In Gauteng High Court in Pretoria on the 21st September judge H.J. Fabricus dismissed the applications made by Oakbay and other Gupta owned Companies who had an injunction and a case against the Bank of Baroda. Since they closed and terminated their relationship with the Companies in question. This here is really putting the legal precedence on the reason why they we’re legally allowed to do. Even as the Bank of Baroda has given notice to the 20 Companies that was involved in the lawsuit against the bank and its practices.
Clearly, the Courts are not in the opinion of the President. Since he can easily be used the Gupta family and their companies. That is why the ruling of Fabricus is even stating the problems of the Gupta owned business. This should be well-known, it should be put in print and the ones trading with them. Should know their reputation and their worry. That is the reason for Bank of Baroda ceasing to have them as their clients and the companies connected to them.
“Irrespective of whether negative publicity about the client is true, a bank is fully entitled to terminate the relationship with a client that has a bad reputation. I may repeat that in this case, as in the Bredenkamp decision, the bank did not seek to rely on the factual accuracy of the relevant reports, but merely on the particular reputation of its clients” (From the Defense Argument of Bank of Baroda).
This here proves there reason with the wish for departure of the negative publicity, which they have gotten since they we’re connected with the Gupta Companies. That is well-known and their deals are all in the midst of public eye. It is the reason for the troubles of the President and his Party. Since they are using the connection and the family of the President are hired into the companies. This sort of thing, doesn’t make for sound and good business practice. Therefore another argument is really stabbing the case of Gupta and gives reason for the dismissal of the application they made to the court.
“In addition, the fact that the largest banks in South Africa and other firms chose to terminate the relationship with the Applicants in 2016 ought to have provided a clear indication that the Bank of Baroda would also consider the option. On this basis it was simply not correct for the Applicants to assert that the 6 July 2017 termination notice came out of the blue. I have of course also kept in mind in this context that the Applicants did not file a Reply Affidavit giving their version of these assertions of the Bank” (From the Court Ruling, 21.09.2017).
This here really says it all, as the Bank of Baroda followed procedure and took their time, before they gave notice to the Gupta Companies, they clearly, seen other companies and banks doing similar acts. Their desperation is now obvious as they will hold the bank in contempt for their ill-advised financial activity and ill-gained fortunes on the state coffers. Therefore, they are basing their argument on being handled badly, while the Bank actually did what they could to salvage their reputation and not be connected with corrupt regime.
The ruling is also focused on the FICA rules for banking institutions in South Africa, a law that is important for the Bank of Baroda. That the rules are important to monitor “Business relationships or transactions that impose a high risk of facilitating money laundering” and also “the proceeds of any unlawful activity or money laundering activity”. All of this are things that could be put on the Gupta Family and their Companies, as the President and his click is known for corrupt behavior. That would put the Bank in risk of dealing with a high risk client. That is why the bank sent them a termination notice. Since they didn’t want to risk being associated with a high risk client(s). As it is also written in the Court ruling: “It was said that the these heightened duties serve an important purpose in that, given the position and influence held by the PEP’s, there was a heightened risk that they may engage in transactions designed to conceal unlawful transactions and the misappropriation of public funds”. This is really giving in this case, as the Gupta Family and their Coal Industry agreements alone could be put into this category. On that reason alone and with the knowledge of these transactions, that could punish the Bank for knowingly accepting this behavior in their system. They could be sanctioned by the state for their misgivings. That gives the Bank of Baroda further reason for their termination notice.
Furthermore, the Gupta Companies has in the recent months before the termination done dozens of red flagged transactions mounting to R4.25 Billion, which the bank already filed to FIC. Other Banks has terminated the Gupta’s for similar reasons, these being State Bank of India, Bank of India, Standard Bank and ABSA Bank. All of these has terminated their relationship with Gupta Family and Companies. Therefore, the reasons for Bank of Baroda is all there.
So since the Bank of Baroda want to “preserve the integrity of the established financial system and the Rule of Law”, the case was dismissed and the applicants, the Gupta Family didn’t get their “Interim-Interim” agreement with the Bank. Certainly, the are scraping for a good and trustworthy place to have their accounts and transactions. As their businesses has been scrutinized and also openly shown. Therefore, the knowledge of their capacity to act with ill-intent and not accordingly to the law. Is well-known and not just hearsay, its well established as well. So the Bank of Baroda, the 16 staffed business and bank can live on their own. They can be the Bank they want to be, without being forced to deal with the Gupta Family, the Gupta businesses and the red-flagged transactions of these individuals. Peace.