Shop - Derivatives/Hedging” Deals

Click here to view Media Exposes

Citibank U.S.A Standard Chartered Bank U.K Deutsche Bank Germany

“Derivatives / Hedging” Deals by Citibank, Standard Chartered Bank and Deutsche Bank, with Sri Lanka Government’s Petroleum Corporation, analytically and interestingly raises ethical, moral and legal issues, as to whether deals perpetrated by Banks, with their own customer, whose poor financials were known to them, were dubious and ,i>illegal; with Banks also having compromised public officers, with foreign trips to educate them on derivatives / hedging.

The Author analytically exposes the true nature of such transactions, and how they work, though sophisticatedly described to camouflage and confuse, to achieve the objective of raping customers to make unconscionable profits; disclosing how gullible elected and selected public officers are, and how they are manipulated, through sophisticated and devious means; demonstrating that whilst countries courageously stand up to international or regional political associations, intriguingly lack the ability to stand up to Banks, conducting operations upon licenses granted by monetary authorities of such country.

The Author also exposes the reality of how professionals conduct themselves, within and outside Courts of law, demonstrating classic instances of ‘unequal treatment before the law’, making a mockery of the tenet – ‘all are equal before the law, no one being above it’, sacrosanctly pontificated and propounded on podia. The Author raises in discerning minds, issues of contempt of Court and judicial bias, citing Opinions in the House of Lords, United Kingdom in re – Pinochet, former Chilean President; shockingly also exposing, how the media manipulatively operates driven by hidden agendas.

This book is very interesting and absorbing to read, and imparts incisive knowledge on a variety of subjects, dealt with in an objective, analytical and rational manner, exposing socio-political realities. It is an invaluable book to those concerned with sophisticated financial instruments and scams, which have scandalized financial sectors, warranting stimulus packages from Governments, and to legal/financial academics and professionals.

Order this Book Online

Available from Publishers, Author House US & UK www.authorhouse.com, www.authorhouse.co.uk

Also available from  www.amazon.com and  www.barnesandnoble.com and leading world-wide E-Retailers. Select an E-Retailer closest to you by searching on Googlefor ‘Nihal Sri Ameresekere’.

Ceylon Petroleum Corporation having been a customer of Standard Chartered Bank, Citibank, Deutsche Bank, Commercial Bank and People’s Bank, these Banks ought to have known such statutory limitations imposed by the Parliament of Sri Lanka, exercising the legislative power of the people. Even otherwise, prior to engaging in any transactions, whatsoever, with the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, these Banks had a professional duty and responsibility, to have carried out a proper due diligence, to have ascertained the statutory powers of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, a State corporation established by an Act of Parliament.

The Gaming Ordinance No. 17 of 1889 enacted during the time Sri Lanka was a British Colony, and which Gaming Ordinance is still in existence, without any amendment/s made thereto, defines the ‘act of betting’, as ‘unlawful gaming’, which is an offence attracting prosecution in the Criminal Courts of Sri Lanka, as well and truly disclosed by the following of media reports. Such transactions being illegal, the contracts are not enforceable in law: viz –

“A wagering contract is one by which two persons, professing to hold opposite views touching the issue of a future uncertain event, mutually agree that, dependant upon the determination of that event, one shall win from the other, and that other shall pay or hand over to him, a sum of money or other stake; neither of the contracting parties having any other interest in that contract than the sum or stake he will so win or lose, there being no other real consideration for the making of such contract by either of the parties ……..  In construing a contract with a view to determining whether it is a wagering one or not, the Court will receive evidence in order to arrive at the substance of it, and will not confine its attention to the mere words in which it is expressed, for a wagering contract may be sometimes concealed under the guise of language which, on the face of it, if words were only to be considered, might constitute a legally enforceable contract” – In Carlill Vs Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., (1892) 2 QB 484 @ 490 – 91 Hawkins J

“It was held that an attempt to deceive the Court by disguising the true nature of the claim and putting forward a feigned issue was a contempt of Court and could be punished as such.” – In R Vs Weisz (1951) 2 KV 611, (1951) 2 All ER 408

It is indeed intriguing and baffling, that a Government, which stood up to the Secretary General, United Nations for appointing an Advisory Panel, and the European Union, with Minister of External Affairs, G.L. Peiris, having been reported in the Sinhala Lakbima newspaper of 19th December 2009 to have puerilely stated – ‘If the European Union does not provide GSP Plus Facility,  the Government will resort to legal action’, strangely was unable to stand-up to the foreign Banks, Standard Chartered Bank, Citibank and Deutsche Bank, and enforce the ‘rule of law’ against them; when they were operating in Sri Lanka under licenses granted by the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, to operate in conformity with the laws and regulations prevalent in Sri Lanka.  

After Munza Mushtaq left, I realized that she was the News Editor of The Sunday Leader, and recently had even won Awards for Journalism, and that she was working very closely with the Editor, The Sunday Leader. Obviously she had been surreptitiously and schemingly sent as a ‘decoy’, under the guise of being an international correspondent, representing a News Service in the United Kingdom, to ascertain, as to what my reaction was to the foregoing mala-fide and malicious reporting on me by The Sunday Leader, since I had kept completely aloof on the matter, without having condescended, to have demeaned myself !

“55. On 11 February 2009,  Deutsche Bank Colombo was contacted by a representative of Citi Bank, who indicated that Mr. Basil Rajapaksa and Dr. P.B. Jayasundera and Mr. Sumith Abeysinghe, the former and current Secretary of the Ministry of Finance, respectively, requested to have a meeting together with the Claimant and other banks who had entered into oil hedging transactions with CPC. The Claimant was prepared to attend in good faith and sent two representatives to this meeting, which took place on the evening of 12 February. At this meeting the Respondent made no proposal for settlement, nor did it give any indication as to when or if any such proposal would be forthcoming.”- Deutsche Bank’s request for Arbitration to ICSID

The participation by P.B Jayasundera at the foregoing meeting in February 2009 was in grave and serious breach of the solemn undertaking given by him by his Affidavit dated 16th October 2008 to the Supreme Court, not to hold public office, directly and/or indirectly, and/or purport to do so.

The question of judicial bias thus having been brought into focus before the 7-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, the attention of Their Lordships and Ladyships of the Supreme Court, was thereby drawn to the necessity to have addressed their own minds and consciences, to any hint or appearance of bias, that may arise on reasonable apprehension or suspicion and/or issue of conflicts, which may be reasonably perceived and/or any retro-gradation on and/or any inconsistency with previous adverse findings vis-à-vis P.B. Jayasundera by any one of the Justices.

“The Judgment of this Court has found the Petitioner a corrupt officer under the law. Even in its widest sense this would be inimical to his appointment to public office.  My opposition to the granting of the relief requested by the Petitioner follows squarely from my allegiance to the Rule of Law, the sole foundation upon which the strength of this Court lies and the principle which mandates the we not arbitrarily dismiss prior rulings of this Court – including the one originally issued in this case – merely for issues of political expediency or convenience” – Justice Shiranee Tilakawardane in SC (FR) 209/2007