The Swiss bank Credit Suisse clarifies the statement made by Bidzina Ivanishvili to BMG. According to the bank, Ivanishvili's statement that the bank is exerting "political pressure" on him is completely groundless. In addition, the bank clarifies that there have not been any delays.
In addition, the bank notes that they have appealed the decision of the Bermuda Court, which imposed a compensation of more than USD 500 million in favor of Ivanishvili.
"Any allegation that Credit Suisse is exerting “political pressure” is completely unfounded.
There were no delays - please read our statement regarding the verdict passed by the Bermuda Court. The verdict is not final because we have appealed against it," the bank said in a written response.
A few days ago, the PR agency hired by Bidzina Ivanishvili made a statement, according to which Credit Suisse delayed bank transfers to its trust. The statement said that Ivanishvili had sued the bank for discrimination and political pressure.
Later, Bidzina Ivanishvilis lawyer responded to the information posted by BM.GE. Bidzina Ivanishvili's lawyer Victor Kipiani responded to the article published on BMG regarding the issue, where Credit Suisse responded to Bidzina Ivanishvili's accusations. As Kipiani has said, formally the bank is right, as it does not have direct contact with the client, but that is not entirely true.
"Very interesting information was published today by the Georgian web portal BMG. The article reads that the news agency has talked to the representative of Credit Suisse, but it is missing who they have talked to. According to Credit Suisse, the bank group has nothing common with this pressure.
Formally the bank is right: it has no direct contact with its client, but the issue is something else. This is half true, while the whole truth is that all the trust structures that the bank offered to Mr. Ivanishvili to manage its own assets were organized by the bank, but this is not a complete history either.
It is also important that the Bermuda Court answers one very important question, that our defendant is not directly the bank in all jurisdictions, but the trust structures, while the court notes that these two separate legal entities are acting under one hand. This is one of the main and defining arguments and thesis, in the decision of the Bermuda Court, it will be one of our main trump cards.
So, any such statement by the bank that - " I'm not in the middle of anything" is wrong.
It is said very softly when the bank talks about the delays. Believe me, when we talk about specific facts, including the same well-known transfer that led to our claim. The transfer order was issued on March 4 and completed on April 4, however previous transfers were completed within 48-72 hours.
We can not call this a delay, it is creating an obstacle for the client to freely manage his asset. Money does not matter so much when we talk about Gens Island, as our approach is very straightforward and linear, the bank must give answers and we must raise the issue of liability. The lawsuit was filed a few weeks ago. The most important thing for us is to point out all the irregularities in accordance with the law," Kipiani told Imedi TV.
#TheCheckpoints - 15.05.2022
