Bidzina Ivanishvili, former head of Georgia and founder of the Georgian Dream party, received a letter from Credit Suisse on July 5 explaining that the bank now has regulatory obligations as a result of the European Parliament's resolution imposing sanctions on Ivanishvili and that the trust will no longer act without court approval, according to the MKD, the law firm defending Ivanishvili's interests. Ivanishvili's legal team asserts that the trust's obligation to the beneficiary will be upheld even if Ivanishvili is punished. As mentioned in the statement, Ivanishvili also feels that the bank's actions are clearly meant to exert political pressure on the client; he will provide additional details as needed.
"In addition to legal disputes in Bermuda, Singapore, and Switzerland, Georgia's Ivanishvili has large assets invested with Credit Suisse trust firms. We emphasise that none of the assets listed above are in dispute or under investigation by any authority". The company added: "This claim refers to the stunning offences the bank perpetrated within the confines of their contractual arrangement with their trust businesses."
The letter that Mr. Ivanishvili got from the bank discusses the resolution through which the European Parliament urged the European Council to consider implementing penalties against him. The bank clarifies that the aforementioned resolution allegedly generated regulatory duties for the bank and that the trust will no longer operate without judicial approval. At the same time, the MKD emphasises that the bank relies solely on the resolution of the European Parliament, which, as the general public is well aware, is non-binding and has no legal effect.
"The bank's reference to abstract "regulatory obligations" is inappropriate, especially since both the bank and the public are well aware that none of the executive bodies of the European Union (neither the European Commission nor the European Council) have shared a recommendation on sanctions. The document, which is a continuation of the resolution of the European Parliament and which recognises Georgia's European perspective, is evidence of the aforementioned, because if the executive bodies of the European Union had shared the resolution of the Parliament with regard to sanctions, it would have been reflected in the decision of the European Council, which, as is well-known, was not the case."
