From:

Kristaps Mors

To: Attorney at law Mr.Paulius Čerka

pursuant to the client`s FAST INVEST order

Transmitted via e-mail: info@cerka.lt

Riga, 26.07.2020

In response to claim in respect to blog article dated on 24/01/2020

Having acquainted with Claim in respect to my blog article 1, various aspects indicates either clear
misuse of legal advisers consultations and a weak try to prejudice freedom of speech or legal advisers
lack of knowledge regarding area where consultation is given. Taking into account that FAST INVEST is
represented by an attorney at law, which I assume means a person with at least master’s degree and
a few years’ experience, then last option would seem unreasonable, unless junior lawyer wrote the
Claim.

Regarding Untruthfulness of the facts

For a start, outdated facts are not equal to untruthfulness of the facts and even more are not in any
logical way equal to wrongful acts and distribution of fiction. And I care to explain, in first sentence
under paragraph Untruthfulness of the facts of the Claim You clearly state that “…some of the facts
are now out of date…” and further provide with recent up to date data, afterwards copying Article
1635 of the Latvia’s civil code, which is under Chapter of Obligations and Claims arising from Wrongful
Acts, and Article 157 of the Latvia’s criminal law about distribution of fictions, therefore stretching
argumentation and insults to laws and articles, which clearly does not cover the issue here and are
not applicable in any logical and legal way.

Therefore I would anticipate that FAST INVEST as a peer to peer platform use some more reasonable
means to correct the facts, rather than threatening with Latvia’s civil law and criminal law, which might
result in counterclaim for Defamation, legal and court costs.

FAST INVEST has always a choice and freedom to contact bloggers directly to correct or renew the
facts. Taking into account that for a long period of time FAST INVEST website was not accessible in
Latvia and therefore information called in Claim as public is untrue to some part of “public” like Latvia.
FAST INVEST has never contacted me regarding any of my blog articles and have never given to me its
side of story or facts to correct on opposite to other peer to peer platforms, which are more interested
into transparent and open communication with bloggers who care to explain to its audience real risks
of peer to peer business model.

Information provided within the scope of sensational manner

In situation such as the present one, it is important to educate investors on potential flaws and risks
in peer to peer business model , especially, when peer to peer business is not regulated and not part
of regulated financial sector, at least FAST INVEST for a fact is not as they state in their homepage
“FAST INVEST LTD is a public limited company with Company Registration Number 08338389
registered in England and Wales, United Kingdom with legal address 25 Canada Square, Canary Wharf,
London, England, E14 5LQ. FAST INVEST LTD is not regulated under any financial services license and

1
https://kristapsmors.substack.com/p/fastinvestcom-legitimate-p2p-platform
is an online peer-to-peer platform acting as an intermediary in the sale of claim rights between
investors and loan originators.”. So it is safe to say, that FAST INVEST does not hold any license
regulating its activities, even pawnshops are more regulated than FAST INVEST and yet in Claim it
refers to US practice in financial sector, calling “run of the bank” risk and copying ECHR decisions in
this respect. Quite a mix in legal regulations without any supporting facts and arguments for FAST
INVEST to be adhered to financial sector. It is claimed that I have used existing circumstances led by
my personal incentives to introduce facts in sensational manner. Please note, that if we take logic in
this Claim, then any unregulated business could use “run of the bank” as excuse to undermine the
fact, that probably there are bigger issues with the business than a bloggers article.

Failure to comply with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements

Pursuant to GDPR Article 85 states that:

“1. Member States shall by law reconcile the right to the protection of personal data pursuant to this
Regulation with the right to freedom of expression and information, including processing for
journalistic purposes and the purposes of academic, artistic or literary expression.”

And according to Latvian Personal Data Processing Law and in particular Article 32 a person has the
right to process data for the journalistic purposes, if this is done with the aim of publishing information
for reasons of public interest and further states that when processing data for journalistic purposes,
provisions of the GDPR shall not be applied if data processing is conducted to exercise rights to
freedom of expression and information by respecting the right of a person to private life, and it does
not affect interests of a data subject which require protection and override the public interest; and
data processing is conducted for the purpose of publishing information for reasons of public interest;
and compliance with the provisions of the GDPR is incompatible with or prevents the exercise of the
rights to freedom of expression and information. Where the said conditions are met and logically
understandable and applicable.

Also for educational purposes please note, that Article 13 and Article 14 does not provide FAST INVEST
any rights as data subject to request any controllers or processors compliance with GDPR, as both
Articles are under Chapter III Rights of data subject and further to Your knowledge please note, that
data subject can only be an identified or identifiable natural person, pursuant Article 4 of the GDPR.

Final considerations

The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable me, with the help of legal advisers consulted,
conclude that Claim is not legally and logically enforceable and is written in emotional and not rational
way.

For this reason at the moment I am collecting data to calculate pecuniary damages made due to the
fact, that I had to consult top legal advisers in field of civil law, criminal law, GDPR, USA law and EU
law, invest time and money to reply to Your claim in unreasonable 7 days and actions to be taken, if
further escalated.

Having regards to aforementioned and to stop further damages, thus I hope for cooperation and
therefore request the following:

1. Withdraw unreasonable and legally not enforceable Claim;

2. To contact me directly and/or agree on meeting/call time, if FAST INVEST wishes to express
its part of the “story” and correct data in blog posts about it.
Please provide information within 7 days; otherwise I will be forced to lodge a civil counterclaim
and to take necessary legal steps in order to initiate criminal proceeding in respect of Defamation.

Kristaps Mors