MFSA ‘responsible for damages suffered, which are expected to be very significant’ - Pilatus Holding

In a statement yesterday evening, Pilatus Holding said it is “formally holding the Malta Financial Services Authority responsible for any and all damages suffered and may be suffered, which are expected to be very significant”.

The company was referring to the ongoing regulatory furore over Pilatus Bank, saying that this week it had filed a judicial protest against the MFSA calling upon the MFSA to withdraw the Directives imposed on the Bank and the “misguided recommendation [it] made to the European Central Bank”.

In a scathing statement, Pilatus Holding said, “The Egrant fiasco confirms the negligence and gullibility of MFSA, who blindly accepted the misrepresentations fed to it by the ‘Russian informant’ Maria Efimova, supported and used by her politically motivated collaborators.

“It is now unjustifiable that, following the publication of the conclusions of the Egrant Inc. Inquiry, which has completely exonerated Pilatus Bank from the malicious allegations brought against it, the MFSA has persisted with maintaining the irrational hard-line approach taken against Pilatus Bank possibly as a desperate attempt to try to save face.”

Pilatus Holding explains how, “Prior to the reckless actions of the MFSA as at February 2018, the Bank maintained a liquidity coverage ratio of six hundred and one percent (601%), which is six times the required amount. Pilatus Bank’s regulatory standards were among the highest in Europe since its inception.

“Therefore, any attempt by the MFSA to find an excuse with the Bank’s prudential standards will be directly attributable to the MFSA’s misconduct since it has put itself fully in charge of the management of the Bank and will be held liable for any such potential breaches.”

The company insisted that the MFSA has been privy, since June 2017, to independent reports which confirmed that the allegations levelled at the Bank relating to Egrant Inc. “were merely a fabrication”.

“The MFSA has acted as judge and jury and interviewed multiple times the Bank’s top officials asking pointed and incriminating questions about Egrant Inc. and treating them like convicted criminals. The top officials at MFSA can refresh their memory on their judgmental attitude towards the Bank and its officials by referring back to the recordings of these interviews.

“The MFSA, however, seems to struggle to adapt itself with reality and accept the conclusive findings of the Magisterial Inquiry that clearly exonerated Pilatus Bank and persists in its relentless quest to try and find something subjectively “illegal” with the Bank.

“Now the MFSA has admitted that it is investigating the legality of ‘every deposit and every transaction’ [as reported in the last issue of The Malta Independent on Sunday] at the Bank.

“The Bank welcomes the investigation as it has always acted within the remit of the law, however, when the parties investigating are not impartial and have a track record of being driven by political motivations, the likelihood of an independent and fair treatment for Pilatus Bank is close to impossible.

“It is Pilatus Holding Ltd’s belief that the MFSA’s actions with respect to Pilatus Bank demonstrate the authority’s incompetence in dealing with the matter and have exposed the Authority’s failures to adequately and impartially exercise its duties as an independent financial services regulator.

“We are hopeful that the recent changes in the management of the MFSA will lead to the rectification of the Authority’s misconduct.”

Furthermore, Pilatus Holdings insisted that “one cannot but question MFSA’s motives on embarking on this unprecedented and unjustifiable investigation of a credit institution with no known breaches of its conduct or regulatory obligations.”

With respect to the US indictment against the bank’s owner, Pilatus said that Ali Sadr has pleaded not guilty and “he looks forward to the opportunity to present his defence at trial.

“Under United States law he is presumed innocent, and it would be an outrage to punish a person who is presumed innocent even before such person has had the opportunity to be heard.”

Pilatus Holding said it “remains committed to seeking all legal remedies available at law so justice may prevail”.