Chairman
of the Central Bank of Lithuania Vitas Vasiliauskas told Lithuanian portal
DELFI that the memories of the former shareholder of the Snoras bank in his
interview to DELFI are nonsense.
Russian
businessman Vladimir Antonov, who now lives in London, where he is suing
because extradition to Lithuania, told reporters that the decision to
nationalize Snoras Bank was politicized.
- What impression have Antonov’s memories made on you?
- I find it's a hopeless effort to politicize the
process of extradition and so affect the resolution of this issue, and I think
that his memories of July 19 (2011 - DELFI) are more nonsense than the memories
substantiated by facts. We have an official memo about the meeting, which says
what was discussed at the meeting, there are 11 items. They are 4 issues, which were discussed, key
statements
of Snoras shareholders and on
the
situation
in
the
bank.
- Perhaps you have
an audio recording or other record
of the meeting?
- No, it was a meeting with the Board (Central
Bank - DELFI), they participated together, Antonov and Raimondas Baranauskas,
and after the meeting they made to a memo indicating the issues discussed. We don’t have
any audio recording.
- Was it about a group of media that belonged to Snoras?
- What he said – there was nothing like this. They
are all shunted the conversation on the media, but our response was very clear
- we are not interested in this, it's just a group of assets and only, along
with other the loan portfolio, securities, etc. But they always wanted to shunt
the conversation on this topic. I can single out into four main topics which
were discussed. It is further communication of the Central Bank as supervisory
agency with Snoras. Antonov promised to submit written proposals for further
communication to dispel our doubts regarding the situation in the bank.
Further, it was about 7 potential investors. Antonov promised to provide
information on, as he said, seven investors who are interested in investing in
Snoras, they, according to him, then performed due diligence. British company
Simon & Simon was mentioned as one of the auditors.
Then we
have clearly asked: well, give us information about the investors, at what
stage their interest is, and Antonov promised to provide information. Then it
came to Snoras investment in funds in the Cayman Islands - we have expressed
doubts about the feasibility of such investments, and Antonov essentially
agreed with us. Well, the last topic that we spoke about was the securities.
Antonov and Baranauskas essentially agreed with the transfer of securities to
the Depository of Lithuania. The main
hole
in
Snoras
capital was caused by these
securities.
- Speaking with DELFI.lv, Antonov mentioned that
two meetings were held after July 19. What was
discussed
at
them?
- These were the meetings of the Central Bank,
which were linked to the previous regulations of the Central Bank, under which
Snoras was obliged to perform certain actions. It was about a strategic
investor, the period for bringing the investor in the bank was extended till
the end of the year. In November 2011, five-year period for bringing the
institutional investor in Snoras was to expire. This means that if the period
was not extended, it would be a significant event, which would be announced in
the stock exchange. Based on this, we
have
extended the period, the audit was carried out in parallel.
I may
clearly say that Baranauskas himself asked to meet with me when at 11.30 on
November 15, 2011 the court considered the case of amounts that Baranauskas
allegedly transferred in the last minute, I was called in the witness, I looked
at the schedule of meetings. He approved this meeting before the weekend,
Thursday-Friday, November 10-11. However,
later he said
that
they
had
left
on
a
business
trip - I
regard it
to be a lie.
- And the memories that they were called to the
Central Bank, that they phoned you, offered to meet having returned in 3 hours
from the business travel, is it true?
- Nonsense, no one offered anything. The meeting
was scheduled for November 15, at 11.30, my secretary was informed that
Baranauskas would not come. Well, if there isn't any, we must do without. And
then, when we have already decided on a moratorium and the appointment of a
provisional administrator, then Baranauskas called, it was November 16, in the
afternoon, and asked how so. I replied simply, we had enough time to talk,
there were meetings, but, unfortunately, there was no progress, you started
having problems with liquidity, we have made a decision – that’s all.
After
that call on November 16 there were no contacts. And when I got the official
report of the identified violations, our man who was responsible for the
information transmission was given a supporting document with attachment, this
information was transferred to the bank with a proposal to come to a meeting of
the Central Bank’s Board. There were no e-mails, calls, conversations, this is
nonsense and only.
- Did Baranauskas called you after moratorium was publicly announced?
- Of course, after the decision had been made, and
after it had been announced publicly. They needn’t be informed separately, as
authorized representatives of the bank attended the Board meeting, it was
attended by two people.
- May such a statement of Antonov have an influence on the extradition process?
- I think it is natural that a person prepares
various defensive strategies, I would not rule out that this part of the
process politicization strategy, which is consistently followed, although I can
tell you directly what I have repeatedly said - it was a control action and
that’s all.
- Thank you for the talk.
