Topic: My bank account's got robbed by European Commission. Over 700k is lost. - page 51. (Read 408501 times)

That's a good point, but I don't think that's how it works under a deposit insurance scheme. There the state gets all assets first and only then bails out depositors to a limit of E100k. I think deposit insurance is a bad idea, and if you didn't have it, then you'd get the normal bankruptcy process, which works as you described except for the actual deposit insurance at the end. If that procedure had been followed, then small depositors would have received less, and large depositors might have received more. But that's probably not what the law said under the deposit insurance scheme.

Theoretically no, just like most of the things governments do seem to me to be usurpation of citizens' freedoms, but pragmatically, yes.


What makes you even suspect that could be the case? Through what mechanism did the EU cause the Cypriot government to be delinquent in its supervisory duties?

Yes they did ! They did exactly that ! They first asked all depositors to pay for the losses, then they asked 100k+ deposits to pay for the losses.

AFAIU, the proper fail procedure is to use capital to cover the losses. There is a hierarchy of risk at the bottom of which are deposits. Laiki banks fails : high to medium risk capital sources are depleted first. Deposits are then used to fill the remaining hole ; all deposit accounts are depleted of the same percentage, whatever the amount. Then the cyprus state refills any account having fallen below 100k. I think that's the proper way of doing things.
Instead of that, the Troika (ECB+EU+IMF) tries to shove a first plan implementing a x% haircut on all deposits. Remember that the cyprus parliament denied that first plan ! Here they did their job. Then the Troika built a second plan, under which <100k accounts were to be moved to a good bank, and all other accounts were to stay and die. This second plan goes contrary to what had been promised to capital holders, and thus, is theft. Moreover, that second plan was designed to purposefully bypass parliament agreement. In other words, the EU and its two friends made their best to remain deaf to cyprus voice.

On one hand, I agree with you that cyprus made a lot of mistakes to dive in so much trouble (one the mistakes being to join the eurozone), on the other hand, I still want to point that once the crisis had blown out, the EU commited theft and various other lawless and unjust deeds.
To sum it up, in my view, the cyprus gov and the cyprus central bank are high-level thiefs, whereas the EU+IMF+ECB are grandmaster thiefs. Just my opinion.

If it were "handled well," you'd be OK with them stealing your money for it?

Maybe. Maybe it wouldn't even have occurred.

Because I don't think the bail-out was handled well. And I'm also complaining that people are falsely accusing the EU of taking Cypriots' money, when in fact they were taking EU taxpayers' money.


They didn't demand the deposits be forfeited, they simply refused to put any money into the banks they never guaranteed in the first place. If the Cypriot government had been solvent, had exercised proper oversight, or had been prudent enough not to guarantee deposits in untrustworthy banks, then it would have been able to uphold its obligations. It was their insolvency that caused them to do what they did, not the EU. Without the EU, the mess would have been even greater for the Cypriots.

Then why are you complaining about them taking your money? I must say, you're not being very consistent with your position on this.