Now he has to find a new bank – lost in court – news Møre og Romsdal – Local news, TV and radio

The dispute between the company Eirawater and the local bank Romsdal Sparebank has lasted for several years. Eirawater has a wealthy main shareholder from Saudi Arabia, and it is his money that has caused the trouble. The bank claims they do not know where his money comes from, and has refused to have the company as a customer. The bank has now been acquitted on all counts following the trial in Møre og Romsdal district court earlier this autumn. – Although we have always believed that we had a good case and that our assessments were correct, it is good to have it confirmed by the court, says managing director of the bank Odd Kjetil Sørgaard to news. The bank has been awarded over NOK 3 million in damages and legal costs. Managing bank director Odd Kjetil Sørgaard is satisfied with the verdict. Photo: Roar Strøm / news I think the company has done what it is supposed to The Saudi Arabian main shareholder Mohammed Al Othman casts his eye on the local company Eirawater in 2016. He, who has built up a business empire in the Middle East in a short time, has also become the main shareholder in the company that exclusively produces bottled water in Romsdal. Over the past six years, Othman has injected NOK 148 million. The company’s lawyer, Roger Sporsheim, believes they have done everything they can to document where the money comes from. But the Møre and Romsdal district court states that it is not enough. news has not been able to get a comment from him that they have now lost, after taking the bank to court. May be important for many The decision in court may have a lot to say for other banks and financial institutions. After the Money Laundering Act was introduced in 2018, they must carefully examine where the customers got their money from. In recent years, a number of banks have received fees in the millions because they have not done enough. This time one of the customers, Eirawater, thought that the bank had gone too far. They have not been supported in that. The judgment is not legally binding and the deadline for appealing expires in one month.



ttn-69