"...of Cyprus"

Adrian Vasilescu is persistent.

He keeps presenting us with the "good alternative" of the odyssey of Bank of Cyprus, by telling us that the bank's Romanian branch can't default, because that's what the law says (yes!, even Lenin thought he could abolish the law of value, because he thought it was an actual law, but beneath the chaos he has created in Soviet Union, he was forced to "reinstate it", after two years); and he keeps responding to the articles in the media, claiming that they are presenting opinions from "specialists with reputation, but without any information".

I like seeing someone being persistent against the crowd's opinion (like Boris Vian said: "It's been constantly proven that the individuals are right, and the crowd is wrong"), but being stubborn when it comes to acknowledging the meaning of simple facts, can no longer be called "non-conformism".

Of course, Bank of Cyprus is bankrupt, at home, in Cyprus.

Whether it has been declared in default or not, it is a Leninist question.

But Bank of Cyprus can no longer return the money of the depositors and it can't borrow from the market, to turn itself around, because there is no hope of a turnaround without an outside intervention.

So, it's broke.

Perhaps even worse.

From the moment the idea of recapitalizing the bank using money confiscated from its depositors surfaced, we can no longer speak of "Bank of Cyprus", only "...of Cyprus".

Since we're arguing definitions, then it should be said that making off with the depositors' money does not fit the notion of "bank", because, fundamentally, banks provide services of safeguarding the money and making payments upon the request of the banks' owners.

So, it's just ..."of Cyprus".

And then we have the correct observation of Vasilescu, that, among Romanians, there must have been some careless depositors, who did not pay attention to the legal status of the Romania branch of "of Cyprus", should also be completed with its opposite, that nowhere in the contract does it say that they are giving anybody the right to seize the money in the accounts.

Mr. Vasilescu pays no attention to this "detail".

But, confiscating the money is an abuse.

I use this term, "abuse", because the measure is taken under the protection of the European Union; but if the measure had been taken privately, it would have been merely abject theft (of course the EU doesn't steal, it just perpetrates a great injustice, even though it is making it easier to provide financing for Cyprus, with the purpose of maintaining the integrity of the Eurozone).

Therefore, even if the depositors of "of Cyprus" had read the contract with a microscope, they still wouldn't have been warned that in the event of bankruptcy, they would lose their right over their own money.

Yes, you lose the money, but not your right over it.

Normally this would be a matter for the police.

In closing, Mr. Vasilescu presents the "theory" of the impossibility of the bankruptcy of the Romanian branch of "of Cyprus", by mentioning the law which says that the branch must follow fate of the parent bank.

Well...

Hmm...

What can I say ...

Isn't that the very argument which proves that the branch is bankrupt?!