there is more here than meets the eye

Picture me, shareholder of Charterhouse Bank. Some government and CBK big shots owe me big favours big time. The bank owns some prime properties which cannot be disposed of as they are in the bank's name. The bank cannot do business because statutory managers have been appointed so my investment is not making me any money.

So I call in my favours from the CBK and government bigshots. Tell them to remove the statutory manager for a period long enough to allow me to sell the prime property! After a public uproar, allow the statutory manager to come back! And all is well!

Which prime property! Obvious, isn't it?

I have read the pwc report in the star today but I couldn't wonder if the newspaper was paid by either CBK,US ambassador or Mullei the reason for saying this is.

1.The report was inconclusive in that it only recommended central bank investigate certain accounts which lacked supporting documents.

2.How do you shut a bank and then expect full cooperation from the affected parties.When you shut a bank you must have concrete evidence not hunches.

3.At least every bank launders money in one way or another or where do you think the culprit who were using charter house bank have been for the last 4 years.Chase bank which received the 2B suspected to be laundered money was never closed in 2002.The bank that received 67 million for sonkos campaign was never closed.

4.The only way CBK can tackle money laundering is by being proactive and collaborating with KRA and ministry of lands. laundering money through banks now a days is risky so most people use forex bureau or the unregulated property market where money exchange hand without the need of a bank.

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS WE NEED TO ASK OURSELVES ABOUT CHARTWERHOUSE SAGA
1. Why are government bodies denying that there was wrongdoing in charterhouse bank?
Was it because it was closed maliciously or because they fabricated reasons for its closure?

2. The documents released in Parliament indicating that Charterhouse was a money-laundering machine didn’t have all the facts in that the same is being refuted and cant be established beyond reasonable doubt. Was someone maliciously flouting that fake information there for selfish reasons?
3. Why does CBK believe it will loose court battles if it does not reopen charterhouse bank?

4. Could CBK be admitting unfair closure of charterhouse bank because it was coerced by finance ministry in 2006?

5. Could there be people in the government and probably other banks who are against the opening of Charter house?

6. "We are puzzled because every government institution that has appeared before us claims to have no issue with the bank per se but with the customers", said parliamentary Finance committee chairman Chris Okemo. What does this statement tell you?

7. Why is American ambassador Michael Ranneberger so focused on making sure the bank is not reopened? Do the American Government have a sour relationship with someone in particular or some people?

JUST THINKING, DON’T SHOOT THE MESSANGER

the reason why some guys like kina Mwau go to parliament is not to help their constituents...this is the reason. to protect their interests. its easier fighting from parliamnent...all of a sudden no one wants to be associated or touch this bank. Powerful guys r behind it and they have financial muscle!

The courts did give the go Ahead long time ago.The report by PWC wanted Individual accounts investigated not the bank...the banks books are clean but the accounts of certain individual are not...thats why @intel I said the bank that received the 67million thru sonkos account was not shut.... but sonkos account was frozen.Thats what CBK was supposed to do ,Freeze the suspicious accounts and conduct investigation instead of shutting a liquid Bank.