This is the second part of my
exclusive interview with CEO Jaafar Jalabi of Parcelatoria Gonzalo Chacón (PGC).
 |
| Jaafar Jalabi, CEO of Parcelatoria Gonzalo Chacón Picture copyright of: Ernst Labruyère Click to enlarge |
PGC is a Spanish construction and operation company, which has been involved in
a bitter legal fight with Procom Desarrollos Urbanos (PDU) and its legal owner,
the Dutch real estate and property bank SNS Property Finance.
We continue where the first article stopped:
I wanted to get paid.
Procom said: "We have no money to pay you". Subsequently, I blocked
all their accounts and on these accounts combined stood a total of €304(!). So
I put an embargo on some assets. One of the assets I put an embargo on, was a
shopping centre in Zaragossa.
This shopping center
in Zaragossa was owned by a subsidiary of Procom, ‘Procom Desarrollos Urbanos
de Zaragosa’. From this company, 50% of the shares were owned by Procom (PDU) and
50% by Cecosa, the holding behind the renowned group ‘Eroski hypermarkets’.
I put an embargo on
the 50% of the PDU Zaragossa shares, owned by PDU and I wanted to put it out for
being auctioned. I went to meet Eroski and asked them: "What is going on
with SNS PF"?
They said to me: "We
don’t know?! Procom just received a lot of money from the Bank of Ireland”. You
must know: initially the shopping centre in Zaragossa was supposed to be sold
to the Bank of Ireland. However, due to
the real estate crisis in Ireland, the Bank of Ireland couldn't pay this money anymore.
Subsequently, however, PDU went to the Spanish court and collected a huge
amount of money from the Bank of Ireland after the lawsuit had been finished.
PDU didn’t have this
money from the Bank of Ireland wired to a PDU account in Spain; this would have
been the legal way to go, since it was PDU which collected the money as damages
in Spain and from a Spanish court, to be specific.
Instead, PDU told the
party that was paying the money, to divert the payment to an account of SNS Property
Finance in The Netherlands: at the Royal Bank of Scotland. The reason was that
the accounts of PDU in Spain were embargoed by PGC; any money that would be
booked on these accounts, would also be automatically embargoed.
Since PDU and SNS PF did not want to pay PGC it's money, they illegally diverted the money to an SNS PF account in The Netherlands, instead of passing it through a Spanish PDU account first.
I investigated the whole thing to see where the money went, so I found out that the money had been wired directly to SNS PF in The Netherlands on an account of the Royal Bank of Scotland, of which I have the number.
 |
| Spanish Court order of embargo 1. Document courtesy of: Jaafar Jalabi Click to enlarge |
 |
| Spanish Court order of embargo 1I. Document courtesy of: Jaafar Jalabi Click to enlarge |
 |
| Spanish Court order of embargo 1II. Document courtesy of: Jaafar Jalabi Click to enlarge |
These are the court
orders to embargo the assets (see the aforementioned pictures).
When I realized that they didn't transfer the
money to Spain, I went to the judge and he issued an order that Procom should
pay back the money within 5 days or the judge would issue a criminal lawsuit for:
- disobedience to the court and
- criminal conveyance of assets (embezzlement of money).
This is the court
order:
 |
| Court order forcing PDU to repatriate funds to Spain within 5 days Courtesy of: Jaafar Jalabi Click to enlarge |
 |
| Court order forcing PDU to repatriate funds to Spain within 5 days II Courtesy of: Jaafar Jalabi Click to enlarge |
After receiving this
court order, PDU paid the money directly to the court. However, in the meantime,
the sum had increased from €6.46 million to €8.06 million. The amount to pay by PDU,
had increased as a consequence of the delayed interest payment and legal costs.
The court gave me the
€6.46 in September 2012, but after serious pressure by PDU and especially SNS
Property Finance, a criminal case had been admitted in the meantime. The exact
amount of damages was supposed to be negotiated between PDU, PGC and the court.
This would happen after the criminal case had been dismissed.
