Thread by @AzarsTweets

1/ I appreciate the Minister being keen on the forensic audit, but I'm afraid she's making the same mistake that got us to this point: not anticipating the next step. Remember, they have an incentive to convince you that the audit was set up correctly...they set it up after all.

https://twitter.com/MarieClaudeNajm/status/1327558075981701120

2/ Claiming that banking secrecy & the Code of Money and Credit are *not* obstacles to a forensic audit designed to uncover how deposits were used & BDL losses incurred is simply not convincing. To do this work, you need to track transactions all the way to the final beneficiary.

3/ Read the excerpts from the laws below and tell me if you don't think these laws would hinder that work. A transaction may look legit on the BDL end. You'd need to track it to its final destination to know if the funds were used as intended. You need client transaction data.

4/ And client transaction data (for banks as institutions and for individuals) is protected by banking secrecy and the CoMC.

I don't appreciate how the Minister and the Dept of Legislation & Consultation are white-washing their mistakes, which were described in previous threads.

5/ We know from the Forbes leak, BDL hide behind the Code of Money & Credit to avoid answering many questions *unrelated* to client information. So yes, banking secrecy/CoMC don't need to be lifted to answer these questions (sample below), but it is needed for OTHER questions...

5/ ...including follow-up questions that I am sure A&M will be asking at a later date if it wants to do its work properly. Without tracking transactions to the final beneficiary, I'm afraid we will not learn as much as was promised..

The Minister is completely ignoring this.

6/ Why is she ignoring it? I don't know. But it's the same mistake they made before the contract was signed. There is an attempt to limit the audit strictly inside BDL, but this will only give us half the picture. You can speculate about why this is what they're doing.

7/ There has also been much talk about whether govt accounts are subject to banking secrecy & that this question is obstructing the work. I didn't see any questions in the Forbes leak of A&M Q's that are related to government/ministry accounts. See below.

on.forbesmiddleeast.com/yip

8/ So what exactly are we talking about here? Which questions related to govt accounts did BDL not answer? I don't see any. Are we conflating BDL accounts & govt accounts? They are different. This seems to be the case unless there are more A&M questions which haven't been leaked.

9/ The Beirut Bar Association even put out a statement that there is no banking secrecy on govt accounts and, therefore, the audit can continue. But again, I don't see any questions in the Forbes leak about govt accounts nor how this is the main issue.

https://twitter.com/MelhemKhalaf/status/1326946727207837696

10/ The issue is about banking secrecy applying to client account info PLUS BDL non-cooperation in general. BDL will not cooperate or they will spin and mislead the auditors so long as the auditor doesn't have complete access and relies on BDL management as middlemen.

11/ Actually, most of A&M's questions are very high level and shows that they are likely not working with any whistleblowers. They missed too many questions because they don't really know where to look. Again, they didn't ask any questions about govt/ministry accounts.

12/ Putting that aside, it's a ridiculous to suggest govt accounts are subject to banking secrecy, for many reasons, but also b/c the govt tasked A&M with reviewing govt accounts at BDL, effectively agreeing to give A&M access to its accounts (it's in the contract).

13/ Anyway, BDL did not respond to questions that are not protected by bank secrecy/CoMC, but that doesn't mean a proper forensic audit doesn't require lifting or suspension of these laws so A&M can do what the govt promised: uncover wrongdoing & figure out who benefited from FE.

14/ The only way I think the forensic audit will be done properly is 👇. I wish we would be focusing on these.

https://twitter.com/AzarsTweets/status/1323311579681751040?s=20

15/ The Minister is right to keep pushing for the audit, but she's also white-washing her role in not anticipating these issues by focusing on BDL's misuse of the CoMC/bank secrecy in some instances, while ignoring that other data is legitimately protected by the law.

16/ And this issue of banking secrecy applying to govt accounts is a huge distraction. The govt (and law) determines who has access to govt account info. The govt signed off on an audit of its accounts at BDL. Period. The govt can give this info to A&M directly, doesn't need BDL.

17/ Unless we are conflating government account with BDL account. In that case, BDL's cooperation was always voluntary. This was a fatal flaw in the contract which we pointed out before. Lifting banking secrecy won't change this fact. BDL needs to be compelled to cooperate.

18/ So long as BDL is acting as a middleman, there will be no cooperation with A&M regardless of what laws are passed, unless the laws give A&M and an independent law enforcement agency the right to get the information directly without relying on BDL management cooperation.

19/ And remember, many insiders are jumping on the bandwagon saying "Govt accounts should be audited too!" Yes, I agree, but beware that many of these same people will quickly drop the demand for a govt audit if the BDL audit goes away. That's the difference. They are bad actors.

20/ The forensic audit is needed because: 1/ We deserve to know what happened with all our money, 2/ We need detailed numbers to design the financial rescue plan, and 3/ It's a forward looking audit that is designed to review processes at BDL to ensure this doesn't happen again.

21/ Attaching this here for the record:

https://twitter.com/AzarsTweets/status/1321854866755588096