Sigrún Davíðsdóttir's Icelog

What sort of a country is Luxembourg?

with 49 comments

Readers of Icelog already know some of the answer to this question. Luxembourg is a gateway to the offshore world. The offshore world is a hide-away heaven for money that needs to be visible only to the owners and not to others. It’s a popular place for big corporations and wealthy individuals in search of good tax schemes and by shadowy elements who need to move money, quickly and efficiently, out of sight. It’s no coincidence that the Icelandic banks, allegedly, ran all their most dubious loan deals through Luxembourg. It’s also worth keeping in mind that all European – and many international – banks, which want to be something more than a little local bank, operate in Luxembourg.

An interesting view on Luxembourg – and Icelandic – operations can be gauged through the operations of Landsbanki Luxembourg. The bank’s equity release scheme leaves some questions to be answered, as pointed out earlier on Icelog. Also, how the bank bought Landsbanki and Kaupthing bonds as investment for clients in mid and late 2008, in some cases directly against written agreement with clients. (At this time, there were literally no buyers for bonds of these two banks. Landsbanki did at this time set up a company in the Netherlands, Avens BV, stuffed it with all sorts of Icelandic bonds and used it to repo with the European Central Bank, an interesting story in itself, with the aid of Crédit Suisse.)

In addition to the bank’s own operations, before the collapse, the actions of the administrator, Yvette Hamilius, have been brought into question.

The administrators of the Icelandic banks, in Iceland, have all scrutinised the banks’ operations prior to the collapse. This is always done in a bankrupt company. A bankruptcy is the outcome of a long process and an administrator always looks at all dealings some months prior to the bankruptcy to make sure that managers, owners or others haven’t made anything that could be seen as unfavourable to creditors.

All the administrators in Iceland have brought cases against managers – and in some cases against the large shareholders – for causing the creditors of the bank in question damages. Apart from that, there are the ongoing investigations of the Office of the Special Prosecutor in Iceland.

If the Landsbanki Luxembourg administrator has questioned any of the dealings in Landsbanki prior to its fall or brought any cases against the managers such moves have not been communicated. – Instead, the Luxembourg Prosecutor has issued a statement where he declares his support for the administrator’s actions. Just his statement makes one wonder what sort of a country Luxembourg is. Why isn’t the Luxembourg Prosecutor doing what is Icelandic colleague is doing, investigating banks, which have shown ample reasons for suspicion? Is that because Luxembourg bases its wealth on the flow-through of international funds and doesn’t want to do anything to disturb the smooth flow?

I have had the opportunity to look at, in detail, documents related to certain clients of Landsbanki Luxembourg. A perfectly normal part of the equity release contract is that if the value of the assets underlying the contract – in Landbanki case normally a property in France or Spain – falls below a certain limit, here 90%, the bank can call for cash or further valuables to cover itself.

A closer look at the realities in portfolios related to some clients Icelog has seen, indicates some rather remarkable movements. According to overviews, not only from one but several clients, the bank re-evaluated the portfolios just before its collapse – and miraculously the valuation turns out to be 89.9%. A tiny fall, allowing the bank to call in further payment.

At least in one case, an Icelog source who is familiar with the property in question is pretty sure the house is under-valued. One French real-estate agent who operates in the South of France, where some of these properties are, has commented on Icelog that she is unaware of any changes at the time the bank was claiming there was a falling value. – A banker, familiar with type of deals, says that the bank might have envisaged an imminent decline in its re-evaluation but there should have been some documentation to prove it. Otherwise, a bank can forecast whatever it wishes.

There are clients who are now just about to lose their houses to bailiffs because of this tiny fall. The administrator has offered them a deal, which means that they either pay – in cases that Icelog has seen they are supposed to pay much more than they took out of the scheme because they are deemed to be in default. The remarkable thing is that the administrator doesn’t seem to be paying any notice to these weird movements in valuation: if the valuation hadn’t fallen down below the 90% many of these borrowers wouldn’t have the bailiff at the door.

In the UK, equity release scheme don’t create havoc to lenders and make them lose their homes anymore – as was common some 20-30 years ago – because banks in the UK are bound by strict rules in this field. This doesn’t seem to be the case in France and Spain.

Now back to the original question: what sort of a country is Luxembourg? It seems to be ia a country where the State Prosecutor comes to the aid of an administrator who hasn’t provided lenders with numbers that make sense when their houses, the roof over the head, is being taken away from them. It’s not a country where banks are questioned. It’s also a country where bank clients are completely unprotected when a bank loses clients’ money by investing directly against written agreements. Why the Luxembourg regulator, the CSSF, hasn’t investigated the serious allegations of mismanagement of clients’ funds and breach of MiFID rules in Landsbanki indicates that the reputation of Luxembourg as a good country for banks means more than Luxembourg being a good country for bank clients.

These are not just theoretical issues. These issues mean that in France and Spain some real people of flesh and blood, mostly elderly people, are losing their houses after a harrowing fight against forces in Luxembourg that seem to protect banks and bankers, not ordinary people.

*Earlier logs on Landsbanki Luxembourg are here and here, where I go more in detail through some of the topics related to Landsbanki Luxembourg and the equity release scheme.

Follow me on Twitter for running updates.

Written by Sigrún Davídsdóttir

July 6th, 2012 at 7:34 pm

Posted in Iceland

49 Responses to 'What sort of a country is Luxembourg?'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'What sort of a country is Luxembourg?'.

  1. What a great friend and campaigner Sigrun is. She has more “balls” than the whole of the Luxembourg administration put together.
    I do urge you not only to comment on this blog, but to send it to all on your individual data bases. Luxembourg is not only morally bankrupt, corrupt and evil but this malignant cancer must be eradicated.

    This means regime change because the whole system is rotten top to bottom and is ably assisted and supported by the rest of the EU Governments who are quite happy to do their dirty money dealings under the cloak of Luxembourg secrecy which do not conform to any EU directives or laws, except their own.

    Lying, cheating and stealing is a way of life within the Luxembourg government, from senior government officials, the CSSF, to the well known documented distortions of the truth by the State Prosecutor.

    Europe is sick to death of the whole banking system. It is the banks that have brought about the downfall in the global economy, not me or you. So why should we continue to be paying for their failings and corruption?
    What is the purpose of the Irish, Greek and now Spanish bail outs from the EU and IMF, except to support failing banks? It is most certainly not to regenerate growth and prosperity but to cover up incompetence, fraud and corruption within the banking sector.
    And Luxembourg is at the heart of this corruption where billions of euros continue to be put away for a “rainy day”.

    The UK will probably avoid the need for any bail outs. But look at what is happening in their banking sector. Not only has tax payers money been needed to support failed banks (RBS, Northern Rock etc), but the corruption and fraud continues, it is endemic within the banking sector. The Bank of England came up with a scheme called QE (quantative easing) which was designed to pump money into to the banks to allow them to start lending again in order to encourage growth. This never happened due to the fear by Central Government about imposing any regulations or controls on their operations.

    QE can best be described as just printing more bank notes, without any regards for the long term damage or indeed how many decades it will take to redress the situation which banks have got us into through their mis management, corruption and stupidity.

    But are any lessons being learnt? No of course not, the corruption and fraud continues unabated. There is not a week goes by that a new fraud, or being polite, market manipulation, is unearthed.
    The latest exposure, Bob Diamond, CEO of Barclays has been forced to resign as a result of the interest rate fixing scandal.
    No wonder he is called “Smiling Bob” because his pay off for sheer incompetence is going to be around GBP 30M.

    At least the UK FSA and Bank of England is publically attempting to oust the crooks and clean up their act.
    But Luxembourg? It is business as usual, vile, corrupt and terminally ill that continues to be allowed to operate totally outside of the law, because it suits all fellow EU countries and international corporations to do so.


    6 Jul 12 at 10:48 pm

  2. As you say Mike at least the Icelandic and British Authorities are trying to bring these banks to account and for that we have to admire the British system. Some of these European “Banana Republics” headed by Luxembourg, because that is what they are need to stand up and be counted. Bear in mind it is not just Landsbanki that have rolled out this Equity Release Scheme other banks based in Luxembourg such as Nordea, Danskebank,Nykredit are equally as guilty in selling almost identical schemes in France and Spain, with equally drastic results for their victims. How can one “passport” out equity release products from Luxembourg to other European Countries when Equity Release Schemes are not even sold in Luxembourg. Then again how can these banks have the correct licences to operate them both in France & Spain. Now we have to ask ourselves the question why do these banks operate in Luxembourg and peddle these schemes in European Countries where these schemes are not regulated. Unlike the British Regulators where these types of schemes were outlawed back in the 90’s by the then City Watchdog. One of the main regulations in Luxembourg in any “Insurance Wrapper” where investment are made from is that the INVESTMENTS ARE MADE AND MANAGED BY THE BANK AT THE RISK OF THEIR CLIENT WHO UNDER THE REGULATIONS HAVE NO INFLUENCE IN WHERE THE FUNDS ARE INVESTED. However should the banks make any returns on these investments then they are free from any taxes according to Luxembourg Law. Nice work if you can get it. The European Parliament should and must investigate the Luxembourg system and bring it back into the real world. This is bordering on our human rights.