Now I will tell you
more about the criminal lawsuit: SNS PF and PDU admitted a criminal case
against Jaafar Jalabi and against José Arenas Ural, the former chairman of PDU.
I have proven to the
court that I had so many problems with Arenas, that we had 50 negative letters
exchanged between us, al through public notaries and registered mail.
Still PDU and SNS PF raised
the criminal case against Arenas and me.
Meanwhile, when PDU put
an injunction on my notes payable, this was part of a civil case. Procom wanted
from the judge that the change we made earlier in 2007 - changing the payment
date for the last instalment of the €6.46 million from the opening date of the Snowdome
to the fixed date in 2011 - would be nullified.
The criminal case
opened, but it didn't automatically stop the civil case. The criminal case was
against me as a person, while the civil case was between my company and PDU.
Finally, the civil
judge in the main case (in November 2013) issued a court order that PGC was in
the right and that PDU really had nothing to build their case upon. That was
the third lawsuit that they lost.
 |
| Civil Court order of the main case I Courtesy of: Jaafar Jalabi Click to enlarge |
 |
| Civil Court order of the main case II Courtesy of: Jaafar Jalabi Click to enlarge |
The criminal lawsuit
had not passed yet. The criminal judge had studied the documentation
thoroughly.
You must know, in
Spain a criminal judge either takes a case to trial, or dismisses it. The
dismissal has one or two forms: in 95% of the cases, the dismissal is
provisional, which means that the case is closed, unless more evidence emerges.
In my case, however, the
criminal judge definitely closed the case and dismissed me of all
charges. Today [Wednesday, February 12 – EL]
was the last day for appeal, but they have no chance to win the case
whatsoever.
Our written statement,
in which we requested to dismiss the criminal case was 35 pages and we had some
3000 pages in supportive documentation. Their response was 3.5 pages in which
they stated that they wanted to continue the case against Arenas. They didn't
even mention my name in it.
When they don't appeal
today, I can start to claim my damages from PDU and SNS PF. I have written so
many times to different people at SNS PF. These are registered letters from
January 2012 to Buck Groenhof, the chief restructuring officer. I said to him:
"What you are doing is a crime”. I didn't get a response from him at all.
I wrote the same letter
at Jaap van Dijk, who was the CEO of SNS PF. He also didn't respond. Finally, I
wrote the third letter to Ernst Jan Boers, the CEO of SNS Bank. SNS Bank owned
SNS PF for 100%.
If you look at the
balance sheet of SNS Reaal: they have given a global guarantee for SNS Bank
(art. 403 of the Dutch Code) and SNS Bank has given a global guarantee to SNS
PF (this is the same article 403). This is why I wrote to SNS Bank.
However, nobody did
anything... I wrote them in January 2012.
In February 2013, when
the whole SNS Reaal group was nationalized, I wrote again letters to the new
people at SNS Reaal: Gerard van Olphen and Maurice Ostendorp.
I wrote them letters
in February 2013 after the nationalization to do something about the false
claims and the criminal investigation against me. In December, after the civil
case ended, but before the decision in the criminal case had been made, I wrote
them again.
Letters to Van Olphen,
Ostendorp and another person were sent through the bailiff.
 |
| Response from Propertize BV to PGC Courtesy of: Jaafar Jalabi Click to enlarge |
Their answer was [see the aforementioned letter] that
it was not their responsibility: “It was a Spanish decision and we have nothing
to do with it”.
This is nonsense and I
will explain you why: in 2009 the net worth of PDU was approximately - €50-odd
million. In 2010 it was - €100-odd million.
In 2010, SNS bought the
10% shares in Procom(PDU) from one of
the Spanish shareholders. SNS PF bought this 10% of Procom for €1 (!), as the real
value of the company was negative. They also bought the stake of Albert van S. –
probably for €1.
Since I have proof
that SNS PF bought 10% of PDU for €1 in March 2010, it is logical to assume
that SNS PF bought the additional shares for €1 too.
