November 23, 2024

Afghanistan Steps Up Efforts to Recover Kabul Bank’s Losses

The development may hearten the Afghan government’s international backers, like the United States, by showing that the government is trying in good faith to recover money from those accused of bilking Kabul Bank of some $900 million.

A delegation of the government’s Financial Disputes Resolution Commission is visiting Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, where many favored borrowers bought real estate with cheap loans from the bank. The delegation is to hire a representative company there to oversee the sale of assets repossessed from borrowers, the central bank said.

In addition, Pamir Airways, an airline that received millions of dollars in loans from Kabul Bank, which foundered in the fall of 2010, would be reorganized and sold off, the central bank said.

The central bank said its governor, Noorullah Delawari, reported on the efforts to recoup the lost money in a visit to the United States last month, where he met with officials from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, as well as Daniel Feldman, the State Department’s deputy special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The State Department confirmed that the meeting with Mr. Feldman had taken place, but it offered no details and declined to comment on whether the Afghan government’s attempts to recoup money from politically connected figures in the country were sufficient.

In October, the monetary fund said it was renewing its credit program with Afghanistan, bringing some much-needed relief and stability to the nation’s shaky financial system. It had suspended the program in 2010, in large part because of the fraud at Kabul Bank and a general lack of oversight of the banking system. Under the deal to renew the program, the government must show to the monetary fund’s satisfaction that it is working hard to recover the losses.

Said Ishaq Allawi, an adviser to Mr. Delawari, confirmed that the delegation had visited Dubai, but he gave no details about the assets to be sold there or how much the government expected to recoup. Nor was it clear how much could be realized from selling Pamir’s small fleet of aging airplanes.

Though some of the money lost in the bank’s collapse has been recovered, the government will still probably have to cover hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. The bank’s receivers and the Finance Ministry have said that sales of seized assets might recoup nearly half the total.

Kabul Bank offered loans to its shareholders, allowing them to borrow much more than Afghanistan’s banking laws allowed and charging very low rates. It made risky loans on property in Dubai that turned sour when the market there collapsed, and it lent a brother of the Afghan president $6 million for a town house there.

The bank’s chairman at the time, Sherkhan Farnood, used bank money to buy property in his wife’s name and in his own, offered shares in the bank to politically connected figures, and approved large loans to relatives and friends of bank executives with little or no assurance of repayment.

In its investigations into the collapse, the central bank found that Kabul Bank’s management maintained two sets of books — a false set in Kabul and a genuine set in Dubai, at the Shaheen Currency Exchange, which was run by Mr. Farnood. Beyond the central bank’s announcement, it was not clear what progress the Afghan government was making in settling the problems relating to Kabul Bank.

Mr. Farnood and the bank’s former chief executive, Khalilullah Frozi, were detained and placed under investigation by the attorney general’s office, but they have not been tried.

After the government stepped in to guarantee Kabul Bank’s debts, the bank was overhauled; it has been divided into a “good” bank, with the deposits, performing loans and other viable assets of Kabul Bank, and a “bad bank” that holds the hundreds of millions of dollars in bad loans.

Matthew Rosenberg contributed reporting from Kabul.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/world/asia/afghanistan-steps-up-efforts-to-recover-kabul-banks-losses.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Cameron to Address British Parliament Over Veto on Europe Treaty

“I responded in good faith,” Mr. Cameron said in the televised speech, explaining his actions last week. “We were simply asking for a level playing field.”

Reiterating his reasons for the veto decision, Mr. Cameron said he could not agree to the changes because they would have threatened the competitive future of London’s financial services industry, a critical part of Britain’s economy. He also said he had done nothing to compromise Britain’s membership in the European Union itself.

“Britain remains a full member of the E.U. and the events of the last week do nothing to change that,” Mr. Cameron said. “Our membership of the EU is vital to our national interest. We are a trading nation and we need the single market for trade, investment and jobs.”

The British prime minister, leader of the Conservatives, is facing a rift with Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the junior coalition partner in Mr. Cameron’s government, who told the BBC on Sunday that Mr. Cameron’s decision to reject the proposed European treaty changes had left Britain in danger of being “isolated and marginalized” in Europe. Mr. Clegg added that if he had been in charge, “of course things would have been different.”

Mr. Cameron deployed his power of veto at a European Union summit meeting in Brussels after failing to secure what he called vital safeguards for the health of London’s financial sector. But with the 26 other members of the European Union either agreeing to the proposed plan outright or saying they would put the matter before their Parliaments, Mr. Cameron’s action on Friday left Britain alone on the margins at a time of great upheaval on the Continent, with the European Union struggling to resolve its financial crisis.

In an unusually blunt acknowledgment of the divide, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France said in a newspaper interview published on Monday that, while he and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany had done “everything in order that the English should be part of the agreement” at the Brussels summit, the reality was that “henceforth there are clearly two Europes — one seeking greater solidarity and regulation, and the other attached to the exclusive logic of the single market.”

“You have to understand this is the birth of a different Europe — the Europe of the euro zone, in which the watchwords will be the convergence of economies, budget rules and fiscal policy, a Europe where we are going to work together on reforms enabling all our countries to be more competitive without renouncing our social model,” he told the newspaper Le Monde.

But Mr. Sarkozy also referred to a broader relationship with Britain, despite the ever closer ties between Paris and Berlin in addressing the crisis in the euro zone, of which Britain is not a member.

“Does the importance of the understanding with Germany mean that there is nothing to be done with London? No,” he said. “We intervened in Libya with the United Kingdom and the prime minister, David Cameron, was courageous. With London we share an attachment to nuclear energy and a strong cooperation in defense.”

He also rejected an interviewer’s suggestion that Britain should leave the European Union’s single market — a vast trade zone stretching from Ireland to Scandinavia, the Balkans and the Mediterranean. “We need Great Britain,” Mr. Sarkozy said.

The developments in Brussels brought less ambiguous criticism from Britain’s opposition Labour Party.

“This is the first veto in history not to stop something,” David Miliband, a former Labour foreign secretary told the BBC on Monday. “The plans are going right ahead. It was a phantom veto against a phantom threat.”

“David Cameron didn’t actually stop anything because the other 26 are going on and the provisions of the treaty would not have weakened our rights and freedoms one iota,” Mr. Miliband said.

The Labour opposition was intent on echoing those complaints in Parliament, seeking to dent the enthusiasm of the dominant Conservatives and to highlight divisions within the governing coalition.

Many euroskeptic Conservatives, who want Britain to renegotiate its relationship with the European Union, were hailing the outcome of the Brussels summit as a victory. But several officials suggested that both the Conservatives and the more pro-European Liberal Democrats wanted to avoid a widening of the rift between them.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=d74557484a0e40cdd6ef3c19951c4fc3