Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

Heres another article about your side and the money laundering that goes on there under your very noses,

http://www.russianlaw.org/cyprus_launde ... osevic.htm

[Pyrpolizer]

The naive is you who gives links to conspiracy theory sites. Give me a respected report like the one of the World Bank.

You practically teared your ass in screaming to read the World Bank report for "trnc", and guess what? I even helped you out quoting it for you.

[Viewpoint]

The naive is you who gives links to conspiracy theory sites. Give me a respected report like the one of the World Bank.

You practically teared your ass in screaming to read the World Bank report for "trnc", and guess what? I even helped you out quoting it for you.

you are so predictable Pyro.

July 25, 2002. A 58-page report by Morten Torkildsen, an investigator at the United Nations war crimes prosecutor's office states that Cyprus banks helped finance brutal regime of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.

"…instead of taking measures against Yugoslav sanctions-busting, leading members of Cyprus’s close-knit elite facilitated the transactions. They included Afxentios Afxentiou, governor of the central bank; Kikis Lazarides, chairman of Popular Bank; and Tassos Papadopoulos, a prominent lawyer and leader since 2002 of the Democratic Party, the island’s second biggest political party" (Financial Times, July 25, 2002)

Ex-minister says Cyprus aided money laundering
By Kerin Hope in Nicosia

Published: June 6 2006 02:00 | Last updated: June 6 2006 02:00

Serbia's former justice minister accused Greek Cypriot authorities yesterday of complicity in the illegal transfer of billions of dollars to Cyprus during the 1990s United Nations embargo against Yugoslavia.

Vladan Batic told a Nicosia court the Yugoslav government had arranged for "sacks and suitcases full of cash" to be flown from Belgrade to Nicosia and deposited in accounts of "front" companies held by Cyprus Popular Bank, now known as Laiki Bank.

"Nowhere in the world does state money get transferred in this way to another state," he said. "Howdoes the Cyprus central bank explain this money laundering?"

Mr Batic, the leader of the opposition Serbian Christian Democrat party, served as justice minister in the first government elected after the late Slobodan Milosevic fell from power in 2000.

He was testifying in a case for damages for conspiracy to defraud brought against Laiki Bank by a Yugoslav businessman. It was the first time a senior Serbian politician had attacked Cyprus over money laundering by the Milosevic government.

Cash was collected in Belgrade by Beogradska Banka, the biggest Serbian bank, to be flown to Cyprus, Mr Batic said.

"It was a system set up to avoid the embargo. The money came from statecompanies, private companies and individuals close to the regime."

Mr Batic said he was handed documents by Carla del Ponte, the chief prosecutor at the UN war crimes tribunal for Yugoslavia, detailing thousands of transactions made through Laiki Bank by eight Cyprus-based front companies.

He said the companies had been set up by the lawoffice of Tassos Papadopoulos, who is now president of Cyprus.

"These companies were effectively subsidiaries of Beogradska bank. Because of UN sanctions, the bank could not handle transactions itself," he said.

An investigation by the UN tribunal in 2002 revealed that the Milosevic government channelled funds through Cyprus-based front companies to buy weapons, raw materials, spare parts and fuel and equipment for the Milosevic government to pursue wars in Bosnia in 1992-95 and Kosovo in 1998-99.

Mladjan Dinkic, the then-Yugoslav central bank governor, said about $4bn (€3bn, £2bn) was moved through Cyprus. None of the funds have been recovered. Laiki Bank and Greek Cypriot officials have repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

In March this year, George Jacovou, the Cyprus foreign minister, said a joint investigation by the Cyprus and Serbian central banks had cleared Greek Cypriot authorities of involvement in money laundering. But the Serbian central bank later denied it had taken part in an investigation with its Cyprus counterpart.

* Serb leaders in north Kosovo said yesterday they had cut all contact with the province's United Nations and ethnic Albanian authorities, in a fresh sign of resistance as the Albanian majority pushes for independence from Serbia this year, Reuters adds from Serbia.

At a protest in the town of Zvecan, leaders of some 50,000 Serbs in north Kosovo declared a "state of emergency" in response to a recent spate of shootings they blame on Albanians.