    7 Jul 12 at 8:46 am

  3. Luxembourg feels no shame it seems.

    Their press stays mute as no one dares speak up about the corruption and the colluding judiciary when such a powerful woman as Mme Hamilius turns a blind eye to the falsification of figures and facts, the manipulations and convenient and very false property evaluations that the bankrupt Landsbanki Luxembourg is responsable for.

    The responsibility for this shameful abuse of power and distortion of true facts and figures, is of course shared by the pals in the colluding judiciary and the government which is being ridiculed for their lack of courage in confronting the foul deeds the administrator is hoping she can get away with.

    What government fears a powerful, arrogant and rude person, who even treats foreign lawyers with lack of respect, just because a square or a shopping centre wields her name?

    What kind of a financial village wishing to retain an honorable name can allow such abuse of the elderly clientèle, by bankrupt Luxembourg
    banks ?
    What sort of judiciary sleeps with corruption, fraud, manipulation of figures, falsification of property evaluation which has not even been valued, where no justification is shown for disappearing money from personal accounts?
    What sort of judiciary and government allows an administrator representing their village to ignore International serious criminal charges against the wreckless, bankrupt bank?

    What sort of judiciary and government pretends they do not know that the actual scheme these old aged pensioners were conned into signing up for based on the lies they were told, was already judged in Spain as being ILLEGAL, therefore ‘nul and void?

    The Luxembourg Procureur now known as ‘Speedy Gonzales’ , in various countries, did not seem aware of the fact these Equity release schemes had been judged ILLEGAL, preferring instead to say It was all sorted and the Bowen’s had capitulated and dropped the appeal .

    Wishful thinking by speedy misinterpretation or wishful manipulation à la Luxemboug?
    Is this why some of our group have received the Barlow’s conclusions of their sad case in France which was included and quoted in an addendum by the administrator in order to show the example of the Barlow’s as losers and increase the pressure on all of us to drop ALL CRIMINAL CHARGES especially against the administration?

    Following this, we have therefore taken a very close look at this case and it is shocking!
    If ‘Speedy Gonzales’ had taken a bit of his important time to look at facts and figures , perhaps he would not have given such a speedy response to the whitewash he had obviously been fed.
    Or has the administrator not been as speedy in telling the Judiciary pals and the government buddies the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, about what is manipulation of figures, fraud and vanishing money?

    George Ward

    7 Jul 12 at 9:03 am

  4. I’ll tell you what sort of a country Luxembourg is.
    Luxembourg stinks of corruption.
    Corruption that abuses and takes advantage of pensioners.
    Lxembourg stinks of cowardice which is so great that the judges, especially the one in charge of supervising the administrator, ignore the fraudulent manipulation of false information fed to Landsbanki Luxembourg lawyers, as George says.
    Luxembourg stinks because they do not care about the elderly and have invented and allowed the judges and lawyers to approve schemes aimed at cheating, deceiving and abusing the elderly.
    Luxembourg stinks because no one intervenes when they all know there is something very wrong with the administration.
    Luxembourg stinks because for 4 years the administration has been all-powerful with no supervision and no control over someone who is out of control and doing a terrible job.
    Luxembourg stinks because it is those in power who allow abuse to go on under their noses and no one does anything to stop it.

    I am sure there are many more reasons that Luxembourg stinks!

    One thing is for sure, the treatemnt the victims have received at the hands of this administration will never be forgotten whatever is done to gag us and the press.
    There are a limited few in Luxembourg who care about truth,morals, decency, honesty and respect, but I doubt you will find them in the entourage of Yvette Hamilius, nor the sheeple working under her orders!

    They want to protect the bank directors and crooks who ripped Luxembourg off.

    The administrator does not want to protect those that provided the assets so Landsbanki could fool the Luxembourg governement into paying the massive loan they needed as they were below the legal liquidity ratio!

    Luxembourg should be crawling with shame and I cannot imagine there is a place named after Yvette Hamilius in Luxembourg George.
    I like the Speedy Gonzales bit, but I’m sure the procuror will do reseach before immediately jumping in whilst ignorant of the facts, next time.
    He has made too much of a fool of himself and Luxembourg not to have seen the value of checking things out before jumping in to the filth of this administration and defending it as it if there was nothing wrong.

    Rachael Williams

    7 Jul 12 at 12:42 pm

  5. George, I too have looked at probably the same cases as you have as there are some which really are breathtaking. I too have seen the cases you refer to. One in France and one in Spain which is the one the Procureur referred to and got it wrong!

    I think it is time we got down to brass tacks and state the raw facts and figures some might not be aware of .
    No point insulting Luxembourg as they do not care.

    We need to outline specific instances of manipulation and mis-selling of a non -viable product both of which are Criminal acts.
    Most of us have details which we can share even if we have seen a great many of each other’s documents.
    Remember it is not just the victims of this scam who are reading this Blog, but a much wider and International group of people.
    if you look at the Barlow case, which seems to be the one which bothers the administration most, there are many things which stand out, as we have often discussed.
    I think this case stands out even more than the much publicized French singer Enrico Macias or Grennassia, whose lawyers were one of the ones served rudeness and arrogance according to the interviews.

    Firstly, this couple had their loan registered in February 2008.

    This makes them Landsbanki clients for less than 5 months before the April 8th official Luxembourg suspect period.

    However, as we can see from their documents, they received as we did, a letter from the administration demanding immediate payment of a contrived manipulation of figures, bearing no relation to anything.

    These demands, as we all know, were made with no substantiation or supporting evidence.

    I know we are all outraged but imagine the Barlows receiving these demands having only been with the bank for less than 6 months before April 8th.
    They had been renovating their house during these months and had used one third of the amount made available.

    Many of us in Spain and France went through similar shocks but take note of their case figures as they are jaw-dropping.

    Their demand for restitution was triggered by a deliberate miscalculation of the Security Control Ratio.

    It is obvious that the manipulation to make them 0.3 % below the SCR was not questioned by the administration who should have immediately been suspicious.

    This is not all .

    In order to try to justify this incredible manipulation, they devalued their house which had been renovated during those 6 months, by 60 %!

    The Barlows, as we know, live in an area of the South of France where prices were absolutely not going down and theirs had gone up and had been restored.
    I know at least 3 of you have been to their home and I have been told it is a very nice property bought to house their 5 children , grandchildren etc. like most of us, for retirement with room for our families.

    This property was devalued by 60% and so many of us cannot understand how the Juge COMMISAIRE, the Procureur said was in charge of controlling Yvette Hamilius, has not checked all the cases with such blatant evidence of manipulation, as the Barlows.

    How can it be possible to overlook such evident figure fixing?

    They also had their only income seized by the Administration through the Landsbanki lawyer in France.

    I do not believe we saw this in Spain and yet some of us had to rent .

    Now they are one of the ones who have had the bailiffs banging since 2009 when their home was seized and they were told by the bailiff to pay a dept of 2.4 million euros immediately.
    These people had taken 247.000 for renovation in those few months before the bank went down. (I am citing these figures for those of you who are not in our group, but who should know facts.)

    As we all know, their home is to be auctioned with the helping hands of Luxembourg judges who look the other way unless aged over 75, retired and with the only asset seized, the poor man finds a banker who will pay back NOT, as the Procureur says:
    A ‘ generous offer to pay back what they took with a low interest’, but they are demanded payment of the money they did NOT take + interest.
    Another thing the Procureur got wrong!

    The Barlows, contrary to what he Procureur said, have shown us how they begged Yvette Hamilius to let them pay back what they had borrowed + interest for years only to be refused and demanded 10 times what they had borrowed!
    Another thing the Procureur got wrong!

    We must deal with facts now and state them so people outside our group can fully understand the level of corruption in Luxembourg.
    I hope this helps demonstrate and other examples follow.

    Alexander Edwards

    7 Jul 12 at 6:53 pm

  6. Another one to shock. The false information that the Procurador General ,the COMMISAIRE and administrator will not want to mention is the case of the ones in Spain .
    These ones signed the contract at the notary in Spain.
    Luxembourg administration , Landsbanki lawyers etc. claimed
    the victims had been in Luxembourg to sign the contract.

