Considering the present state of the banking business, I think that now is the right moment to say that political influence should be minimised. When banks finance local sports clubs or sports halls without good economic reasons, this may be described as political interference. It is great if such projects are profitable and loans can be repaid, but in many instances this has not been the case. Political interference also takes place when banks approve loans primarily intended for the payment of salaries to workers who would otherwise go on strike. I think it is very dangerous to buy social peace and popular approval through the banks.
Banks are institutions that do business with other people's money.
If politics influences decision-making in banks, someone always has to pay the bill eventually. If you have Dubrova ka Banka in mind, this is very difficult to determine. Until the court has said its say, I would leave aside the question of the alleged criminal activity. Dubrova ka Banka undoubtedly financed a number of hotels which could not repay their loans for years because there were no tourists, and this was a way of buying social peace. We can openly and clearly say that this is the political aspect of the story.