In one case, G took nearly $2 million between 2005 and 2018, while just over $66,000 in fees were provided for in a handwritten note added to the management contract. In addition, he kept the 300,000 francs in retrocessions that this account had generated. From another client, G took the equivalent of more than 600,000 francs in fees while 47,000 francs were provided for by contract, while keeping nearly 57,000 francs in retrocessions. These plaintiffs, all like him of Turkish origin and often close to his apparently wealthy in-laws, had assets of between 3 and 4 million dollars, according to the – falsified – account statements that G had provided them.
Oral agreement vs. written contract
This is because written contracts were not always authentic, according to G, who saw them above all as documents to be added to the file devoted to the fight against money laundering. His fees were often fixed orally with his clients, but he recognizes that they were undue when they exceeded the agreed values. Was it customary in Türkiye for oral to win? One of the plaintiffs interviewed Tuesday, a businessman who filed a criminal complaint against G in Türkiye, categorically disputes this.
Concerning his largest client, G, on the other hand, estimates that all the management fees he collected were due to him, with the client’s agreement, given that he devoted 30 to 40% of his time to him. A particularly demanding individual, so much so that to respond to his requests, G explains that he began to draw on the accounts of the other complainants. To whom, sometimes in tears, he apologized again, describing having acted “like an automaton, without awareness of the consequences”.
Pressure on income
The ex-manager also blames his mistakes on his lack of professionalism. Everything was going well while he was an employee of Lloyds Bank in Geneva, but once he was self-employed, he was no longer able to manage his business, he says. He received retrocessions for all of his clients but never broke them down between these different business relationships, nor really documented them.
His lack of rigor even served him badly when he charged fees lower than those allocated to him in the contract concluded with a client. And in the background, the assets entrusted to it are declining regularly, and even more rapidly with the Turkish tax amnesty of 2016. From 50 million in 2010, its assets under management fall to 30 million in 2019, which means mechanically less income for G and his company.
Where did the million go?
Of the approximately $10 million he circulated between the plaintiffs’ accounts, a little more than $1 million allegedly benefited him personally. Where did this money go, the court wanted to know? Mortgage, private school fees for his four children, renovations in the family home: nothing extravagant came out of the discussions and nothing remained in his accounts.
The president digs deeper, is surprised that G does not remember withdrawing more than 100,000 francs in cash in a few days at the end of 2015 – “Are you sure you only drive a Volvo?” Until G’s lawyer pulled out the calculator.
The school fees for G’s children alone exceeded one million francs, over more than fifteen years. His boat, for which he had embezzled half a million, cost him more than 900,000 francs including maintenance. The ship has since been sold for a quarter of that sum and G’s wife is covering the household expenses. “Everything went smoothly,” assures G, “because of my inability to work in finance, we never made any lavish expenditures.” The debates continue this Wednesday.
* Name known to the editorial staff