    They did huge manipulation and false information like the French couple.
    These people had never been in Luxembourg!

    Landsbanki liar lawyers or administration did not pay any attention to evidence showing grave lies.

    Imagine the lie. They said these people signed in Luxembourg on 20th of February 2026 and signed the contract in Luxembourg !

    This is the sort of country Luxembourg is!

    Enrico Suarez

    8 Jul 12 at 9:20 am

  7. Alexander and all who blog. Two important points to consider.

    1.The administrator is working outside of the law. She writes her own law and all in Luxembourg follow. Why, simple, vested interests. They have no reason to dispense justice while they fill their own pockets with our hard earned money. We are being defrauded by the administrator and all her cronies.

    2.The major shareholders of Landsbanki and directors of Landsbanki set out from day 1 to commit this fraud. We did not have chance. It was like lambs to the slaughter. The carrot was the cash. After that they had access to 75% of our wealth to use as they wished which unfortunately for us was to embezzle.

    Once you look at where our money was invested within their funds you will see it was mostly into their own bonds.

    This fraud cannot and will not continue as I feel sure that Luxembourg will have to collapse under it’s own weight of corruption.

    Nina Foster

    8 Jul 12 at 9:56 am

  8. The liquidator is only interested to harvest money to pay back the current claim of the luxembourgish central bank which should be around 250 million euros and that of the Landsbanki Iceland around 800 million euros, as she said. If so, there’s another country taking profit of her amoral work 😉


    8 Jul 12 at 11:44 am

  9. Fisec, it is absolutely right that in principle an administrator is working for the creditors to maximise recovery. Nothing wrong with that – but an administrator also has to make sure that no wrongdoings were going on in the company prior to its demise. And then of course make sure that debtors enjoy full rights. These are the general principles of a sound execution in a bankrupt company.

    Re Landbanki Luxembourg, both prior its demise and after, there are just too many questions without a clear answer. The debtors I have been in touch with are not complaining that they have to pay their debt, as the Prosecutor stated. They are pointing at irregularities that should be addressed.

  10. Of course I’m aware, from what I read on your excellent blog (+ comments), that for example these equity release scheemes seem purely illegal. Ass accountant, I’m curious about tax purposes in concern with Luxembourg and I’m not defending that everything is correct in our country, far of that ! However it is a bit to simple to ask “What sort of a country is Luxembourg ?” carrying for me the implicit idea that every “Luxembourger” is a bankster !


    8 Jul 12 at 12:52 pm

  11. A country gets the reputation from its laws and regulations and the conduct of it’s businesses and politicians especially in a small country.

    A few rotten apples spoil the reputation and livelihood of the rest.

    There has been no supervision, nor concern for this miscarriage of justice and the reputation of Luxembourg Suffers the consequences.

    You are talking of hundreds of elderly pensioners here and the treatment they have received when many of them were only made debtors by false accounting and manipulation is a disgrace in any civilized country.

    This is an Interational topic and more and more people are asking the same question.
    ‘What sort of a country is Luxembourg’, to have allowed this to go on for 4 years with no questions asked?

    George Ward

    8 Jul 12 at 1:51 pm

  12. Hello fisec. I can understand how you feel . As a Brit. I feel ashamed of our corrupt Banksters who have robbed the taxpayers and falsified the LIBOR but I know there are a few Bankers who also are ashamed and are not dishonest and greedy.

    The same will apply in Luxembourg, but why do they not speak out against the ones who destroy the reputation of a whole country or institution?
    Where are the politicians, the judges, the press?

    Everyone knows the Landsbanki administration has been a disaster from the start and the Juge commissaire must have been asleep on her perch to allow Mme Hamilius to ignore the serious accusations of manipulation, false accounting and financial products lacking the proper license in 2 countries.
    It is a fact easy to see that the Barlows should never have been classified as debtors.
    We have seen emails sent from their fund manager in which he says ‘there must be a mistake’ and ‘ all your cash is safe’.

    According to them, this fund manager was as shocked as they were that in October 2008, the money was in the personal account and in November it had disappeared and they were turned into debtors and immediately the bailiffs !

    How can you expect Luxembourg to have a good reputation when clients who had never been to Luxembourg, are told by Landsbanki lawyers that they signed their contract in Luxembourg as they falsify facts?

    Mme Hamilius has been cultivating and has harvested a very bad reputation for Luxembourg during these 4 years and nobody in Luxembourg cared about people dying and people living in terror and spending fortunes of their families money on expensive lawyers and loan sharks?

    I feel sorry for the decent people of Luxembourg and the employees of these banks as I do not believe they knew what was going on, but Luxembourg is harvesting today what it sowed and neglected for 4 years.

    Rachael Williams

    8 Jul 12 at 4:25 pm

  13. This is from a press release :

    “The Luxembourg subsidiary of a bankrupt Icelandic bank has been indicted for fraud after complaints from individuals, including singer Enrico Macias, who had taken out a mortgage.

    Judge Renaud Van Ruymbeke, hearing a judicial inquiry opened in Paris in July 2009, also upheld the charge of the absence of accreditation against the Luxembourg subsidiary of Landsbanki, said the lawyers for Mr. Macias, confirming a report in ‘Le Parisien.’

    “The fraudulent transactions of the bank loan contracts and speculative investment backed loans have led to clients losing tens of millions of euros and led to some having their homes seized, said a statement of Maitre Edward and Eric Lamaze Morain.

    The financial scheme, would have “more than 400 victims Spanish, Portuguese and French,” according to the lawyers.

    The individual receives a portion of the amount, released for their personal use or 1/3 , while the bank invested the rest, the benefits of these investments be used to repay the loan and provide an income.

    “They have done (Bernard) Madoff, promising fabulous income while investing the funds in crooked products ,” he told AFP Me Lamaze, referring to the famous American con man sentenced in 2009 to 150 years in prison.

    This meant, Mr. Macias took eight million euros, but was demanded 43 million euros, according to his lawyers.”

    The Barlows took 247.000 euros and the bailiff paper shows a demand for 2.4 million for the total of original loan of 2.1 million plus 240.000 which came to 2.34 million plus interest which came to over 2.4 million total.

    This obviously irrespective of any portfolio.

    In later correspondence from the administrator we can see the figure drop to 1.4 million as they had decided that the portfolio had some value.

    This means that in less than 6 months Landsbanki was demanding 6 times what was taken.

    This equates to the Enrico Macias ratio as he was demanded 5 and a half times what was taken.

    We can also see that the last bonds bought for the Barlows were bought 3 days before cessation of operations in Kaupthing and Landsbanki bonds on the 28th of August.

    Now, the administrator, according to the Procureur has made a ‘very generous offer’.
    However she maintains that the Barlows ‘invested’ the remaining money which was in their personal account on October 18th and this was confirmed by the Fund Manager in an email which we have seen.
    The money was still there .
    They had 2/3 of their cash left in their personal account.
    They say they did not invest it nor give any order to invest it.
    Their home has been seized , their rent has been seized and all they have ever wanted was to pay back what they took with interest!

    This is a far cry from what the Procureur trumpetted!

    We need to compare our experiences and cases on this blog. This helps to get a far clearer picture in our minds.

    Alexander Edwards

    8 Jul 12 at 6:20 pm

  14. Regarding the Barlows case. I have said before that it had to have been fraudulent to purchase bonds in their own bank and that of Kaupthing both of whom were within days of that purchase declared insolvent.

    These purchases must have been made after the involvement of Brown and Darling in the Icelandic crisis. So therefore they were purchased by the investment team who must have known the state of both banks finances. After all there were plenty of Icelandic politicians involoved so ignorance is an unlikely defence.

    That is why I would like to know how the administrator can be pursuing the Barlows when this is so obvious. It shows that the administrator has not done her due diligence in this case and that of the other victims.

    Nina Foster

    8 Jul 12 at 7:36 pm

  15. Does it not also show that the Luxembourg Government did not do their Due Diligence either before bankrolling this failing Bank?

    This bank was operating under the required Liquidity Ratio and proper Due Diligence would have shown the government they should not be allowing this bank to continue let alone set up and export crooked schemes in the name of Luxembourg. This bank should never have got money from the government. Simple.

    Surely before giving a sinking Bank involved in illegal schemes without proper accreditation in other European countries and allowing speculative investment backed loans, which are illegal and specificaly targetted at old pensioners with a mortgage pree property,someone in Luxembourg could have checked?

    This does not make Luxembourg look good. Why do the crooked schemes specifically aimed at old pensioners seem to have their roots through Luxembourg?

    Why did the Luxembourg judiciary not check and see if these schemes were legal in other European countries ?

    The administrator has plenty of evidence which shows clients money disappeared from their accounts and knows just how many victims have tried to pay back what they took with interest and avoid legal battles.