They called for the return of the Serbian police, who were forced to leave the province in 1999.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006

There is enough crediblity there to go along way but hey you would dismiss anything I dare post even if it were from the mouth of god.

[Pyrpolizer]

Zavalli mou re, I dismiss everything he says, even when I help him out....

[Viewpoint]

Zavalli mou re, I dismiss everything he says, even when I help him out....

Nothing better to say? glass houses

[skipper]

I find it a bit disingenuous that you forgot to include the example just underneath that paragraph:

I also find it disingenuous that you don’t mention the fact that what RoC was trying to do was simply to rate those products at zero VAT. There is absolutely no precedence in the EU of such an irregularity as in Cyprus where the State itself is expected to find legal ways to make trade through an illegal entity possible. The Eu itself could not even find legal ways herself. It’s easy to ask someone to square the circle and then reject his proposals…The so called direct trade proposal (not regulation) would actually be illegal right from the start.

You dont know what you're talking about, the VAT reverse charge is NOT zero rating of products it simply makes it the responsibility of the purchaser, rather than the seller, to account for VAT on a transaction. The reverse charge system is in place for certain types of products in the EU to help combat VAT fraud but never for all goods although Germany and Austria did make the request recently and was refused because the VAT system is a politcal hot patotoe. Infact the VAT system EU wide is a complete mess regardless of the topic of conversation.

Just because there is no precedance does n't mean anything, there was no precendance of the accession of a divided country to the EU but that happened did n't it? The EU could not a find a way because of the basis that the GC's wanted the green line regulation implemented thats why I bolded that part of the quote.

The direct trade regulation text has n't been approved not because it's illegal but because the GC's have repeatedly said they will veto it. If it was illegal you'd simply take it to the ECJ and have it overturned.

You have to notice that the report does not care to analyse the situation in an Economist style fashion. It doesn’t analyse why all products actually end up for consumption in the RoC controlled areas. If there is currently an effective trade of about 200,000 Euros a month with the RoC controlled areas whereas only half that volume from the GCs to the TCs this means (imo) that the TC products could compete effectively in Europe. The report doesn’t analyse why this does not happen through the Green line, it does not even report whether it actually happens through Famagusta port or through Turkey. It does not even care to mention explicitly the clearly upward trend. No economist could have ever missed that… It simply ends up confirming that -- >

I never said it was an economic report, I gave you the numbers that you two squabling about. Sure there has been an upwould trend, but no economist in their right mind would say that past performance is an indication of future performance. Even if the level of trade increased by 20% year on year, in ten years it would n't even be 10 million euros a year.

With regards to the distribution of trade between the two sides and how TC competitiveness is related to that there are too many unknowns to make that kind of statement as if it was fact, but as an opinion you're more than entitled to hold it. If I had to speculate, I would say that the majority goods have advantages in being produced locally and the generally lower level of wages.

The overall conclusion is that the Green Line Regulation continues to provide a workable basis for allowing the passage of goods and people to and from the government-controlled areas of the Republic of Cyprus although the flow of goods remains limited. The Commission will continue to monitor the implementation of the regulation.

And where did I say that the green line regulation was bad in that respect? I have issue with it being used by GC's to "prove" that it solves all the TC's problems, that their incomes will be greatly increased from it and that they have nothing to complain to the EU about.

I dont find it surprising at all that people who feel that their jobs are at risk would take direct action, infact the GC's seem to be experts at it from the protests I've read about.

The report actually says that it is the TCs who are experts in taking direct action against the traders .

I was n't talking about this, I was talking about GC's in who seem to block roads, have scuffles, etc etc on regular basis.

[skipper]

May I also point out that the report does not investigate whether TC products crossing the Green line do in fact end up for consumption by the GCs, or whether they in the end, are exported by GC traders....

TC's having to get their goods exported by GC's is just going back to the 60's & 70's where in many cases you was refused permission by government unless you had a GC partner or had knew a friendly GC would could do things on your behalf. I could say something inflamatory here but I wont, all I will say is that most TC's would be insulted by the glee in the above comment and would infer that GC's have learnt nothing.

[Pyrpolizer]

Just because there is no precedance does n't mean anything, there was no precendance of the accession of a divided country to the EU but that happened did n't it?

I was referring to the fact that RoC’s proposals were rejected by the commission as being outside the Aquis.The fact is they would solve the problems wouldn’t they? But the commission did not let them did it?

