According to one of the former regulatory officials. The absence of law does not justify non-compliance, “because the motive must be moral, especially on the part of bank heads who are supposed to rescue their banks and recover a little of their face.” It must be clarified that «the restoration of the 30% does not mean returning deposits in dollars to their owners, but rather improving the condition of the banks a little». Therefore, the same source considers that the commitment “is required by this condition and must be the prelude to the major obligations required of banks,” but it is corrected for a “defect” in the generalization. If the Banque du Liban “considers the transfer of funds as a wrong act that must be corrected, why should the 30% be set?” Why were they not required to recover the full sums transferred during this period? To read the full article, press Here.
Lea Azzi wrote in “Al Akhbar”: “The main challenge facing the Banque du Liban, and the rest of the supervisory authorities, is not making sure that banks’ capital increases by 20% or securing liquidity by 3%, but rather their commitment to the condition of returning 30% of the value of funds transferred by bank owners and senior employees. Failure to respond means bank owners ’recognition of their bankruptcy, and they are required to be prosecuted under the Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Law.