It is impossible to intimidate me with such things ...
2017 June 26 ( Sunday ) 08:23:16
Chairman of the Bank Standard Creditors Committee, well-known bank expert Akram Hasanov has been warned by the General Prosecutor's Office about the dissemination of prejudiced information in the media. It is noteworthy that shortly before this, on June 22, the creditors of this bank under the leadership of Hasanov got involved in the bankruptcy proceedings of Bank Standard with the right to access important documents, the sale process of the bank's property,
- We managed to get the committee involved in the bankruptcy proceedings of the bank in the Baku Court of Appeal as the third (interested) party. This means that creditors have access to all judicial documents, the opportunity to speak in this process, express their point of view, object, etc. Formally, the liquidation of the bank is controlled by the court, but since the sole participant in this litigation was still only the liquidator himself (FSV, - ed.), the court had one-sided information. The participation of creditors will give the process a more objective character. We will closely monitor the sale of the bank's property and the return of its loans to exclude the possibility of abuse and corruption by the FSB," Hasanov said in an interview with Turan.
Hasanov commented on Turan's warning to the Prosecutor General's Office:
The complaint from the Financial Market Control Chamber to the General Prosecutor's Office is close to this event not only in time, the human rights activist believes: "It's just that someone is very worried, and decided to intimidate in this way."
It should be reminded that the human rights activist was summoned to the General Directorate for Combating Corruption under the Prosecutor General of Azerbaijan on the complaint of the Chamber of Control of Financial Markets, which was addressed to four banks: Xalq Bank, Bank Respublika, Bank of Baku, and Bank VTB. These banks considered that the expert's speeches in the press allegedly caused damage to the banking system.
Hasanov commented on the warning by the General Prosecutor Office:
- Formally, I was summoned on the complaint of four banks that appealed to the Chamber of Financial Supervision, and she, in turn, complained to the General Directorate for Combating Corruption under the Prosecutor General. At the same time, the logic of the Chamber's appeal to the General Directorate for Combating Corruption is not clear.
- In your opinion, why did the Chamber address there, and not go to court? After all, this issue is not within the jurisdiction of the General Directorate for Combating Corruption.
"I asked the Prosecutor General's Office about this when I arrived there on them summon." I was not given an exhaustive answer. They said, they had a complaint, and they had to react to it. There is no logic, but it would be much better if this management was engaged in its direct duties - then there would be less corruption in the country.
- I wonder what was the complaint? Have you found the culprit in the problems of our banking system?
- It is known that previously the international agency Moody's downgraded the ratings of the four mentioned banks. After that, I gave an interview in this connection "Yeni Musavat" and "Voice of America" at the request of these publications. Moreover, one of the speeches did not even name specific financial organizations, it was about the problems of the banking system as a whole. And now pay attention to the warning published in my address by the General Prosecutor's Office, it repeats word for word behind the Chamber. Even the expressions are the same: "statements made by Akram Hasanov who presents himself as an expert in the banking sector," "his appeals to investors to take their savings", they say, "caused public riots, created liquid problems, and, as a result, led to an undesirable situation in the Banking system ", etc. The Prosecutor General's Office even expresses their language.
So, the Chamber complained that I call on people to withdraw bank deposits, do not trust the banking system, and specifically for four banks made unsubstantiated judgments. In the Prosecutor General's Office, I said, let's assume that it is so. What does the Office for Combating Corruption do? After all, if I caused damage, it is logical to apply to the court and there it is up to me to find out. But they did not really answer this to me, they said that the state structure applied to us and we turned to you, so that you do not make unreasonable statements. I asked them, which articles of the Criminal Code and the Code of Administrative Offenses are going to accuse me? For expressing my thoughts? Agree that this is ridiculous, because there is a Constitution and freedom of speech. I was asked to comment on some points from the interview, which can be understood ambiguously.
- For example...
- For example, I say in my interview that bankers stole money from banks. The Prosecutor General's Office asked me under which Articles of the Criminal Code I"m accusing? I listed the Articles. I stressed that I give interviews for ordinary people - not specialists, who are not interested in these articles. They asked what I meant, and what did I had in mind? They told me to speak precisely, so that there is no ambiguity. I said that I will try to take into account as far as possible and as far as possible
- For example...
- For example, I say in my interview that bankers stole money from banks. The Prosecutor General's Office asked which articles of the Criminal Code I'm accusing? I had to list them articles. I stressed that I give interviews for ordinary people - not specialists, who are not interested in these articles. There were such questions, what I had in mind? In general, they asked if it is possible in the future, when I blame, to speak precisely, so that there is no ambiguity. I said that I will try to take into account as far as I can and as media can, since they cannot explain in detail all the legal details.
Then, in my interview with Yeni Musavat, I spoke specifically for each bank, and I was asked for proof. I listed and said that in case I can prove what I mean. I subscribed to my testimony. Further, I was told that no one limits my freedom of speech, and I can continue to speak, but did not specify what I can report and what not. The conversation was polite, they simply asked, given the difficult situation in the banking system, to be weighed in their statements, and not to make unreasonable and unproven statements, as people listen to them. I promised them to take this factor into account, if they themselves at the level of state structures admit that people listen. After all, this is a great responsibility. In general, there are no problems, in fact, nothing like this has happened.
I repeat, the communication was very polite and tactful. I said that I myself intended to come to the General Prosecutor's Office, because on the day when the Chamber complained, the Bank's lending committee decided to complain to the Central Bank, the Chamber of Financial Market Controls and the temporary administrator of the bank for all previous activities on the audits and management of this bank. He said that next week I'm going to write an appeal to the Prosecutor General's Office on the decision of the committee. They answered me: "send, we will consider."
- It turns out that the Chamber complained to the Prosecutor General's Office against you in unison with the decision of the creditors' committee to complain there to the Chamber, the Central Bank and the temporary board of the Bank Standard? Maybe, they just wanted to get ahead of you?
- Maybe. In fact, for more than two years I have been speaking in the media on banking topics, and there have been more tough speeches. The question arises: why did this complaint come just now, when I am defending the interests of Bank Standard's creditors? The fact is that the court, involved in the liquidation of the bank, attracted the committee as a third party to the lawsuit. This opens the way to the documents, and someone has become worried a lot. I decided to intimidate me in this way.
But this case is hopeless, because it is impossible to intimidate me in such things. I have always understood and known that in my activities affect the interests of influential people. I always took into account this circumstance. On the other hand, my activities do not provide for personal goals. The main goal is to help people, thus I also help the state, since the protection of consumers of banking services is the task of the state. I help that the number of disaffected citizens does not increase. My activity is absolutely transparent and does not violate any laws.