    These honest people have been treated like criminals! They wanted to pay back what they owed plus interest and were refused for 4 years as the administrator wanted to bleed them dry in order to pay back the government.
    The Procureur has been mis- informed and the Juge Commisaire did not do the job of supervision Luxembourg should require of such a position.

    Mme Hamilius had been unsupervised and has exported her arrogance and disrespect of decent , honest people in favor of POWER and glory in her patch.
    This is not honorable.
    This does not help Luxembourg nor its people and to have a square or opping center of thst name will become an Internstional joke!

    Why should old people who have worked all their lives be bled to death by an administrator failing in her job, protecting a failed, corrupt bank and an incompetent government who did not do due diligence on a bank operating below legal liquidity and a Luxembourg judiciary which fails to look at the laws outside their pond?

    We should not have to pay for all the failings of Luxembourg and be treated as criminals for 4 years whilst the crooks get away with murder, should we?

    George Ward

    9 Jul 12 at 1:06 pm

  16. Does it not also show that the Luxembourg Government did not do their Due Diligence either before bankrolling this failing Bank?

    This bank was operating under the required Liquidity Ratio and proper Due Diligence would have shown the government they should not be allowing this bank to continue let alone set up and export crooked schemes in the name of Luxembourg. This bank should never have got money from the government. Simple.

    Surely before giving a sinking Bank involved in illegal schemes without proper accreditation in other European countries and allowing speculative investment backed loans, which are illegal and specificaly targetted at old pensioners with a mortgage pree property,someone in Luxembourg could have checked?

    This does not make Luxembourg look good. Why do the crooked schemes specifically aimed at old pensioners seem to have their roots through Luxembourg?

    Why did the Luxembourg judiciary not check and see if these schemes were legal in other European countries ?

    The administrator has plenty of evidence which shows clients money disappeared from their accounts and knows just how many victims have tried to pay back what they took with interest and avoid legal battles.

    This has cost us and the administration a fortune apart from Luxembourg’s reputation.
    These honest people have been treated like criminals!

    They wanted to pay back what they owed plus interest and were refused for 4 years as the administrator wanted to bleed them dry in order to pay back the government.

    The Procureur has been mis- informed and the Juge Commisaire did not do the job of supervision Luxembourg should require of such a position.

    Mme Hamilius had been unsupervised and has exported her arrogance and disrespect of decent , honest people in favor of POWER and glory in her patch.
    This is not honorable.
    This does not help Luxembourg nor its people and to have a square or shopping center of thst name will become an Internstional joke!

    Why should old people who have worked all their lives be bled to death by an administrator failing in her job, protecting a failed, corrupt bank and an incompetent government who did not do due diligence on a bank operating below legal liquidity and a Luxembourg judiciary which fails to look at the laws outside their pond?

    We should not have to pay for all the failings of Luxembourg and be treated as criminals for 4 years whilst the crooks get away with everything should we?

    George Ward

    9 Jul 12 at 1:31 pm

  17. I can tell you everyone does lose in Luxembourg procedure.
    Everyone lose except the bank.
    Maddoff ones, Landsbanki, Danske Bank, Nordea, Rothschild, etc.
    Any who go through Luxembourg lose every time, so banks like Luxembourg!
    Also lawyers like Luxembourg. This is how Luxembourg gets the banks. They always win.
    Sorry for Landsbanki ones. We read in our paper so we know the story.


    10 Jul 12 at 9:24 am

  18. […] Take a look here if you think Luxembourg has a good reputation J'aime ceci:J'aimeBe the first to like […]

  19. Hello Stephan

    Interesting post, seems like we are all in agreement. However the administrator of Landsbanki has taken on 400 pensioners, and she has no idea what strength they have got.

    This will become the case that the corrupt Luxembourg officials fail to win. You see we are all prepared to fight after all what do we now have to loose. Our assets are our homes and we will not give those up.

    It is long overdue for the officials of Luxembourg to realise that they are subject to MiFiD and all European laws.

    Nina Foster

    11 Jul 12 at 8:52 am

  20. Do not think they care about retreated older people!
    They do not.
    Luxembourg wants rich business and banks and lawyers to protect them, but small people they do not care.
    Sorry to say this Nina.
    Europe Law is not Luxembourg law you must see.


    11 Jul 12 at 10:49 am

  21. Fisec, thank you for your links.

    I think Luxembourg and London are walking hand in hand in corruption, Tax Circus performance and extreme manipulation of figures.

    I think this is why Luxembourg skulks in shady corner and Banker’s Lawyers fabricate special Laws to protect the Banksters and their illegal scams they set up in OTHER European Countries, at least sparing the old people of Luxembourg some of the dirty schemes!

    However, the employees of Luxembourg who are not multi-millionaires do get kicked around don’t they and the Judiciary does not seem to want to protect them either?

    I think London uses Luxembourg when it needs a Financial Circus performance and a Tax Juggling dodge and they appreciate the special Luxembourg Laws which protect the Bangsters and Dodgy Big businesses who need Luxembourg law rather than European Law to protect their circus tricks!

    London and Luxembourg walk hand in hand as Europe’s financial cess-pitts as far as one can see, don’t they?

    They should both, London and Luxembourg, follow the example of Iceland and try to clean up the cess-pitt and repair the damages done to decent people without usng the judiciary who closes it’s eyes and ears and the press who goes mute.

    Iceland has tried to clean up.

    What is London doing to clean out the cess-pitt?
    What is Luxembourg doing to clean up the cesspit?

    Who makes most money disappear?

    Landsbanki had money vanish from clients accounts and yet are still seizing their homes!

    Imagine how you feel when 4 million disappears from a company account, or everything in your account vanishes and you lose your home when you were not a debtor?

    There’s only one place for that and that is Luxembourg!

    This is really the question, isn’t it Fisec?

    Who makes client’s money disappear and ignores the laws of other countries better than Luxembourg?

    No wonder there is a Place called Hamilius! She really has talent for whitewash and cover-up, doesn’t she?

    One can understand why she has such power in Luxmebourg that no one dares question her nor the Juge Commissaire?
    The Landsbanki Lawyers were given CARTE BLANCHE to do exactly as they wanted as long as they raked in the money from the victims, whether there was fraud and manipulation or not.

    They harassed and seized rent and bullied and then wanted them all to drop Criminal Charges when they saw that one French judge had the guts and sense of Justice to tell Mme Hamilius and Luxembourg that their schemes did not have the proper licence and that there was sufficient damning evidence to levy the 50 million bail.

    They, the Landsbanki lawyers were under the orders of Mme Hamilius and the supervision of the Commisaire Judge.

    What a job they have done for Luxembourg!

    Has Mme Hamilius paid the bail of 50 million or the fine of 1.875 million?

    Has Luxembourg refused to admit grave, error and inadmissible arrogance as they continue to seize homes and blackmail people with ultimatums to drop the Criminal charges they know they are guilty of?

    What is oging on in Luxembourg?
    What sort of a country is Luxembourg?

    I think it is much worse than London and that is pretty bad!.

    Rachael Williams

    11 Jul 12 at 5:22 pm

  22. I see little difference between what is happening in Luxembourg and what we are allowing here in the US. At least Luxembourg has something of an excuse. It is a small place with its City Center literally ringed by over 100 banks, effectively all foreign-controlled. They are physically besieged by financial forces. No such issues here. We’ve simply sold out.

    Knute Rife

    11 Jul 12 at 10:59 pm

  23. I think that in the USA it is transparent.
    Luxembourg is opaque. I think the problem in Luxembourg is the Laws of Luxembourg. They are definitely made by bank lawyers . They do not protect the Luxembourg workers or the bank clients.
    The banks can do what they want and the judge will agree. The client or worker will lose.
    This is why it is with the 100 of banks but they are not foreign controlled.
    They are Luxembourg Law controlled Knute!
    In the USA they cannot hide crime and fraud so easy.
    This is good for banks. Bad for clients and workers.
    Look at Landsbanki example.
    No European laws but Luxembourg laws for Landsbanki.


    12 Jul 12 at 9:43 am


    Not a very glowing report, typical of the sector though.


    12 Jul 12 at 12:19 pm

  25. So in France if you are a Banker you do not have to pay a criminal caution set by a criminal judge?!

    What about the 50 million Euros criminal caution and the Hamilius fine?

    How can she take the rent and the houses when she ignores this big Juge in supreme court in Paris and ignores the Spanish ?

    Which is the worse, Barclays or Landsbanki?
    Did Landsbanki fix the ratios AND the Libor to make debtors??

