UN Security Council opposes defrosting Gaddafi's bank accounts

1
The special committee responsible for the proper implementation of sanctions against Libya in the UN Security Council accuses Belgium of violating the sanctions regime. The claims to this European country are that it unlawfully thawed the accounts of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, which were frozen by a United Nations decision.





This was reported on February 28 by the newspaper Soir.

According to the decision of the Committee for the Control of Sanctions against Libya, the unfreezing of accounts for the payment of interest on a deposit is grossly contrary to the sanctions regime. Although this violation was reported on December 17 last year, the Belgian authorities ignored this message. Charles Michel, the interim prime minister of Belgium, did not answer the question of reporters if he knew about the assessment by the UN Security Council of the actions of Brussels.

Vif magazine reported that 16,1 billion euros of Libyan money were posted on the accounts of the Belgian bank Euroclear. Of these, 1,9 billion are stored in cash. It is assumed that the amount of interest payments that were made in favor of the Libyan authorities from the frozen account ranged from 2,5 to 4 billion euros.
  • https://autogear.ru/
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

1 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    1 March 2019 12: 05
    How else? Edition of Ukraine.ru, article from 30.10.2018/XNUMX/XNUMX:

    In Belgium, from several accounts belonging to the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who was killed seven years ago and who were frozen by the decision of the UN Security Council in 2011, 3 to 5 billion euros disappeared. However, as it turned out later, interest and dividends from these assets were not frozen. According to RTBF, since 2012, between 3 and 5 billion euros have been withdrawn from accounts and no one knows exactly who and where. The UN fears that they could go on the purchase of weapons for various groups in the country or other illegal activities (illegal migration, human trafficking)

    The UN understands that in case of "defrosting" someone will have to bear responsibility for theft. And now a rhetorical question - on which state does the UN depend the most? Cui bono? Cui prodest? (from)