Credo banka d.d., Split – the CNB's actions and the reasons behind them

Published: 12/12/2011

After having withdrawn the authorisation of Credo banka d.d., Split, the Croatian National Bank refrained, to the fullest extent possible, from appearing in public and engaging in media controversies, assuming that they may be detrimental rather than beneficial to the public interest, which includes the preservation of the banking system stability under domestic and international circumstances that are far from being easy, and that further dealing with this case should be left to the competent government institutions.

However, arbitrary interpretations of the events and unsubstantiated criticism of the central bank have continued unabated, ignoring even facts and regulations, which are binding to the central bank as they are to all other relevant institutions and individuals. Public attention is being diverted from the chief causes of the difficulties which Credo banka faced, due to the actions of its management and supervisory boards that were contrary to the laws and subordinate legislation in force, as well as to the principles of sound banking operation.

For months before the withdrawal of authorisation, the CNB has, in accordance with its legal tasks and powers, issued warnings and taken measures requesting the responsible bodies of the bank to harmonise the bank's operation with effective regulations and to provide for its stable further operation. Within this, the CNB experts also conducted on-site supervision of the bank, which revealed inaccuracies in the reporting to the central bank, including the failure to report connected persons who were both the users of excessive loans and the bank's owners.

For obvious reasons, the public has not been informed of the central bank's endeavours to preserve and stabilise Credo bank. However, as the desired effect has not been achieved, as evidenced by one of the annexes to this press release, in order to avoid even more adverse consequences, the CNB was left with no choice but to withdraw the authorisation from Credo bank, in accordance with its powers, and to make this publicly known.

It is absurd that the blame for such an outcome and for the entire consequences of the inadequate banking operation is tried to be shifted to the CNB, by ignoring and masking the real reasons for the withdrawal of authorisation from Credo banka, mixing up causes and effects and falsely presenting the responsibilities, duties and procedures in the operation, both before and immediately after withdrawing the authorisation from Credo banka.

Unfortunately, such behaviour is not only characteristic of the persons directly responsible for the manner of operation and operating results of Credo banka, which should not be surprising, given the circumstances, but also of individuals from some other public institutions. Further developments will show whether this is due to ignorance, or whether the public is deliberately misled for some behind-the-scene motives or interests. Additionally worrying is that some media representatives act as some sort of promoters of such participants in the events within and outside Credo banka, without being too concerned about the legal and factual well-foundedness of such accusations, or about the potential adverse consequences of unwarranted sensationalism.

In the light of all this, the CNB considers it its duty to provide the public, which we believe to be interested in the truth and an objective assessment of the actions of all relevant participants in the events related to Credo banka, with a full insight (that is unusually detailed, compared to the normal practice of the CNB and other central banks) into all the relevant indicators, explanations, laws and subordinate legislation which formed factual, legal and professional bases for the CNB decisions.

We believe that the documents attached to this report provide sufficiently clear and solid evidence of the above statements.