In a sitting at the beginning of the month, Judge Joseph Zammit Mckeon reconfirmed a ruling last August ordering Chairman Jean Lemierre and CEO Jean-Laurent Bonnafé to appear in person in a lawsuit filed by the financier, Jacob Agam who accused BNP Paribas, one of the world’s largest banks, of anti-semitism and criminal acts.
The Chairman and CEO of BNP Paribas again failed to reverse the court’s previous ruling to appear at the Maltese courts to give their disposition regarding their and the bank’s involvement in questionable transactions tainted with alleged criminalities to include a linkage to the alleged Electro Gas corrupt transaction.
In what appears to be a fruitless delay tactic, the team of defendants appearing on behalf of the bank, CEO and Chairman, led by Dr Karl Grech and Prof Ian Refalo, communicated to the court that due to the recent reaffirmation of its previous ruling, their clients, the Defendants Bonnafé and Lemierre intend to appeal such ruling.
As a result of the court ruling in August, the CEO and Chairman were subpoenaed by the court as requested by Malta-based Vertical Group, to answer in a deposition questions over their alleged direct involvement in the malicious destruction and defamation of Vertical Group’s business assets and reputation.
The bank, its CEO and Chairman argued with no success that the Maltese courts do not have jurisdiction to force them to be summoned to answer the court case involving a Maltese company.
Vertical chairman Jacob Agam – a financier of British-Israeli background – is alleging the bank tried to discredit him and his company after he criticised in the open BNP over its horrific involvement in money-laundering for pariah regimes – as well as of presiding over anti-semitic practices and participation in financing a regime conducting Genocide such as in Sudan.
In the sitting Judge Zammit McKeon ruled also that in the next hearing scheduled on February 4th next year, BNP Paribas must conclude their cross examination of Jacob Agam. He ordered that once that is done, the court will order for the two executives to appear on a date to be established by the court to give their testimony. Failure to do so would result in the two facing the legal consequences under law to include a warrant of arrest.
Dr Pio Valletta, who is representing Jacob Agam and Vertical in the case, agreed with the court’s ruling and said that at this point he will abide by the decision given by the court on August 11th, that the CEO Jean-Laurent Bonnafé and Chairman Jean Lemierre must appear in person in order to be deposed as required by law.
The case and the recent court’s ruling can have further ramifications in Malta. As revealed by Mr Agam in his previous cross examination, BNP Paribas syndicated the financing of the notorious ElectroGas’ alleged corrupt deal who is the operator of the LNG power station with major links to the Daphne Caruana Galizia assassination. Chairman Jean Lemierre and CEO Jean-Laurent Bonnafé are expected to face questions over the bank’s role and investment in this transaction as Mr Agam alleges.
The case involves a €1 billion lawsuit filed by by Mr Agam and Vertical who accused BNP Paribas of anti-semitism, criminal acts and blatant violation of Maltese banking laws, claiming that commercial business worth hundreds of millions of euro to the Malta-based company Vertical Group was compromised by the bank’s actions and the smear campaign.
These were organised by the bank under the direct supervision of the CEO and Chairman, as a retaliation to Mr Agam’s daring to challenge the bank’s morality and illegality.
He says the bank has admitted and was therefore convicted for its involvement in multiple criminal activities beforehand, including money-laundering for terrorist organisations and states sponsoring terrorism. These included a 2014 criminal conviction with an unprecedented fine of approximately $9 Billion imposed on BNP by the US Government for unlawfully processing transactions worth billions of dollars for sanctioned regimes linked to terrorism and genocide.
According to the lawsuit, the bank targeted Agam by abruptly terminating his companies’ investment facilities without justification and attempting to seize family properties as well as maliciously destroying his Maltese business. It is also alleged Lafarge-Sarkozy used anti-semitic language, referring to Jews as “ces gens-là” (“these people”, a highly derogatory phrase in the French language) and “parasites”.
According to Jacob Agam’s claim the bank’s CEO and Chairman, despite receiving multiple requests from governmental organisations to intervene, ignored their statutory duties to prevent the alleged destructive smear campaign against the claimants. He also alleged that the CEO and Chairman did not respond to formal letters from members of Israel’s and European’s parliaments, expressing concerns about the case and demanding their respective intervention.
The bank denies all claims.
In a statement issued by Mr Agam, he commented that “With today’s ruling, justice is about to reach the doorsteps of the bank, its Chairman and its CEO. The Chairman, CEO and the bank have left no stone unturned in their efforts to act as fugitives and to escape questions relating to their involvement in multiple criminal activities some of which have been motivated by bigotry and hate.
The time for people of Jewish heritage to be deprived of their own assets and rights due to their beliefs and moral standing, with impunity, has passed. Unfortunately, the bank, its Chairman and its CEO have chosen to ignore the fact that French official anti-Semitism as manifested by the French Vichey regime ended in 1944.”
Dr Valletta also issued a statement adding that “It is astonishing and disconcerting that the legal counsels of BNP Paribas and of the bank’s Chairman and CEO should seek to appeal from a court decree handed down on the 11th August 2020 and which clearly and cogently affirms the right of the plaintiffs to summon those witnesses they may choose in terms of law.
It is yet another attempt to shield the Chairman and CEO of BNP Paribas from being asked and from answering questions in the same way and to the same extent my client Jacob Agam has been subjected. It is evident that Mr Lemierre and Mr Bonnafé have much to hide.”
