This tale interestingly told in Kuensel issue of 8/8/15 ( page 3) intrigued my limited legal knowledge. I felt Gem Tshering the Guarantor should be held liable for loan default and Bank officials for reckless financial irresponsibility along with Penjor who availed the initial loan. The 3 parties in their personal capacities need to make good the full loan repayment to BNB.
Bank money is public money and loan cannot be disbursed recklessly. And a guarantor has to make good a guarantee. The Loanee has responsibility to pay back loan but Bank officials are answerable for knowingly saddling an overburdened donkey with more load.
I humbly submit it as a food for thoughts to professional legal circles and financial Executives.The Bank Management and Guarantors at times drives a loan status from bad to worse by wilfully participating in loan amount enhancement. Such practice is crime in the making. And therefore, liabilities thereof made to be borne by such parties.
Dear Wangcha Sangey,
ReplyDeleteI respect this “freedom of speech” right that the Constitution of Bhutan guarantees you and in acknowledgement of the same, by expressing them here as your personal views. But, please tell me how much you know about this story; its background that unwarranted statements like this has been issued from your side on who’s to do what. This is the responsibility of the Judiciary and I hope, they would take a correct verdict at the higher court because this matter now is in the domain of the judiciary.
As far as I am concerned, going by what’s there in the public domain, by way of seeing the documentary proofs and thereby understanding them better from its true perspectives, I think, branding this case just as one of the bank’s failed loan defaulter projects is the mistaken notion of the viewers such as a Wangcha Sangey like a well-known citizen.
This is not a failed project, the first point to be noted. The fact that even after the BNB having left Mr. Penjor’s hotel project halfway point during implementation period itself with their piece -meal based questionable financing, Mr. Penjor had his hotel project in question successfully completed with a resounding success having even managed to get the coveted 3 –Star certification from the Tourism Council of Bhutan ( TCB), tells us that it’s one of the best project that passed the test of times, which otherwise should have merited further BNB’s support, because, the overburdened donkey that you talked of carried his share of the loads remarkably to the end completion point with a flying result.
This outstanding achievement that BNB client Penjor achieved under heavy odds should have merited a round of applause with a bonus point from the BNB and in this, should address your concern No 1. (For more clarity, please refer Bhutanese forum wherein a detailed history on this “BNB Vs Penjor” matter is available).
On the bank’s public money getting wasted concern of yours: I think this matter here’s not concerning a bank’s money having lost in the embezzlement that it cannot be recovered.
A well finished a 3 Star Hotel property worth 3 times more the BNB loan investment can easily address the bank’s concern if auctioned or sold at the prevailing market rates. But, currently waiting for the court to resolve this ‘Legality issue” for once and all. It is this legality concern that should merit our priority attention.
This concern of yours therefore, I think, seems out of context here. Just my frank views, Wangcha Sangey, like you; I am also sharing my personal views as a concerned Bhutanese citizen.
Wangcha Sangey Sir, Please can you approve my post la.
ReplyDeleteI did not call it a failed project. Its your conclusion. I said default. You had to default instalment otherwise why would the case be in Court. It was you who brought the case to the public attention through print media and social media. The Kuensel detailed coverage demonstrated how much you were pampered from 2 stored to 3 storied and then hotel and ultimately you even challenging the Judiciary. You did not leave the matter for the Court to decide did you? Public money not repaid causes the same damage as embezzlement. Ultimately both have to be recovered through lengthy expensive court process.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous/penjor/lBNB Loanee. In my above response to your comment I should have also referred to the use of word donkey in my initial writeup. Kindly understand the term ' donkey ' known as beast of burden was simply used as a metphor to illustrate a point. I had no intention of referring it to any person or personality. Kindly do not take offense on this account. . However if you do feel offended, let me apologise for the misunderstanding. My opinion on the accountability of all parties stand as I have initially stated.
ReplyDeleteDear Wangcha Sangey,
ReplyDeleteIt’s the legality issue, that’s the central point why this matter as of 31, July 2015 had the High Court having issued the verdict while the case was in process, meaning, waiting for the RMA circular for further deliberations and also, waiting for 3 BNB officers at the High Court.
The decision to summon 3 BNB officers at the July 2, 2015 hearing had been issued by the High Court and therefore, the question of not having prima facie evidence which prompted dropping of the summon matter at the last hour after July 29, 2015 was what confused us, the viewers.
If at all, on no prima facie ground, summoning them to the July 2, 2015 was not necessary, why such an order was issued to them in the first place and on them not turning for the same, also, assuring that they would be called?
The July 31, 2015 verdict had been taken while the case was still an ongoing matter that, I think, seems to the client Penjor’s main bone of contention.
The “this and that’ pampering question of the BNB is irrelevant post hotel conversion point. The point that merits our attention is on why even after having converted as a service and tourism project, why it didn’t get that necessary financial support to complete the project till the end like other hotel project?
How would you view this lapse here?
What would have been your answer if the project was left halfway in its incomplete status – for want of a required fund to complete?
What would have been the fate of the public money that you are so concerned about been, if together with the client’s share of money, the bank’s investment also went into the drains and jeopardized in the process?
/
But, that did not happen. Today, we have a finished product that stand as a solid asset both for the bank and the client, that too, a TCB certified a 3 star hotel.
What better investment can a bank expect than this?
Please see the difference between embezzlement OR stealing of public money vis-à-vis a well secured property in hand story and read the “legality issue” loan embargo matter which is still in hold now running almost two years.
Wangcha Sangey, how would you feel if all your projects/businesses are stopped for that long a period on a sheer bully ground and nothing else?
That’s the legality issue, I am talking about!