Dear Editor,
The administrator of the National Bank of Anguilla Private Bank & Trust (NBA PB&T), William Tacon, and perhaps others, have been publicly accused of trying to “frustrate [Anguilla’s] banking resolution process.”
I lived in Anguilla in early 2000, at the time I opened a bank account at NBA, which I kept when I left. As a part of the so-called “banking resolution process,” all my money at NBA was confiscated. There are many more like me – people who once lived on Anguilla, people who live in St. Martin and banked in Anguilla, non-belongers still living on Anguilla – who had their entire deposits confiscated as a part of the “resolution” process. Ordinary people, some who kept the bulk of their entire life savings at NBA; ordinary people, some of whom now cannot pay for their children's schooling or who were denied the payment of essential medical bills because of the “resolution” process.
Your readers may or may not be aware that what this “process” was is the total expropriation of foreign depositors; not down to our last dollar, not down to our last dime, but down to our last penny. What made the difference as to whether you got all your money back or whether you lost all your money in the “resolution” process was whether you were a belonger or a non-belonger.
What those of us who were so expropriated wish to do is not to frustrate any process at all; indeed, we wish to do nothing at all. We would much rather not be in the position we find ourselves in – and into which we have been forced by the actions of Anguilla’s politicians – at all. Many of us consider ourselves friends of Anguilla. We understand that Anguilla’s economy is in a difficult situation (but I urge you to consider that so are the economies of some of the places those of us who were expropriated live. In the last 3 years, Sark’s population has declined by 26 per cent due to economic emigration as there are no jobs. In that timeframe, most of Sark’s large employers have closed down including 67 per cent of our hotels).
All we wish is to be treated equally to all the other depositors. We understand that banks sometimes fail and when they do depositors may lose some of their money. We just don't expect to lose all our money – particularly when others walk away with all of theirs or are even able to continue to borrow money from the very same bank which claims it has no money to repay deposits (as was done at NBA). Not only is it morally wrong to treat depositors differently, the law requires that in the case of a bank's failure all depositors are treated equally and that they all lose the same proportion of their deposits. To do otherwise is not just immoral, it is fraud.
The law was flouted, brazenly, and in many cases, the expropriation has led to real and tangible hardship. We do not want to have to pursue any legal route and we did not seek to have to do so. Indeed, many who were expropriated cannot even afford to do so. William Tacon is the only champion of such depositors.
When people are pushed into a corner and have everything – absolutely everything – taken away from them and are left with nothing – absolutely nothing – to lose, what should they do? Keep quiet and die. What kind of a callous person does it take to attack and accuse such people of trying to “frustrate” his “process”?
The actions taken by politicians may be designed to endear them with their electorate in the short term, but I suggest they are not in Anguilla’s best long term interest.
Firstly, what does this do for the long term reputation and economic prospects of Anguilla and for the prospects of foreign investors investing in Anguilla in the future? If a country confiscates foreign savers’ deposits in this fashion, word will get around. This matter has already received considerable coverage in news media around the world and Anguilla’s reputation as a place in which to do business has plummeted.
If the Government of Anguilla cannot protect innocent people who trusted their money to something as supposedly safe as a bank account, how can investors in projects such as hotels in Anguilla feel comfortable with their ventures? The answer is that they cannot. If those investors stop investing in Anguilla because of this it would be a disaster for Anguilla. Hotels and other properties would likely close, Anguillians and belongers would likely lose their jobs and livelihoods could be destroyed. As a consequence, lots more businesses would close and banks very likely could fail again. Anguilla’s progress since the 1967 revolution would be wiped out and reversed. So, the jobs and livelihood of Anguillians is at risk.
Secondly, expropriation without compensation, particularly if it involves discrimination on the basis of national origin, is a very serious violation of international law by which every civilized nation including Anguilla and the United Kingdom (on Anguilla’s behalf) is bound. To illustrate, there is historic precedent for a country expropriating the assets of foreigners or of those they deemed did not belong (and of course it is much easier to expropriate the assets of those who live far away and who don’t have a vote than of those who do and whom you have to look in the eye every day). In the 20th century, a certain European country, at the behest of its “Chief Minister”, confiscated all the assets of their Jews; Robert Mugabe tried something similar in Zimbabwe. Neither did so as efficiently or as thoroughly as Anguilla has done – they both only got some of the foreigners assets under their control, while Anguilla expropriated all its non-belonger deposits in their entirety (so perhaps the banking “resolution” process would more accurately be called the “final solution” process).
To avoid such situations, after the Second World War, international conventions were signed which prohibit such expropriation and which brand it a “human rights abuse” and as a “gross human rights violation” – which of course is exactly what it is. Unless the matter is resolved either voluntarily by Anguilla or involuntarily in the local courts, it is most likely that Anguilla will find itself being found guilty of human rights abuses by the international courts in which such matters are litigated (and consequently be found financially liable too). Is such a reputation really in Anguilla’s best interest?
And thirdly, if the courts find in favour of those foreign depositors who have lost their money and livelihoods then ultimately it is very likely that the Government of Anguilla (in other words, the Anguillian taxpayer) will have to pay for this –10s of millions of US dollars, possibly more than the Government’s revenue for the whole year. Taxes, duties and levies would very likely have to be increased to a crippling degree to pay for this.
Tomaž Slivnik
Sark, Channel Islands