    Enrico Suarez

    12 Jul 12 at 1:25 pm

  26. I mean ignores the Spanish Juge who said the Landsbanki deal was illegal and gave damages.
    The Bowen won everything, but the procurator did not know this?
    Strange. So they do not pay the French criminal Juge 50 million euros and still take rent and houses?

    Enrico Suarez

    12 Jul 12 at 1:30 pm

  27. George, you bet the Luxembourg Government did not do Due Diligence on the bank they gave 250 million euros as Fisec says.

    They gave 250 million to Landsbanki without the Due Diligence which would have revealed they were in an insufficient liquidity ratio, as you say.

    Of course if they did not do Due Diligence they wouldn’t bother to check if they had proper accreditation in France, Spain and Portugal for portfolio investment backed mortgages, would they?

    Now the administrator refuses to look at the manipulated figures and money vanishing from accounts of clients who were not debtors and grabs rent, homes and lives.
    All is seized in Mme Hamilius’s path regardless of consumers rights in Europe.


    12 Jul 12 at 2:46 pm

  28. Knute Rife, we have taken a look at your linked site and it is very interesting. Thanks for sharing it.
    Nice getting input from the USA.

    So true about fees in bankruptcy stinking ‘like last weeks diapers’!
    Attorney’s fees, administrators fees, Shark lawyers, Shark real estate agents waiting for a quick sale and above all the Loan Sharks circling around us today as we try to meet the Hamilius ultimatums and time frames.
    One of us was told they had to pay a fee of 100.000 euros to set it up as the Administrator saw fit to include details of the asset having been seized in all documents needed to show to any bank when asking for a loan!
    Even the banks and agents said it was completely unnecessary and mean, to do this in the circumstances.

    Another was asked 40.000 with exorbitant interest rates and some from loan Sharks circling their prey as they see elderly people desperate to save their homes.

    It does stink Knute. You are right. Could an administrator have been allowed to do what has gone on in Luxembourg Landsbanki in the USA Knute?
    So many European laws have been ignored and creditors treated like criminals and manipulated into debtors one does wonder where else this could have happened but Luxembourg?

    George Ward

    12 Jul 12 at 4:15 pm

  29. As a rule I do not pay much attention to the dealings of receivership administrations. Administrators tend to be single-minded and predatory in their pursuits of liquid-assets, and often blindly ruthless in their efforts to liquidate debtors, ostensibly on behalf of creditors.

    Much of my interest in Landsbanki matters is to determine how much, if any, of the Landsbanki banking, and other financial dealings, were actually, meaning in the contexts of their times and practices in those times, before the eruption of fraud that brought the collapse, and continues it. I have not found much real dishonesty, most that appears dishonest seeming so for the playing field being tilted and jiggled in efforts to dislodge and knock down the Icelandic banks,for their not playing in step with the bent banks and bank regulators (they were playing off them, in fact, which was accounting for much of their success until their taking down). And some appears result of their playing close to the wire, especially toward the end, when they were attempting to draw back and reduce their leverages.

    It appears to be in the last effort that Landsbanki, in its Luxembourg offices, engaged in the activities Mme Habilius appears to be attempting to take advantage of.

    I have not studied these activities, but have only glanced at them. From glancing I suspect Mme Habilius may be extending her efforts where her authorization as an administrator, supposed to be representing creditors, primarily investors in Landsbanki, and law may not allow.

    Mme Habiius appears to be attempting to cannibalize, to victimize some creditors for the benefits of others. That is, to commit theft from one class of Landsbanki investor/creditor to benefit another. Making Mme Habilius’ effort worse is that those she is appears to be atteempting to vicitmize appear to be what we may term “retail investors”, meaning non-professionals. The investor equivalent to bank depositors, who, for that equivalence, ought be privileged as depositors are, to protection, to having their investments protected by the law in parallel as depositors’ deposit investments are protected.

    This will be true if the following is essentially correct: Landsbanki Luxembourg, seeking investors to purchase its bonds, it increase its asset base, to offset its loans portfolio, to lessen its leverage ratio, made offers to property-holders so that it might use the value of their properties, or the equity portions, as bond-value.

    Equity value in property is essentially equivalent to money tucked into a mattress for the owner of the property. Landsbanki’s effort,, in this analogy, was to draw the owners of the equity “money in the mattress” to bring their equity/money to the bank to deposit, to earn interest, as bond income in the equity case.

    Landsbanki converted the property value to monetary value, paid a preliminary, up front, bond-coupon return to the encouraged equity investor, with promise of future coupon redemption payments as well, that would in the end be interest payment on the Landsbanki bonds “bought” with the “converted value” of the enticed “investor”. The investors are designated enticed because it was landsbanki who needed and wanted the funding, and set up the dealings so that property owners without liquid funds could become, be made through the dealings, Landsbanki bondholders.

    None of this is illegal, and had Landsbanki not been destroyed, and so been able to carry on banking, the coupon payouts ought have gone on as professional investors’ coupon payouts on liquid-cash bought bonds normally go, and also would have gone for those bond-holder Landsbanki creditors, had Landsbanki not been destroyed.

    For Landsbanki setting up the property to cash valuation to investment in Landsbanki bonds to facilitate, and obtain, the investment of the values in Landsbanki bonds, the owners of the properties manipulated, legally, for this purpose are not Landsbanki debtors, they are Landsbanki creditors, along with other Landsbanki bondholders, the professional ones, who bought Landsbanki bonds with cash, on their own volition, without being drawn to bring their money out from their property mattresses to provide Landsbanki to use. It is the drawing out Landsbanki did that makes the property-owner bondholder investors “retail” investors, like depositors, instead of professionals, and so, by parallel,equitably entitled to protection similar to that the law affords to depositors.

    In any case, as Landsbanki bondholder investors the property-backed Landsbanki bond buyers are Landsbanki creditors. They are not Landsbanki debtors, as Mme Habilius appears to have characterized them so that she might claim an administration right to their properties.

    If what is just described is what occurred, Mme Habilius’ has had responsibility, as the Landsbanki Administratrix, to protect the property-owner Landsbanki bond-holder investors, and to make them whole, or as whole as possible, to return to them their investments, in their cases, their properties rather than cash.

    What Mme Habilius sounds to have done sounds like attempting theft by deception, mis-characterizing a class of Landsbanki bondholder investors as “debtors”, so that she might rob them of their properties, ostensibly to give to other investors, to make them whole.

    If this is the case, Mme Habilius will have engaged in robbing depositor-equivalent “retail investors” to make professional investors whole. This would be a fairly significant crime. It would be matter for EU Courts of Justice more than the courts of Luxembourg to take up. It would, however, be best to present the matter in the terms described here, if they fit the circumstances, to the authorities of Luxembourg, and to Mme Habilius, to allow them to consider them in correct light, if they have misconceived or misinterpreted the true nature of the property-owner induced-Landsbanki-investor landsbanki creditors, and to make amends and restitutions.

    As I have said, I have only glanced at the situation. I have not looked into it in depth. Homeowners who have been victims of Mme Habilius’ misunderstanding, or machinations, whichever they might prove to be, should Have their lawyers review their situations in light of this interpretation. If Landsbanki did invest the funds they converted the home-owners’ homes’ equivalent values to in Landsbanki bonds, negotiating the deals to facilitate the investment in Landsbanki by Landsbanki, this assessment, and interpretation of the situation, is correct.


    13 Jul 12 at 2:00 am

  30. You write an interesting blog M Dogh.

    My personal view however was that the bank was set up as a cash cow by the purchasers in 2002. Their intention from day one was to acquire and syphon off as much cash as was possible for their own ends. There was nothing honest about their operation.

    There is absolutely no doubt that the equity release victims were in fact Creditors of the bank, as were all other depositors, which you confirm.

    The tragedy now however is that Mme Hamilius is indeed treating them as debtors and pursuing them as such. This is a travesty and should be stopped.

    The court in Paris found her guilty, and rejected her appeal against the 50 million euro levy. She has not paid this and must now therefore be in contempt of court, surely.

    This would also I imagine make her powerless to continue with any actions in France against the victims of this scam. This would have to include any auctions or repossessions.

    I believe there are murmurs of disquiet in official circles about the strategy that has been used in this liquidation and that some changes are under way. We shall see. I have heard through the grapevine that already the Parisian lawyers have been dispensed with and a new company engaged.

    Perhaps already Mme Hamilius is starting to realise that she has made a grave error of judgement in her method of dealing with this business and that she has to address the fact that the victims are creditors and not debtors.


    13 Jul 12 at 11:53 am

  31. RLDogh, what you have said about the Habilius manipulations is spot on .

    The fact that at the will of this dominatrix administration and supervision by the Colluding Juge who does not seem to know the difference between European Law and Luxembourg Law, Luxembourg is loosing its pantaloons!

