Röviden a tények ismertetése Magyarország kirablásáról, aki teheti szórja szét a világba…
Deceit of the 21s t century in the middle of Europe, within the boundaries of the European Union, brought to the attention of the international press and public opinion. This is the manner used for reducing one third of the population of a country and the majority of the local governments to slavery, clearing the way for the last act of the conquering action, by cutting the ground from under the feet of an impoverished population, and the only alternatives left for them are emigration or suicide. The result of the last three years is thousands of suicides and thousands of emigrants.
Chief Prosecutor’s Office.
Address: 1055 Budapest Markó u. 16.
Honorable Chief Executor’s Office,
I, undersigned President of the Bank Debtors’ Interest Group
(BAÉSZ, 571 l.Gyula,Fehér-Körös utca 69.), Árpád Kásler
filé charges against person(s) unknown, primarily for well-founded suspicion of tax fraud, based on
Article 310 Paragraph (1) of the Penal Code.
A person who
a) makes others run in to error, keeping them mistaken or keeping actual facts back concerning amounts to be paid in the budget or fmancial instruments proceeding from the budget, causing one or more budgets pecuniary prejudice, commits a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by imprisonment of up to two years, labor in the public interest, or a fíne.
(5) The punishment shall be imprisonment between five to ten years, if
a) the budgetary fraud causes a specially considerable pecuniary prejudice,
b) the budgetary fraud causing considerable pecuniary prejudice is committed in a manner determined by Subsub-subsections ba) to bb) of Sub-subsection b) of Subsection (2).
As a proof for that, hereby I expound that the fmancial institutions disbursing the so-called exchange-based credits abused the opportunity conferred by law that enabled them to filé a placed-out loan in a different currency to which it had been placed out, and different to which the specific credit transaction is redeemed by the debtor. However, they use this opportunity, advantageous for them and disadvantageous for the debtors, for tax avoidance as well, according to available information. The totál comes to a particularly big amount, billions of Hungárián Forints.
The fmancial institutions introduced the placed-out HUF-credits in to their ledger and accounting at the purchase rate when placed out, though they levied their redemption at the selling rate, adding to it the midstream change of exchange rate. This, in many instances, results in a surplus proceeds of 50% to 60 %, compared to the placed-out amount of HUF and to the reimbursed amount of HUF.
Despite all this, the fmancial institution, when redeemed, book these amounts as if it reimbursed the value of the amount that it keeps on filé in the placed-out currency, therefore not being liable to tax, though this is not the case for it had accomplished no currency conversion neither within, nor outside of the boundaries of the Hungarian State, which would entitle it for tax exemption; this means that it gains a stern profit the way that it has no trace in the ledger as income of interest which would imply tax liability. Even if in a conditional mode, the foreign exchange clearing was accepted to be concluded between the bank and the debtor, in consideration of the signed contract. This would not entitle the bank to book the difference between the placed-out amount and the reimbursed amount free of tax anyway, with reference to the difference of exchange rate.
The intention of the contract between the creditor and the debtor relating to this may not refer to the exemption of the obligations for the Hungarian State, for the Hungarian
State is not playing any role in this transaction. In point of fact, here we may catch in the act an implicit interest, beside the officially indicated interest and other costs, seriously defrauding the budget of the Hungarian State.
In the second place I file charges for well-founded suspicion of fraud contrary to the Article 318 Paragraph (1) of the Penal Code and for well-founded suspicion of misleading of customers contrary to the Article 296/ Paragraph (1) of the Penal Code.
Therefore, as the relevant statutory provision of the crime of fraud:
A person who – for unlawful profit-making – lead somebody into error or keeps in error and causes damage, thereby, commits fraud.
Hereby I expound, that hundreds of thousand citizens and several local governments in Hungary were deceived when borrowing so-called’ exchange – based” credits, they suffered loss during the duration of the credit and are still being defrauded even currently in my opinion, in a criminally indictable manner and with legal consequences.
Article 296/A. Paragraph (1) Any person who, in respect of any essential feature of a product, publicly states false facts, or true facts in a deceptive way, or provides deceptive information on any e sential feature of the product for the purpose of rendering such more desirable, commits a misdemeanor offense and shall be punishable with imprisonment of up to two years.
In my opinion. the deceit and the statement of the real fact in a manner suitable for deceit had materialized, for the financial institutions abused the lack of the people’s knowledge of finance and the financial market, albeit the borrower customer had turned to specialists and professional institution – banks and financial institutions. Therefore they may not be blamed for not having inquired properly before borrowing the credit. This was exactly what the institutions traded upon, and, instead of long-term mortgage-backed credits they sold them, in reality a (swap) transaction, characteristic of the stock exchange bets and tack exchange speculations. This passed all risk to the debtors, albeit the Financial Law statutes that the interest must cover all the creditor’s benefits and risks.
