The PFSA was active in the detriment of three Ursus, Polnord and Polish Apex Bank. NIK submitted a notification

The president of the Supreme Audit Office Marian Banaś submitted a notification of suspected crimes by representatives of the Polish Financial Supervision Authority to the detriment of three Ursus, Polnord and the Polish Apex Bank – NIK informed on Tuesday.

“President of NIK Marian Banaś submitted to the hands of the Minister of Justice and Prosecutor General Waldemar Żurek an extensive notification of suspected crimes by representatives of the Polish Financial Supervision Authority to the detriment of Ursus SA and Polnord SA and Polski Bank Apksowy SA” – the Chamber said on its website.

As explained, the notification concerns “irregularities in supervising the financial market, disclosed during the inspection at the Office of the Polish Financial Supervision Authority.” “The content of the notification also indicates acts that may be hindering NIK's control by employees of the Bank Guarantee Fund,” he added.

The notification was attached to the inspection materials. The Supreme Audit Office was also to express their readiness to cooperate in the clarification of this matter.

At the end of August, the Supreme Audit Office informed, negatively assessed the KNF supervision over four entities, i.e. the Polish Apent Bank, Ursus and Polnord, and on Getin Noble Bank, transformed into Velobank. According to the PFSA, the Chamber incorrectly determined the facts and legal status and applied incorrect conclusions.

The Polish Apent Bank was to be a banking bank for cooperative banks, which is an alternative to existing affiliating banks, i.e. the Spółdzielcza Bankowa Group and the Bank of the Polish Cooperative. In the opinion of NIK, PB encountered problems in the procedure for obtaining permits and licenses. The proceedings in this regard were to be conducted incorrectly or in violation of the provisions, and the UKNF was to receive a request of 56 cooperative banks for permission to create a PBA.

Ultimately, the PFSA refused to issue a permit. According to the NIK, the KNF Office is in the scope of the question limit for the amount of the premium, which PBA should bring to the Bank Guarantee Fund and that the PFSA too late, and unreliably informed the PBA about the premises that may result in failure to expose the permit to start operations.

In the case of Poldrore, the KNF supervision was to be limited to “formal activities” that were to include the assessment of the company's fulfillment of information and reporting obligations. According to the Chamber, supervision did not lead to the systematic analysis of Poldrore financial statements despite the company's annual bad financial results. The NIK stated that in 2019-2021 the Polish Financial Supervision Authority was to receive numerous signals indicating a “bizarre situation in which the company's management board, appointed by the voices of the State Treasury entities, collecting millions of salaries when it generated huge losses.”

Meanwhile – as the Supreme Audit Office added – two years after the entities controlling Polnord – PZU, BGK and PKO BP – concluded an agreement on the sale of the company, the PFS analyzed the reasons for its conclusion and implementation. According to the Supreme Audit Office, financial supervision did not take into account “all aspects, especially regarding the relationship between signatories and subsidiaries who are shareholders of Polnored and the total number of shares and votes at the General Meeting.”

According to the Supreme Audit Office, the UKNF was not to respond and not provide investors with the necessary information. At the same time, the PFSA was to abandon the complaints to the supervisory board of the company, which is to control the management board. According to the Supreme Audit Office, the PFSA authorization was also “unlawful” regarding the withdrawal of Poldrore shares from the stock market, because the agreement was to be issued despite the dispute in court for annulment of the resolution in this matter. “The office, contrary to its own guidelines, did not suspend the proceedings” – emphasized the Supreme Audit Office.

In the scope of Ursus, the Supreme Audit Office pointed out that the Polish Financial Supervision Authority submitted a notification of suspected disclosure and the use of confidential information in trading in the company's shares, but was not to conduct explanatory proceedings. The documents she provided in the KNF notification – in the NIK opinion – were unreliable and did not include people who had access to information on the initiation of bailiff enforcement against Ursus.

Then – as the Supreme Audit Office pointed out – the KNF informed that she had submitted a notification and blocked securities and a cash account, but after discontinuing the proceedings, no relevant information was published in this matter. According to NIK, its lack influenced Ursus's share price, and consequently its bankruptcy and withdrawal of shares in October 2022.

The KNF Office, responding to the results of the NIK inspection, stated that the Chamber “mistakenly assessed the collected evidence, and in some cases misinterpreted the law.” As a result – as reported in the position of the Polish Financial Supervision Authority – on this basis the Supreme Audit Office “incorrectly determined the facts and legal status and made incorrect conclusions.” According to the PFS, the controllers did not assess the evidence “rational” and were to ignore the “significant circumstances” that the UKNF indicated.

Supervision also stated that “NIK once again in its control activities regarding the KNF forcing its own interpretation of the provisions governing the competences of the Commission and sectoral laws regarding the financial market” and that it omits both Polish and European law, as well as “the specificity of this market.” “As a consequence of this, the NIK conclusion is again mixing up the roles and scope of duties belonging to various institutions and state organs: financial supervision, audit, law enforcement agencies and courts” – indicated in the position of the Polish Financial Supervision Authority. (PAP)

JLS/ Mick/