Summarizing, in 2010
SNS PF was the full owner (100%) of Procom.
After this happened,
however, the people involved decided to protect SNS PF from the risks of full
ownership of PDU. SNS PF kept a 48% stake in PDU, but "sold" a 48%
stake to another company. The 4% of the remaining shares, was sold to different
persons, who were all under control of SNS PF.
The Spanish company
that bought 48% of Procom from SNS Property Finance, later on in 2010, bought these
shares for an unknown nominal value. Nevertheless, this company had an equity
capital of just €15,000. This is such a low capital, that it is silly to assume
that they are the real owners of the shares. Instead, they are fronts for SNS PF:
a genuine straw firm.
Moreover, the board of
directors of Procom, which includes representatives of the 48% buyer, would never
assume the legal responsibility for Procom, without having before hand all
sorts of guarantees from SNS PF, that it will be responsible for everything
that happens in Procom. The responsibility of SNS PF is now in reality the
responsibility of the Dutch State.
However, the question
is: why did these people build up this construction with this supposed straw
firm?! I will explain you. You should
take the current accounting rules [IFRS: International Financial Reporting
Standards – EL] into consideration.
If SNS PF (i.e. SNS
Bank) would have owned 50% or more of the shares in PDU, they would have been
obliged – by these accounting rules – to consolidate the balance sheet of PDU
into the SNS Bank's balance sheet. This would mean that the losses of PDU would
also have been consolidated. Instead, they wanted to hide the losses of PDU! This
is very illegal, you know.
They changed the board
of PDU: until and including the year 2010, the board of PDU consisted of all
SNS people. Afterwards, the board consisted of SNS PF itself and people from Directores
de Transicion and there were two other people, who were representing the other
48%. The value of PDU in 2010 was none, when 10% could be bought for €1.
Still, the people of
SNS PF have created a lot of financial damage with me.
Against the € 6.46
million Note Payable by PDU to Parcelatoria Gonzalo Chacón(PGC), PGC borrowed €
5.5 million. The bank from which PGC borrowed this money, sent PDU a letter
through the public notary.
This letter stated that:
- the bank gave this loan to PGC;
- that the bank had accepted the 2007 Note Payable by PDU, given to PGC, as a guarantee (security).
[The following remark
has been made by Jaafar Jalabi after
the interview: a
note payable is a financial instrument in my favour and therefore in my
possession. However, when I borrowed money against it from the bank, in effect
the bank blocked it as a security. Subsequently, the bank told PDU in the year
2008, that when the note payable would be due in 2011, PDU should pay the bank
and not PGC. This change was justified, since PGC had borrowed money,
guaranteed by the note payable.]
The public notary has
issued a public document, showing that PDU received this letter in February
2008 and showed the signature on the receipt. However, once SNS PF took over
the control at PDU, their position has been that PDU never knew about the
existence of the 2007 agreement until 2010.
[At this moment, Jaafar Jalabi
showed me the aforementioned document – EL].
They stated that the
board of Procom didn't know that the first contract – stating that the final
instalment of €6.46 million, for the sale of PGC’s share in the shopping center
in Valencia, had to be paid by PDU to PGC right after the opening of the
Snowdome – had been changed into the second contract, stating that the €6.46
million final instalment had to be paid in at a fixed date in 2011. This is a
clear lie.
Procom received this
information on 11 February 2008 through a notarized document. So, how can you
claim that you didn't know about the existence of this very document, when you
received it in 2008. The trial was in 2010, remember?! This is why I've been winning
everything: it is because their claims are nonsense!
Unfortunately, when
Procom put the injunction on my 'note payable' of €6.46 million, I was told by the
bank which borrowed me the money, that they now didn't have a guarantee
anymore. They charged me to pay them back the €5.5 million, that I borrowed.
I had to start selling
assets to pay back the bank and lost a lot of money on it, in the process.
Moreover, when the injunction was lifted from the ‘note payable’ in 2012, they
started to play games with me, that they didn't have the money anymore and so
on.