The concept of interest is determined by the Subsection 7 of Section III of the Other
Definitions of the Act CXII of 1996 on Credit Institutions and Financial Enterprises as follows:
” 7) ‘Interest’ means the sum of money or other gain to be paid to the lender (deposit-holder) for the use of and risks associated with his deposit or loan.”By favor of the honorable Chief Executor’s Office, hereby I copy a small indicative detail from the webpage of the Hungárián National Bank. This reveals that these transactions are not qualified to be a form of long-term credit of 15 to 25 years.
The FX-Swap transaction may be classified as a foreign exchange market transaction, for it means the exchange of denominated cash low. Within the framework ofthe transaction, the parties agree to exchange the owned currency on a rate on hand (in the point of time tO) to another currency, and later (in the point of time t1) they swap it back -on a forward rate stating interest margin determined in the present (Table 1). Therefore the FX-Swap is consists ofan immediate sale and purchase transaction (initial rate) and a forward currency transaction (forward rate): after discounting the spot rate, the transaction includes a partner risk concordant to the futures.
Moreover, I expound that defense of the banks, whereas, the debtors would have gained by the registry in foreign currency, does not stand proof for several reasons. For one thing, nobody may really mean that the Hungárián Forint may achieve a relevant increase compared to the Swiss Franc within a reasonable time. Though the political leadership of that time went all lengths to be silent concerning the reál economic conditions ofthe country, with which they made the population ofthe country run intő error for not having reál and actual sagacity on the economic situation ofthe country, which situation has an essential and inescapable influence on long-term credits. To come back to the defense by the banks, in case of a strengthening Forint or a weakening currency, evén then, the banks possessed the possibility ofthe unilateral alteration of interest with which they could have compensated their loss.
Evén this proves that the risk is exclusively on the borrower, though this should have just the opposite in a normál case.
As buttressing up the fact ofthe deceit, hereby I give notice and call the attention ofthe honorable Chief Executor’s Office that, when paying out exchange-based credits, or in the case of issuing mortgage-type bonds, or bonds for purchasing automobiles or local government bonds, the financial institutions convinced the borrowers about the safety of their product by laying before the claimants the exchange rate movement ofthe previous years.
Hereby I cite a sentence from a court record of March 27, 2008, which was said by a bank speciálist previous to the issuance of bonds of several hundreds of millión Forints:
„The EUR, CHF, FT move relatively concurrently, the exchange rate is computable. The movement of CHF has been good, computable and reliable in the latest 10 years”
Hereby I have to mention that this serves the deceit in full measure and it states the substantial fact in a manner suitable for deceit, for by today we know beyond reasonable doubt that this stable movement has operated not regulated by the markét, but maintained by the Hungárián National Bank by an artificial protection domain.
The Communications Department issued an affidavit about this on November 3, 2011.
“in the period ofthe running-in of foreign currency credits, Hungary had a price bánd which may have reduced the observed and expected fluctuation ofthe exchange rate of the Forint.”
So the bank system knew about the excessive risk, for the sure 1 mu t have been informed by the Hungarian National Bank in an internal letter. If not, they knew about it anyway since, during the endeavor of leading out the Forint and introducing euro they offered credit still not in euro, but in a currency considered to be a refugee currency in comparison with euro. The banks knew about the deterioration of the currency due in a long-term; that is why they chose this not-obvious currency. This currency could be exchanged for them with advantage compared to the euro. This is the reason they chose that. Therefore, in case they read the prompting of the Swiss Central Bank, all the more they had to tune into this concept, since the danger for the customer is an advantage for the bank.
In conclusion, I remark that the legally nonsense existence of the whole difference in currency exchanges and the fact of the fraud is well illustrated by a customer information issued by the State Supervisory Authority for Financial Organizations in June 2008, which intends to explain the character of the exchange-based credit to the customers this way:
“Since the bank pays out the credit (registered in foreign currency) in Hungarian Forint it has to be exchanged to Forint. For this, the bank applies a buying rate for the currency, as if buying from the customer the amount of currency it payout in Forint. When redeeming he credit the same passes off in the contrary direction: when you pay the installment in Forint, the bank converts that to currency on a selling rate for the currency, as if selling to the customer the amount of currency needed by them for the installment.”
The state of affairs included in my charge if an existent and serious problem, influencing broad social strata in Hungary, both via their credit agreement or via the amounts withheld from and n t drawn by the budget.
Hereby I solicit the honorable Chief Executor’s Office to investigate my charge in every
detail, to conduct the proceedings, to issue, in a justified case, warrants of arrest and to carry out criminal proceeding against the persons responsible.
Thank you in advance.
Place and Date: Gyula, March 20, 2012
Sincerely: …………………………
Árpád Kásler,
President of the
Bank Debtors’ Interest Group
P.S. We are pleased to inform everyone that the prosecutor’s office ordered the investigation. (Árpád Kásler)