    Are The dominatrix in power not showing themselves to the world as arrogant, tough, ambitious women imbibed with their own power in their little Bankers Back Yard called Luxembourg and confirming the image of Luxembourg as Bankster Paradise as the media relates in such programmes and media releases we are so often seeing today?

    We were all classified as RETAIL clients by the banks MiFED classification..
    Our money in very many cases has simply vanished from our accounts.
    No proof of where nor when or by whose orders this money was made to vanish.
    The French and Spanish Juges were given pure lies and false information backing false and deliberately manipulated accounting. Hamilius has all these facts under her nose.
    She still seizes rent and homes and continues to ignore European Law and not obey French Criminal judges directives.

    Hamilius does not pay bail but still seizes homes and dares give us time delays to pay HER!

    Now we are being blackmailed into paying money we do not owe or lose our homes.
    Our homes seized and or rents seized and our lives held hostage.
    Has the virulent administration paid their dues in France ON TIME.
    NO they have not.

    The Horribilus administration should be the ones treated as Criminals and not the pensioners and innocent victims of Dominatrix Luxembourg.

    The power of the corrupt Bankers in their convenient parking lots, must be stopped.
    We have all had enough.
    Luxembourg demands but Luxembourg must pay as they have gone too far without stopping this madness.


    13 Jul 12 at 12:18 pm

  32. We are creditors , we are creditors we are creditors.
    Mme Hamelius is machiavelic.
    False accounts. False everything to make us debtors.
    We are not debtors.
    We are not criminals.
    We have been tortured.
    Our lives destroyed by Luxembourg robbing consumers and manipulating us into criminals.
    We are creditors who have been robbed and mm Hamilius is part of a crime.
    We are classified retail customers.
    Luxembourg government allows this crime against us continue.
    Where is our money mm Hamilius? It was in our accounts? Who took it?
    Who are you protecting?
    We are the ones you should be protecting. We are creditors robbed, tortured and blackmailed.
    Disgraceful Luxembourg.


    13 Jul 12 at 3:07 pm

  33. So France lets Luxembourg Hamilius take rents and houses if they do not obey orders on a timing date she want?
    What about the date to pay the 50 million to France?
    So France must say first this woman must respect France and Europen law and pay 50 million on the timing date of the French Criminal Juge.
    There is no Royal Hamilius in Paris!
    There is a Criminal Tribunal waiting for her to pay for the crimes and manipulations.

    EnricoSomeone Suarez

    13 Jul 12 at 5:54 pm

  34. Dough, we were classified by MIFED .
    We were clients ‘particulier’ or you say ‘retail’.
    This in our Landsbanki documents before bankrupt.

    After bankrupt the Hamilius administrator or the Maître Gicqueau Landsbanki lawyer in Paris turned us to ‘professionnel’ by lies in the legal documents.
    The French Juges Civil saw lies and false figures and manipulation from Landsbanki .
    They did not examine a fraud or illegal things or manipulation, they only saw a dette .
    They seize the houses for a dette.
    The Juge Van Rumbeyke saw huge evidence of crime as we know.
    Lies, false accounts, bad behaviour, fraud etc.
    He put a caution of 50 million euros and an ammende of 1.875 million.
    Hamilius did not examine fraud.
    Hamilius saw Landsbanki documents said we were NOT PROFESSIONALS.
    Hamilius saw the lies and treatment of victims and Gicqueau obeying orders and the other Landsbank lawyers in the lies and crimes.

    We are not débiteurs.
    We are créditeurs , clients of the Bank treated as criminals by Hamilius, Gicqueau and accomplices.
    Now, I hear Gicqueau is gone as Paris Landsbanki lawyer.
    It is Valerie Desforges, we heard.
    More lies?


    14 Jul 12 at 9:00 am

  35. Mme Hamilius was not on trial in the Criminal Court in Paris. Landsbanki Luxembourg was.

    For this Criminal Case to be heard, victims from all over France who had made a complaint of fraud, illegal loan contracts, miss- selling and manipulation etc. were grouped together in Paris High Criminal Court by the top Criminal Judge.

    This highly respected and honourable Judge Van Rumbeyke, whom France is proud of for his courage in handling difficult cases, found boxes of evidence of Criminal acts and because of this, accepted the case which Landsbanki LOST.
    Landsbanki appealed.
    Landsbanki LOST and got a Bail of 50 million euros which is the largest in the history of France.

    This is a sure sign that the Judge, unlike Mme Hamilius and the Juge Commisaire of Luxembourg, saw plenty of evidence of fraud and he accepted the case based on that and also on the fact that Landsbanki may have had a licence acceptable in Luxembourg, But it did not have the proper licence in France or Spain.

    We know a Spanish judge already judged the loan illegal and ordered the deeds of the Bowens home to be returned and ordered a 25.000 tax-free damages pyment to be made to the Bowens who have gone trough absolute hell for years because of Mme Hamilius refusing to take any notice of fraud and manipulations of facts and figures.

    Who is the criminal here?

    We invested in Luxembourg’s name as we were conned into thinking Luxembourg protects RETAIL investors like ourselves.

    Well NO it does not.

    Rachael Williams

    14 Jul 12 at 5:24 pm

  36. Has Mme Hamilius ceased seizing and auctioning villas though?
    Of course not!
    Is Mme Hamilius threatening to seize people’s homes if they do not pay what she demands whether the figure is right or not?
    Of course she is!
    Is she not doing precisely this, regardless of the criminal procedure and taking advantage of the terrible manipulations and lies the Landsbanki Lawyers told the Civil Courts to fool the judges into giving permission to seize the properties?

    All this under her watch?
    Well since she is, then has this Luxembourg administrator paid the French Criminal Court the 50 million and the fine in the time scale the Judge ordered or not?

    Why is she threatening us and making us sign away our right to justice after the way we have been treated for 4 years when we were creditors and have been robbed?
    Why is Mme Hamilius not paying? Why is Mme Hamilius not in court for colluding with criminal acts and pretending everything is OK?

    You are right Rachael. RETAIL customers treated like criminals for 4 hellish years.
    Today, we are threatened with her deadline to get loans which she makes impossible for those with their property seized as she plasters this all over the document these poor people need to show to the banks and she must know how difficult this is for retired people anyway.

    We all know how terrible the cases under this Landsbanki Cannes lawyer are. I did not know Maitre Verstrate was a woman. Perhaps she is a friend of Mme Hamilius as they work together on terror and bullying, jut for power kicks?

    Does Luxembourg not see that they are looking worse by every act of this administration towards its RETAIL CLIENTS? Classified as such by Landsbanki itself and then changed to PROFESSIONAL CLIENT in the legal documents?
    Who changes a legal classification like this?

    Mme Hamilius? the Juge commisaire? the Procureur of Luxembourg? Who in Luxembourg is allowed to switch a MiFED cassification as if it were a PANCAKE?

    How Criminal is that, Luxembourg?

    Is Luxembourg proud of it’s Royal Humilius?

    This is the sort of country Luxembourg is, isn’t it?
    Let’s face it, we were conned into trusting Luxembourg by Landsbanki agents and now, they don’t need us anymore as they got what they wanted.

    They wanted our unmortgaged properties as assets in order to con the Luxembourg Government into being their cash cow as they were outside the liquidity ratio!

    We were conned. The Luxembourg Government was conned.

    We were both conned and Royal Humilius is protecting the criminals isn’t she? Or have we misunderstood her foul deeds and actions?

    Wake up Luxembourg and smell the stench.
    I am a calm man, but now I am boiling with rage at this administration and at Luxembourg for allowing it.

    We know the Barlow’s were hiding their car a long way from their home as they were terrified that Virulent Verstrate acting for Hamilius would take their car! He is 76!

    It is disgusting and Luxembourg should be ashamed.

    Alexander Edwards

    14 Jul 12 at 7:13 pm

  37. James, Charles, Frank, Stephen, Rachel, Alexander and all who participated in the Landsbanki “equity release” scheme,

    Having looked in a bit further, I think I over-complicated in my first assessment of the situation. The situation seems to be as Frank says, that you are creditors. Simply creditors. Landsbanki borrowed the values of your equities, Landsbanki was the debtor, the homeowners the creditors.

    Landsbanki is dead. Mme Habilius is the administrator of the Landsbanki estate. Her job is to settle the debts that Landsbanki left. You should have lawyers file demands for recovery with her. If she answers no, take action against her, the Landsbanki estate she administers and all who support her. Ignore dead Landsbanki, it is out of the picture.

    You should be able to obtain judgments for damages done in past actions by Mme Habilius because in the cases of Landsbanki’s “equity release” borrowing deals, the settling should have been simple: Landsbanki borrowed the values of equities in exchange for up-front fees payments and its promises to make scheduled payments to the equity owners through periods of time.

