not the Central Bank but the Dutch supervisors are entrusted with supervising banks in the Netherlands.

"Finally, the Central Bank was explicitly told not to make any payments to clients because it would then also be accused and prosecuted for complicity to money laundering practices. However, up to today the prosecution has not placed a judicial lien on any amounts owed to clients, let alone initiated any penal cases against them.

"In the meantime the Central Bank is constantly confronted with court cases by clients demanding their money, with all consequences for the reputation of the Bank and our jurisdiction."