I only collected the
money in September 2012. When they said to me earlier that they didn't have
money, I understood that I wasn't going to collect the money soon. Consequently,
I was forced to sell more and more assets, you know?!
In reality, they had
collected the money from the Bank of Ireland, but they immediately wired this
money to SNS PF in The Netherlands (see the aforementioned paragraph).
All of this is highly
illegal and it can have criminal repercussions.
Last week, I have
written a letter to the Dutch Finance Minister [Jaafar has showed me this actual
letter and he will give me a hard copy at a later date – EL]. I can only give it to you at a later date. I sent it through
the bailiff, but I didn’t yet receive an official receipt from the Dutch
Finance Ministry for this letter.
SNS Reaal is owned by NLFI (NL
Financial Investments), also the owner of ABN Amro. In reality this is the
Dutch state. NLFI currently owns ABN Amro and SNS Reaal. NLFI has actually shifted
SNS PF away from the other legal entities and renamed it to Propertize BV. This
means that Propertize is now directly owned by NLFI (i.e. the Dutch state), as
a kind of ‘bad bank’.
Two weeks ago,
Propertize wanted to raise €4.056 billion from the market.
Normally, nobody would
buy these notes payable, when these notes wouldn’t come with a guarantee from
the Dutch state. The prospectus states this. The prospectus also states:
"We might be accused of fraud etc. etc..”
 |
| Prospectus of Propertize I Courtesy of: Jaafar Jalabi Click to enlarge |
 |
| Prospectus of Propertize II Courtesy of: Jaafar Jalabi Click to enlarge |
In fact, they tell the
people that they are bad people in a sense. I presume that the Dutch Finance Minister
has made checks and balances on how these people ran their business.
What is happening now
actually, is that SNS PF are hiding some serious wrongdoings, which are going
to cost the Dutch taxpayer more money. The problem is that Buck G. has
established a system of lawsuits and that the lawyers, who represented SNS PF in
these lawsuits, paid him kickbacks. Who will be paying in the end for all of
this: the Dutch state.
I am going to claim ‘suffered
damages’ from Procom and SNS PF, as I
have proof that the latter controlled Procom at the time. In the end, however,
it is the Dutch state that will foot the bill.
The problem is now,
that I am the only one who has the legal right – as a consequence of this
criminal case they started against me – to go against them at the criminal
court. I have proof that they have been hiding and playing all sorts of games.
I don't want to go criminally
against them, however: this is why I wrote to the Dutch finance minister to
please solve this case. I am going to prepare a letter to NLFI.
Maybe next week I am
going to The Netherlands again to say to these people:
"You can easily
say that you are the owners of Propertize, but you are not the managers. The
new people, who run Propertize, are continuing the crime which was started by Buck
G.”.
My legal battle is in
Spain, but it will have implications on the people who are working for the
Dutch government. It is bad when the Dutch Minister of Finance is trying to
teach the Spanish and Cypriot people a lesson about sobriety, austerity and the
recklessness of their banking systems, when a Dutch bank is committing crimes
against me.
I don't want to be
involved in politics. My objective is to tell the Dutch people, that the clean
up of SNS PF has not been executed the way it should. It will cost the Dutch
citizens more and more money. The people of Propertize have no room to breath,
when they fight against me. I am 100% rock-solid in this matter.
What happened, when Buck
G.'s people put an injunction on the notes payable, was the following. G.'s
people talked to my lawyer and stated that they wanted to pay me only €1.5
million on my €6.46 million claim. I told them to get lost!
When I started getting
the documentation through court and so on, G.'s people told my lawyer that they
wanted to pay me €4 million. I said: "Get lost". It is an issue of
moral conduct. They cannot do so!
I suspected that the
way that things were supposed to happen, was that they paid me €4 million and G.'s
people would put the other €2.5 million in their own pocket. I said "I
have notes payable and SNS PF is supposed to pay me".
Tomorrow, the third and final part of the interview with
Jaafar Jalabi will be printed.
To be continued…
No comments:
Post a Comment