    Landsbanki went bust. Going bust is how corporations die, so Landsbanki died and is dead. Administrators, with Mme Habilius as executrix, assumed responsibility for Landsbanki’s estate. Being dead, Landsbanki stopped making the payments it had agreed to make on loans it had taken. The Landsbanki estate administrators appear to have not kept up making Landsbanki’s payments on its equity loans. Landsbanki fell into arrears and default. Legal ownership of the equity values Landsbanki was leasing reverted by default to their previous owners.

    Mme Habilius appears to have ignored this and undertaken to characterize the Landsbanki borrowings as loans to the equity owners.

    Had Landsbanki at the time it monetized the equities involved given the whole sums to the equity owners, for those owners to use as they might choose, it would be possible for Landsbanki, and now Mme Hubilius, to characterize the transactions as bank loans, as she apparently has done.

    But Landsbanki did not give the moneys it realized from its monetization of the equities to the property owners. Instead, Landsbanki invested the realized money in itself.

    Landsbanki used the realized moneys to buy Landsbanki debt, to improved its assets to loans ratio, to provide itself improved fiscal stability in the then volatile marketplace.

    By assuming control of the moneys it realized by monetizing the property owners’ equities, to use for its own uses, for improvement and benefit of itself and its own situation, Landsbanki made the “equity realease” transactions “equity lease” transactions.

    Landsbanki leased the equity owners’ equities to use for its own purposes. The up-front payments Landsbanki made to the equity owners became by default, if nothing else, incentive payments, transaction fees paid by the leasee to the leasors. The schedule of payments promised to the equity owners by Landsbanki became scheduled repayment payments. When Landsbanki went bust and died responsibility to continue making the scheduled payments for lease of the equity leasors’ equity values devolved to the Landsbanki estate administrators. That is, to Mme Habilius and company.

    How Landsbanki died, what it died of, and how Landsbanki led its life, what Landsbanki did in its lifetime, is all immaterial. If Landsbanki gambled, if it was wastrel, if it engaged in shady practices, or not, is all immaterial. All that is material at present is that Landsbanki left debts and left assets, and that Mme Habilius and the other administrators for Landsbani’s estate have, and have had, responsibilities to continue payments to Landsbanki’s creditors, or to surrender collaterals and borrowed assets.

    The case is no different for Landsbanki than it was for Baugur, when it went bust and died, when Landsbanki was a creditor, when Baugur ceased to continue payments and Baugur estate administrators had to surrender collaterals and assets to, amongst others, Landsbanki.

    It has been Mme Habilius’ responsibility to continue making payments Landsbanki had agreed to make and was responsible to make, and it continues to be. If there was not money to make the payments in the Landsbanki estate, or the equity values were deemed not needed by the defunct Landbanki, it was Mme Habilius’ responsibility to negotiate terminations of the leases and return the borrowed equity values.

    It is extremely unlikely that Mme Habilius does not know that borrowed commodities did not become owned by the estate upon a borrower’s demise. Borrowed commodities never have, never did, never do, in Luxembourg or anywhere. Everywhere borrowed commodities must be returned to the lenders.

    In the case of your equities, borrowed by Landsbanki, the resolutions should have been simple. And, since the borrowed commodity was only the equity, apart from the property, the properties are, rightfully, not at issue, or even involved.

    In addition, the values of the properties are not involved. Landsbanki borrowed the equity values of the properties at a time when those values were at a particular level. subsequent changes in values after that time were, and are, immaterial. Even if fluctuations in values were given recognition in the original contracts, in winding up an estate, and especially where payments have not been continued and default has occurred, monetary values are immaterial. They are simply “market”, and only the amounts to be paid, agreed in the contracts, are of relevance. If Landsbanki held a title interest, the title interest, for Landsbanki having borrowed equity, not property, the title interest is in the equity, not in the real property.

    Because Landsbanki borrowed equity, not property, Landsbanki could not, and cannot, legally, claim a title interest in the real properties. Mme Habilius, as estate administratrix, cannot legally claim title interest in the real properties in her resolving of Landsbanki’s estate.

    Note that if the Landsbanki administrators have not kept up payments per their contracts for use of the “leased equities”, leasors’ rights and titles to the leased property revert to them automatically.

    Note also that because Landsbanki borrowed only equity, which is “surplus value”, apart from the real property, if the market value for the property has changed, so the equity value has changed, going down, it is the leasee the loss accrues to. The leasee cannot demand the leasor make up a market driven loss to him. It is always the purchaser of a “value” commodity who assumes the risk of loss with his purchase. In this case it is the the borrower, Landsbanki, who borrowed under a contract reflecting a current market value, assuming the value would remain current in the future, who assumed the risk and must absorb the loss if the equity it leased loses value.

    To change the analogy from futures trading to shares: Landsbanki bought “equity shares” that it helped to create, to make them available for their owners to offer. When the values of the created equity shares went down the value of Landsbanki’s shares investment went down. It must be Landsbanki, the purchaser, not the property owners, the offerers, who absorb the loss realized by the equity-shares devaluing. Nowhere in market economics is there precedent for a share purchaser demanding to be made whole for a market driven value loss, not even in Luxembourg.

    If courts in Luxembourg, or anywhere else, have failed to recognize the situation correctly, it will be because the matters have been misrepresented to them. To correct the situation, explain to them the correct nature of the situation. Demand amends be made and restitutions be ordered, together with payments for damages incurred for the misrepresentations. If Luxembourg courts will then not correct the situation, given correct information, you have to take the case (the overall case) up to a Euro Court. You have to demand full recoveries and punitive assessments for wrongs illegally done, and take action to collect assessments. Those are what discourage wrongful actions.


    15 Jul 12 at 12:51 am

  38. 3 people have phoned asking me to reply to R.L. Dogh as they so appreciate his comment!

    Each person has things to say, but they do not use the computer, hence perhaps repetition and length!

    I am sure we all wish to thank you for your input R L Dogh, as we are grateful for all opinions and all information we can get on this Luxembourg attempt to get away with what this Landsbanki administration is trying to get away with.

    The ultimate insult to the many hundreds of us who are victims of this scam, is the Ultimatum, Mme Humilius has concocted and wants to keep secret, Except of course from the bankers and financial institutions .

    Mme Hamilius does not object, it would seem, to us showing this shameful document to Bankers and financial institution susceptible to giving us money to pump back into Luxembourg government, so she gets a statue in her honour on the Royal Hamilius square mentioned!

    This precipitous Ultimatum, came AFTER having put us through hell for 4 years of refusing to look at the criminal aspects of the case which were staring her in the face and which no accountant from anywhere other than a wayward Banana Republic could fail to see.

    Mme Humilius, however failed to see. She failed to hear. She failed to act. She failed at her job as administrator.
    This failure is the property of Luxembourg.
    This failure is the property of the Luxembourg judiciary hen party in all it’s feathered arrogance and disrespect for lawyers and laws of other European countries.
    This failure is the property of all of the Luxembourg establishment who failed to care about the victims of their Banking failures , in favour of greedy money-grabbing banks, bent on grabbing everything anywhere, regardless of the consequences to vulnerable others.

    Mme Humilius did not care to listen to any of us who wanted to pay back what we had taken with interest and get our deeds back.

    Mme Hamilius did not listen to those whose money had been made to vanish with no justifications or any data to prove what she was fabricating.

    Mme Hamilius textually wrote to people who were showing evidence their personal money was in their accounts AFTER the bank closed its doors and had later vanished,

    ‘these discussions are no longer productive’!

    How about that for proof that we had given orders to invest our personal money AFTER the bank closed, in LANDSBANKI and KAUPTHING and other sinking rubbish?

    We have all been denied all relevant personal data and correspondance which is in breach of European consumer protection law.

    The Barlows were even denied their complicated and very important Transaction Ultimatum in English because their daughter had written a comment after an article in Luxembourg press about Landsbanki.

    The article was in French. The daughter helped to reply in French.
    Mme Hamilius subsequently refused to give the document in English and wrote that by the look of the comment, their French was ‘adequate’!

    How about that which my son has asked me to add? Is that not unbelievable?

    What are European Consumer laws for, if Royal Hamilius can at will, just slap aside consumer right of protection?

    Why is Luxembourg allowed to break the law with such ease?
    Mme Hamilius has ruled that this British couple one of whom is past his mid-seventies and does not speak French, his legal right to have such a document in English.

    The Transaction Ultimatum seeks to deny us our rights to the Ongoing Criminal procedure Mme Hamilius could not crawl out of, as she lost before French Supreme Criminal Court and every Criminal case as well as the crucial Civil one in Spain which ruled her 100% wrong.

