denizaksulu wrote:Kikapu wrote:Viewpoint wrote:Malapapa wrote:HSBC customers like Epsilon. Please feel free to send the following letter to the Financial Service Authority (FSA), or equivalent financial regulator, in your respective home countries. (Not you runaway)...
Dear Sir or Madam
HSBC and ‘TRNC’
I have been a customer of HSBC for many years (I can provide you with details of my accounts on request). As a law-abiding citizen, I expect financial institutions that I deal with to have full respect, wherever they operate, for legitimate laws and for the rights of human beings.
I was therefore surprised to learn that HSBC, which is under the consolidated supervision of the Financial Services Authority (the ‘FSA’), has a business presence in the self-styled ‘TRNC’ in the northern part of Cyprus.
Presumably the FSA and HSBC are both aware that the ‘TRNC’ area has been illegally invaded, occupied and settled by Turkey. The vast majority of the property in that area belongs to Cypriots displaced by Turkey, in violation of their human and property rights.
Under international law the ‘TRNC’ area remains the territory of the Republic of Cyprus, a member state of the European Union. Moreover, as recently affirmed by the European Court of Justice and the English Court of Appeal in Apostolides v Orams [2010] EWCA Civ 9 (the ‘Orams case’), the judgments of the courts of the Republic of Cyprus over its entire territory, including the ‘TRNC’ area, are enforceable throughout the European Union.
Obviously, any high profile international organisation such as HSBC operating in the ‘TRNC’ is now particularly vulnerable to financially and reputationally damaging litigation if it has violated the laws of the Republic of Cyprus and the property or other rights of displaced Cypriots. Judgments obtained in a Republic of Cyprus court can be enforced against the organisation’s assets across the European Union.
I trust that the FSA, as part of its consolidated supervision, has taken steps to ensure that HSBC, in operating in the ‘TRNC’, (a) is in full compliance with the laws and regulations of the Republic of Cyprus, as the legitimate and internationally recognised local authority; (b) has not infringed the property or other rights of Cypriots displaced from the ‘TRNC’ area; and (c) has not provided banking facilities to those who have benefited from such infringement (which presumably would be tantamount to money laundering).
I look forward to hearing from you before deciding what further action to take.
Yours faithfully
How did you sign this one off? Cyprus Forum Members? which email did you use? Cyprus Forum Members? sure Admin should do something about this abuse of forum name.
He can just sign it from "Member of Cyprus Forum".!
Will that be more acceptable to you, because it would imply singular member, himself, but the context will still suggest Cyprus Forum members, therefore you cant win. But since there are more than one person who agrees with him sending letters as CF members, then him using the plural format as in "we" or "members", as in "Cyprus Forum members" would still be correct, therefore there’s nothing you or the Admin can do about it, so stop complaining over nothing.!
Its NOT over nothing. He has NO mandate from ALL forumers. This is a private crusade, he can gather his friends and carry on and good luck to him. He is behaving like a little despot. Keep on supporting him Kiks.
Deniz, it is not a question of support or not support. I personally believe it will not have any effect by sending these letters is the reason why I did not post in this thread. Surely these companies already knew/know what the risks were before and how to deal with them, specially now, as of the 19th when the Orams case has been decided. All I'm saying to VP is, the wording on the letter can be changed to mean only from him (sender) or from 2 people (members), but to the recipient of the letter would still mean the Cyprus Forum Members. This is why I think it is a waste of time to complain, but if you guys feel like it would make a difference, go ahead, not unless he is not allowed to sent a letter as a CF member, as an individual at all, but if he is allowed to send it on his own behalf as a CF member, then how can you win the argument in what he is doing.?