Today in a statement issued by The Tibet Fund Chairman clarified about the $1.5 million loan money used in the purchase of the building for Office of Tibet in Washington D.C. back in 2014. The statement says that it is being issued in view of the fact that there has been going a discussion about the loan money in the Tibetan community.
“The Tibet Fund entered into a $1,500,000 loan agreement with the Office of Tibet on March 31, 2014 to facilitate the CTA’s purchase of a building in Washington D.C. The loan is scheduled to be repaid in thirty years. All of the terms concerning the loan were agreed and confirmed in written documents consistent with customary legal practice in New York. At the request of Office of Tibet, the loan was made to the Tibetan Community Development Fund Inc.” said the statement from The Tibet Fund.
“At the time the loan was made, both the Board of Tibet Fund and the CTA hoped and expected that at some point the loan would be forgiven and the full amount would then be deemed outright grant from Tibet Fund to the CTA, although the specific timing of this grant was never discussed or agreed. It was certainly our hope that after some number of years and experience working together, the board would feel that the time right to confer the loan to a grant” quoted the statement, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Tibet Fund to CTA dated July 6, 2017.
The chairmen wrote in the statement that their office is willing to consider forgiving the loan in the future provided that the terms and assurances in the loan documents are honoured by the CTA. It also added that the two offices should show mutual respect and support in their relationship.
The issue of the loan money came out after Sikyong Dr. Lobsang Sangay led Kashag announced the removal of Representative Penpa Tsering from the office of Tibet in United States early last month. The issue was even reported in the office of Auditor General of CTA after the loan amount was no where mentioned in the accounts of the Office of Tibet while the Tibet Fund had carried it as a receivable loan amount in their account.