    This is the only reason we are getting the transaction ultimatum after 4 years.

    Mme Hamilius LOST in Criminal court as she failed to do her job and check firstly the legality. That is the only reason. Mme Hamilius was Wrong and out of line. This is no ‘generous offer ‘.

    Mme Hamilius, so bent on treating US as criminals, bent a little too far backwards in avoiding European , French and Spanish Law.

    The reason we got what the poor under-informed Procureur General called ,
    ‘ a very generous offer’, was, as the world knows full well, ONLY because she was belly up in the mud and bringing Luxembourg’s reputation down with her!

    Look at the fool she made of the Procureur by not telling the truth?

    Look at the pickle the judicial ‘hen party’ is in as they see how bad Luxembourg Law looks and how consumers are going to flee any company or Bank established in Luxembourg?

    Mme Hamilius came up with an ultimatum to save her skin and put a stop to the Criminal procedures which will quite evidently incriminate her and her colluding hen house too, won’t it?

    Mme Hamilius does not care one bit if we have been robbed, if the figures are manipulated and false, if we have been treated like criminals for years, if all our life projects have been destroyed as she REFUSED to negotiate or to listen to common sense and Justice and preferred to hide behind Luxembourg Laws fabricated by people with no respect for the consumer , nor justice and common sense.

    Mme Hamilius refused all discussion for 4 horrible years where our lives and our health turned upside down .

    We will never live long enough to recover from the damage Royal Hamilius has done by not doing her job fairly and ignoring everything we were saying even when we wanted to pay back what we took with interest .

    Of course we are not debtors. Mme Hamilius had to fabricate false accounting and turn a blind eye to the obvious account manipulations and property evaluations making property which had gone up, DROP in value by 60 % in the Cannes area!

    Of course people who are were made by false accounting to be less than 1% under the SCR like the Barlows 0.3 under, were not debtors.

    They were manipulated and defrauded and treated to disgraceful abuse for years.
    This was because their case was so bad, with such obvious false accounting that Mme Hamilius probably wanted it out of the way by one method or another so no one would find out what she had done to others.

    The Barlow case is deplorable and it is no wonder the Landsbanki lawyer in charge of France has been replaced. I know of other cases Mme Hamilius would rather no one heard about either.
    Believe me, the Barlows are not the only ones.
    They are just the first to have their houses up for auction and to have had their rent seized.
    There are many others Mme Hamilius does not want us to know about.

    The Luxembourg Courts do not seem to think there is such a place as Europe as they are so full of their conviction Luxembourg can make Laws to steal from the consumer to give to the Bangster and no one will question them.

    I think it is wake up time for Luxembourg as Mme Hamilius and her colluding fiends will not be able to make this scandal go away, with blackmail, will she?

    OK, that’s it. I’m not writing anything more for anyone else!
    It’s exhausting and the phone doesn’t stop ringing as we all keep coming up with more.

    George Ward

    15 Jul 12 at 11:47 am

  39. Me also . Phone calls all the time. They want me to do this to say something.
    Spain had been clients of Landsbanki longer. They started in Spain. That is why they treat Spanish victims better ?
    Lucky Spain, not so lucky France! What about Portugal victims? Anyone know these?
    What happened in Portugal?

    There is too much to say. All anger for these years that she threw out our lives as if we were very bad criminals not clients of Luxembourg.
    We trusted Luxembourg. They told us it was the safety place. The best for safe keeping our money.

    This administrator has only kept the bank directors safe. Who else?
    RL Dough is in the right place.
    We need to convoke the European Justice.
    We are creditors treated like the bad guys.
    You wrote a good comment RL.

    Enrico Suarez

    15 Jul 12 at 1:39 pm

  40. This is addressed to R.L Dogh. 400 plus victims very much appreciate your two recent highly informed and authoritive comments, that has got many of us thinking of how to proceed with this battle.

    I appreciate that you are under no obligation to reveal anything about yourself, your true identity, interest in this etc. But what I would like to establish is your profession as you certainly appear to be very well informed and knowledgable about how the system works, unlike us pensioners who at times can appear to be understandably a little emmotional about it all.
    So are we to assume that you are invloved in banking, law, media, or politics?



    15 Jul 12 at 3:48 pm

  41. Everyone is angry Mike and this is a big emotion.
    I read in Spanish papers there are around 600 victims of Landsbanki equity release.
    Dogh was very helpful. Please keep on helping.

    Enrico Suarez

    15 Jul 12 at 4:40 pm

  42. Luxembourg Exposed [part 2] – YouTube

    Here is Luxembourg on Utube no 2. Many languages.

    Enrico Suarez

    15 Jul 12 at 7:31 pm

  43. Enrico Suarez

    15 Jul 12 at 7:33 pm

  44. Enrico Suarez

    15 Jul 12 at 7:38 pm

  45. I was thinking what had happened here as no comments came si I watched the films Enrico linked us.
    We watched no 2 and saw why Luxembourg is such a mess and why a woman in power can dominatrix all the guys in the government!

    Half of Luxembourg is probably knowing everything is wrong but if the judges are her copines then it becomes a Bankster Paradise fror backstairs bankers and is governed by fairees waving your magic batons.

    To be serious. Luxembourg will change. They will not change the name of Luxembourg to Royal Hamilius even if she thinks she is the most powered woman in Europe.
    Luxembourg is knowing that our honest Juge Van Rumbeyke does not get terrified by Luxembourg dominatrix!

    This Hamilius is a power that cannot be exported and has to stay in Hamilius Place.

    When in France, do as the Criminal Juge says.
    First, pay your fine for arrogance and thinking France is a Luxembourg poodle dog.
    Second, pay 50 million Euros and stop manipulation, fraud, Mickey Mouse fantasy to make creditors transform to debiteurs and stop these lies .
    Third, take houses from the directors of the corrupt banks before taking from the honest credireurs.

    In France we do not like pirates doing the kicks and telling the lies.
    Luxembourg thinks it fooled the Juges but these were in Civil procedure not criminelle!
    Big différence Monsieur le Procureur de Luxembourg!


    22 Jul 12 at 12:16 pm

  46. One simple question RL Dough and James.
    This is a question for all of us in fact.

    What happens to an administrator who manipulates facts and accounts of the customers of a bankrupt Bank and then waives a ‘magic baton’ as Stephan said and turns them magically into debtors?

    What does the European law give as guidelines for an administrator of a failed Bank to follow and what are the consequences of breaches of practice?

    What are the legal consequences of an administrator transforming creditors into debtors by manipulation?

    Does Luxembourg Law allow this?

    Anyone with a Luxembourg based representing lawyer must ask this, as we really should know.

    Has anyone got the answers from their lawyers yet?
    I researched

    Rachael Williams

    22 Jul 12 at 1:14 pm

  47. I found this which is to do with the Responsability of the supervisor of the administrator whom I believe is the Juge-Commisaire Karine Guillaume, as mentioned on here.
    Perhaps the ultimate responsability in this case, lies on the Supervisor Karine, rather than on Yvette Hamilius.

    I think they are both in the hot cauldron together on this.

    (Luxembourg law may, of course have adopted its own rules as per usual)!

    “Supervisors’ Responsability over the administrator of bankruptcy proceedings

    The Supervisor shall undertake the inspection of work of the bankruptcy administrator ex officio or on the complaint by a third party.

    Following the inspection of the bankruptcy administrator’s work, the Supervisor shall compile a report (hereinafter: Supervisor’s Report) stating that there were no irregularities in the work of the bankruptcy administrator, and, in case certain irregularities are found, propose the initiation of a disciplinary procedure.

    If in the course of inspection the Supervisor identifies remediable irregularities of minor significance, he shall order the bankruptcy administrator to remedy those irregularities within a due course. If the bankruptcy administrator complies with the order, the Supervisor shall state in his report that identified irregularities have been remedied and that no grounds exist for initiating a disciplinary procedure.

    If the Supervisor finds that there are no irregularities in the work of the bankruptcy administrator or that the identified irregularities have been remedied as referred to in this Article.
    The Supervisor shall serve his report on the bankruptcy administrator and the complainant, where the inspection was initiated on the complaint of a third party.
    The complainant shall have the right to complain against the Supervisor’s Report referred to in this Article.
    Ruling on the the complaint referred to in this Article will lead to possible
    Disciplinary Proceeding.”

    I hope this helps.

    Alexander Edwards

    22 Jul 12 at 3:10 pm

  48. […] has earlier told stories of Landsbanki Luxembourg and equity release loans sold by the bank in France and […]

  49. […] of the most remarkable events in that whole saga was when the Luxembourg Prosecutor issued a press release to declare his support […]

Leave a Reply