The direct trade regulation text has n't been approved not because it's illegal but because the GC's have repeatedly said they will veto it. If it was illegal you'd simply take it to the ECJ and have it overturned.

The direct trade regulation was based on the unilatteral opinion (of those behind it) that because the EU Aquis is suspended in the occupied areas, the EU could proceed with trade with the occupied in accordance with regulation article 133 EC which refers to trade with third countries!!! It forgets that Cyprus joined the EU as a whole. In our opinion that was illegal. For your information there is pending a decision at the EU court for a definite clarification of how the "suspension of the Aquis at the occupied" should be interpreted from now on. Furthermore you will clearly notice that the direct trade proposal was simply covering the trade regulation but did not even dare touch the transport issue. The direct trade proposal-if it were accepted as a whole- would even mean the Eu would be deciding for anual tariffs for TC products that might well be higher than what they are now with the Green line regulation. Nevertheless the basic proposals for the direct trade were accepted by RoC and you now having the TCCC and the EU officers issuing certificates exactly as the direct trade proposal said.

It is obvious that while the direct trade proposal was not commercially so attractive your side wanted it because the next step-if it were accepted-was to treat the ports and airports at the occupied as those of a third country and get recognition through the back door.

I never said it was an economic report, I gave you the numbers that you two squabling about. Sure there has been an upwould trend, but no economist in their right mind would say that past performance is an indication of future performance. Even if the level of trade increased by 20% year on year, in ten years it would n't even be 10 million euros a year.

Neither did I. I simply commented that it does not explain this and that. Secondly the increase is not 20% but 43% and thirdly it is obvious you don’t know how economists work. Of course past performance is used as an indication for future performance. I stress indication, not prediction as for prediction they need to take a lot of parameters into consideration.

With regards to the distribution of trade between the two sides and how TC competitiveness is related to that there are too many unknowns to make that kind of statement as if it was fact, but as an opinion you're more than entitled to hold it. If I had to speculate, I would say that the majority goods have advantages in being produced locally and the generally lower level of wages.

I don’t need to look at unknown parameters.I only need to see the selling price. A product at a lower price and same quality is competitive by definition.

I have issue with it being used by GC's to "prove" that it solves all the TC's problems, that their incomes will be greatly increased from it and that they have nothing to complain to the EU about.

Where did you see that claim coming from the GCs? All the GCs have to prove is that it provides an effective mechanism for the TCs to trade their products with the EU. We never claimed that it will solve all your problems in fact many of them will stay unsolved as long as the problems of the GC refugees to access/use/ and exploit their lands and properties remain unsolved.

I was n't talking about this, I was talking about GC's in who seem to block roads, have scuffles, etc etc on regular basis.

Oh, so only the TCs should be allowed to even threaten a trader directly, whereas the GC have no right to even protest even in cases of unfair competition… Perhaps you don’t know that a GC trucker pays 10,000 Cyprus pounds to just get his licence, so doesn’t he have the right to protest when someone who pays nothing comes and takes his job? Anyway the matter of the trucks has already been solved.

TC's having to get their goods exported by GC's is just going back to the 60's & 70's where in many cases you was refused permission by government unless you had a GC partner or had knew a friendly GC would could do things on your behalf. I could say something inflamatory here but I wont, all I will say is that most TC's would be insulted by the glee in the above comment and would infer that GC's have learnt nothing.

What are you talking about man? This would be true if there was even the slightest evidence that any TC was obstructed from RoC or the GCs of doing his exports by himself. The report speaks for itself. The TCs are obstructed for doing exports by their own community. See the incident with the 20 tons of citrus. However we have not seen any obstruction of the TCs in cases they would sell their products for consumtion in the RoC controlled areas. So why do you rush to exclude the possibility that those TCs who are obstructed by their own people to do exports , might have chosen the other way round i.e to sell their products to a GC speculator, and the GC speculator then export them? It is just a possibility albeit undesirable.

I could say something inflamatory here but I wont, all I will say is that most TC's would be insulted by the glee in the above comment and would infer that GC's have learnt nothing.

There has been absolutely no glee and you are just seeing things.See above. Even your intention to say something inflamatory is insulting to say the least.