"Political compensation by fraud" Will Western countries seize Libya's frozen funds?

"Political compensation by fraud" Will Western countries seize Libya's frozen funds? Amidst a Libyan warning against "attempting to seize" frozen state funds abroad, questions are escalating about the amount of Libyan funds frozen by a Security Council resolution, with increasing fears that some Western countries will attempt to seize them and use them in the form of compensation or settlements.  Shocking statistics on what Libya's funds have been frozen abroad since 2011 come as a result of a Libyan warning against "attempting to seize" frozen state funds abroad, according to the Libyan representative to the United Nations before the Security Council.  Libya's delegate, Taher al-Sunni, said before the council a few days ago : "We warn again some countries that are trying to seize and seize Libyan funds and frozen assets of the Libyan Investment Authority."  Al-Sunni added, "The freeze is mainly to preserve and protect Libyan funds, not to loot them and use them for settlements or compensation."  Billions frozen and others in secret bunkers  The percentage of frozen Libyan funds amounted to about 200 billion dollars, according to many data , and it is divided among international banks in varying proportions, and distributed between different foreign currencies (euros - sterling - dollars), assets, bonds and gold.  Statistics indicate that there are about 1.2 billion euros of Libyan funds in the Austrian Central Bank, while Britain froze 19.2 billion dollars, and Canada announced on the first of March 2011 that it froze 2.4 billion dollars, and France 11 billion dollars.  The German Ministry of Economy, in turn, froze 7 billion Libyan euros, and another 8 billion euros were frozen by Italy. Luxembourg also froze about 1 billion euros, while the largest balance in US banks, estimated at 34 billion dollars, was frozen, according to Reuters news agency .  On the other hand, in addition to the frozen funds, the Libyan authorities after 2011 seek to try to recover the smuggled funds as well, as the British newspaper The Independent previously published a report revealing the existence of nearly 200 billion US dollars, in addition to quantities of gold and carats of diamonds owned by the state. The Libyan woman was smuggled to South Africa in 2011.  This smuggled money was stored in "secret caches there", unlike other funds of approximately the same value that were placed in 4 banks in the same country during dozens of flights during the events of 2011 on Libyan soil, according to the same source.  In a related context, a Dutch investigation entitled "Searching for Gaddafi's Billions" revealed how the former Libyan president (who did not trust international banks or bank checks) collected US dollars, which he distributed quantities of when the crisis intensified in Libya to several countries, including South Africa.  The investigation estimates the funds that reached this African country alone at $12.5 billion. It was not Gaddafi's intention - according to those close to him, as the film revealed - to flee with his money outside Libya, but rather he was planning to continue the war against his opponents from abroad if circumstances forced him to leave Libya.  Legal obstacles "The Security Council has the upper hand"  Regarding the Libyan warning against an international attempt to undermine Libya’s frozen funds, Ayman Salama, professor of international law at Cairo University, told TRT Arabic: “The international sanctions and penalties imposed by the Security Council according to relevant resolutions regarding the situation in Libya since the outbreak of the Libyan revolution 2011 are decisions issued by the Council. Under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, a state, whether a relevant state, Libya, or another, cannot act on those decisions.  The professor of international law explained that the Security Council is the only body charged with determining the dispute and the decision to freeze was issued by a study conducted by a committee of experts of the Security Council, and the Council does not wait for communications from countries to lift the freeze or reverse a decision it made, even from the relevant state.  He pointed out that the Council continues to study its decisions, and has absolute freedom to cancel them or amend any paragraph in the decision, and what concerns us here is Paragraph No. 17 concerned with freezing Libyan funds, pointing to Libya’s request to the Security Council more than once to lift the freezing of funds and assets with foreign banks, but it Refusal.  Salama made it clear that the Council has the freedom to refuse to lift the sanctions or continue them, just as it lifted them on Rwanda, but refused to lift them on Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time of the Yugoslav war and beyond.  He added, "Despite the fact that the Libyan unity government was born from the womb of the Security Council agreement under the auspices of the United Nations, and despite the fact that the international community deals with it, it failed in its last effort to lift the freeze on funds and assets."  He continued, "The Security Council has confirmed more than once the guarantee of freezing Libyan assets and funds pursuant to Paragraph 17 of Resolution 1970 of the Security Council of 2011, provided that the disposal of funds is made possible by the Libyan authorities at a later stage."  "Legal circumvention" as a prelude to the takeover?  On the other hand, Hoda Al-Mallah, director of the International Center for Economic Consultations and Economic Feasibility Studies in Egypt, indicated that the countries that froze Libyan assets based on the Security Council’s decision “it is not easy for them to allow the Libyan government to dispose of these funds, especially with the escalation of the global financial crisis.” due to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.  Al-Mallah said, in statements to TRT Arabi, that the funds being frozen "is something that benefits the economy of these countries that acquire them, because the benefits of these funds serve their economy."  She explained that the countries possessing Libya's frozen funds will take all "political" measures that allow these funds to remain frozen for as long as possible, and that they will try to "legally circumvent" control of these funds as "compensations for a number of political issues in which Libya is involved," she said.  Regarding the responsibility of international banks to protect the money of their depositors and not to disclose secrets, Nabil Helmy, a professor of international law, said in statements to TRT Arabi that international rules guarantee that the funds that are placed with banks are “secured.” The state or the bank is subject to accountability, and the rivalry increases if something that violates the covenants occurs due to a political issue or international intransigence.

Amidst a Libyan warning against "attempting to seize" frozen state funds abroad, questions are escalating about the amount of Libyan funds frozen by a Security Council resolution, with increasing fears that some Western countries will attempt to seize them and use them in the form of compensation or settlements.

Shocking statistics on what Libya's funds have been frozen abroad since 2011 come as a result of a Libyan warning against "attempting to seize" frozen state funds abroad, according to the Libyan representative to the United Nations before the Security Council.

Libya's delegate, Taher al-Sunni, said before the council a few days ago : "We warn again some countries that are trying to seize and seize Libyan funds and frozen assets of the Libyan Investment Authority."

Al-Sunni added, "The freeze is mainly to preserve and protect Libyan funds, not to loot them and use them for settlements or compensation."

Billions frozen and others in secret bunkers

The percentage of frozen Libyan funds amounted to about 200 billion dollars, according to many data , and it is divided among international banks in varying proportions, and distributed between different foreign currencies (euros - sterling - dollars), assets, bonds and gold.

Statistics indicate that there are about 1.2 billion euros of Libyan funds in the Austrian Central Bank, while Britain froze 19.2 billion dollars, and Canada announced on the first of March 2011 that it froze 2.4 billion dollars, and France 11 billion dollars.

The German Ministry of Economy, in turn, froze 7 billion Libyan euros, and another 8 billion euros were frozen by Italy. Luxembourg also froze about 1 billion euros, while the largest balance in US banks, estimated at 34 billion dollars, was frozen, according to Reuters news agency .

On the other hand, in addition to the frozen funds, the Libyan authorities after 2011 seek to try to recover the smuggled funds as well, as the British newspaper The Independent previously published a report revealing the existence of nearly 200 billion US dollars, in addition to quantities of gold and carats of diamonds owned by the state. The Libyan woman was smuggled to South Africa in 2011.

This smuggled money was stored in "secret caches there", unlike other funds of approximately the same value that were placed in 4 banks in the same country during dozens of flights during the events of 2011 on Libyan soil, according to the same source.

In a related context, a Dutch investigation entitled "Searching for Gaddafi's Billions" revealed how the former Libyan president (who did not trust international banks or bank checks) collected US dollars, which he distributed quantities of when the crisis intensified in Libya to several countries, including South Africa.

The investigation estimates the funds that reached this African country alone at $12.5 billion. It was not Gaddafi's intention - according to those close to him, as the film revealed - to flee with his money outside Libya, but rather he was planning to continue the war against his opponents from abroad if circumstances forced him to leave Libya.

Legal obstacles "The Security Council has the upper hand"

Regarding the Libyan warning against an international attempt to undermine Libya’s frozen funds, Ayman Salama, professor of international law at Cairo University, told TRT Arabic: “The international sanctions and penalties imposed by the Security Council according to relevant resolutions regarding the situation in Libya since the outbreak of the Libyan revolution 2011 are decisions issued by the Council. Under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, a state, whether a relevant state, Libya, or another, cannot act on those decisions.

The professor of international law explained that the Security Council is the only body charged with determining the dispute and the decision to freeze was issued by a study conducted by a committee of experts of the Security Council, and the Council does not wait for communications from countries to lift the freeze or reverse a decision it made, even from the relevant state.

He pointed out that the Council continues to study its decisions, and has absolute freedom to cancel them or amend any paragraph in the decision, and what concerns us here is Paragraph No. 17 concerned with freezing Libyan funds, pointing to Libya’s request to the Security Council more than once to lift the freezing of funds and assets with foreign banks, but it Refusal.

Salama made it clear that the Council has the freedom to refuse to lift the sanctions or continue them, just as it lifted them on Rwanda, but refused to lift them on Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time of the Yugoslav war and beyond.

He added, "Despite the fact that the Libyan unity government was born from the womb of the Security Council agreement under the auspices of the United Nations, and despite the fact that the international community deals with it, it failed in its last effort to lift the freeze on funds and assets."

He continued, "The Security Council has confirmed more than once the guarantee of freezing Libyan assets and funds pursuant to Paragraph 17 of Resolution 1970 of the Security Council of 2011, provided that the disposal of funds is made possible by the Libyan authorities at a later stage."

"Legal circumvention" as a prelude to the takeover?

On the other hand, Hoda Al-Mallah, director of the International Center for Economic Consultations and Economic Feasibility Studies in Egypt, indicated that the countries that froze Libyan assets based on the Security Council’s decision “it is not easy for them to allow the Libyan government to dispose of these funds, especially with the escalation of the global financial crisis.” due to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

Al-Mallah said, in statements to TRT Arabi, that the funds being frozen "is something that benefits the economy of these countries that acquire them, because the benefits of these funds serve their economy."

She explained that the countries possessing Libya's frozen funds will take all "political" measures that allow these funds to remain frozen for as long as possible, and that they will try to "legally circumvent" control of these funds as "compensations for a number of political issues in which Libya is involved," she said.

Regarding the responsibility of international banks to protect the money of their depositors and not to disclose secrets, Nabil Helmy, a professor of international law, said in statements to TRT Arabi that international rules guarantee that the funds that are placed with banks are “secured.” The state or the bank is subject to accountability, and the rivalry increases if something that violates the covenants occurs due to a political issue or international intransigence.
Previous Post Next Post

Translate / Choose Your Language

Answer / Free classified ads / Any information me ⤵️