GLOBAL SUB-PRIME CRISIS

BANKILEAKS

Click on our Secret Library of Evidence ------>

    BANKILEAKS Secret Library

Loan Application Forms (LAF's)  

    Bank Emails to Brokers  

    Then Click on 'VIEW NOTEBOOK'

Join us on facebook
 

facebook3           facebook2 

BFCSA
MORTGAGE
DISTRESS SOS

What BFCSA Does...

BFCSA investigates fraud involving lenders, spruikers and financial planners worldwide.  Full Doc, Low Doc, No Doc loans, Lines of Credit and Buffer loans appear to be normal profit making financial products, however, these loans are set to implode within seven years.  For the past two decades, Ms Brailey, President of BFCSA (Inc), has been a tireless campaigner, championing the cause of older and low income people around the Globe who have fallen victim to banking and finance scams.  She has found that people of all ages are being targeted by Bankers offering faulty lending products. BFCSA warn that anyone who has signed up for one of these financial products, is in grave danger of losing their home.

Visitors

Articles View Hits
657243

Whistleblowers' Corner!

To all mortgage brokers, BDMs and loan approval officers! 
Pls Call Denise: 0401 642 344 

"Confidentiality is assured."

Cartoon Corner

Lighten your load today and "Laugh all the way to the bank!"

Denise Brailey

Led by award-winning consumer advocate Denise Brailey, BFCSA (Inc) are a group of people who are concerned about the appalling growth of Loan Fraud around the world. BFCSA (Inc) is a not for profit organisation in the spirit of global community concern and justice.

Click on the Cluster Map.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Login
    Login Login form

BFCSA: Al Capone used Protection Rackets. Aussie Banks Use LAFs and Caclulators

Posted by on in Corruption Exposed
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 2804
  • 7 Comments
  • Print

The elusive Loan Application Forms, commonly known as 'LAFs' were often altered by bank staff.  Brokers had no idea this was and still is a work in progress.  Australian Securities and Investment Commission ("ASIC") is trying to say "that was under old laws."  Rubbish!  Its all smoke and mirrors and the public are being taken to the cleaners under the NEW NCCP laws.  Seven Year life threatening Loans dressed up as "we will help you" 30 year loans.  Riddled with debt, the mortgage victims have no way out.  Welcome to Low Doc Sub Prime Mortgages, Australian Style.   Naive trusting citizens including hard working families, unemployed, disabled, even war veterans and pensioners, signed up for a 30 year loan product that implodes in seven years - just like credit cards.    Boom!   Just ask our Aussie Farmers.  Banks will then move in and feed off whatever is left of the carcass.    

Since when did faulty manufacturers get away with scams of this magnitude?  30 Lenders acting as a Cartel?  of course they are.  All selling the same financial strategy? Yes indeedy.  But hang on to your deeds; aren't Brokers taught by Bank Officers who invade the Broker lunch hour for training sessions?  Of course they do.  Are BDM's (Bank Officers) signing up LAFs for the Brokers? Yes of course they are says bank officer: "love some apps....any more to do?"   "We can do the apps whilst we keep you on the road earning more lovely commissions for us."  

Bank Execs have created wonderful Rivers of Dollars flowing downstream for all participants in the looting spree. Check the number of hand-writing samples on your LAF.  The usual three or more?

BFCSA have been busy teaching members to ring the banks and ask for their copy of the LAF.   There is a knack to achieving this.  RHG lawyer said in one letter: "customers could receive a copy if they asked for one..."  Nice one Kaz!  What about Contract Law....entitled to a copy - signature present?   The whole idea of receiving a copy of something you signed (as a statutory requirement) was to PROTECT CONSUMERS from thieving bankers who may alter the document after you signed and without your knowledge or consent.   Like increasing your income figures by $200,000......you wish!     After years of banging on the bank doors to recover this mysterious LAF, ANZ has led the way and CBA closely followed with latest line: LAFs are missing, unable to locate and ,after banks all on song, told Aussie and other originators and brokers to "shred the LAF originals held by the Brokers."

Al Capone would be LAFFING all the way!  No matter what the Broker of Credit Assessor wrote down as income (as instructed by higher up) the banks had a duty to only approve PRUDENT LOANS.....the real issue at stake here.  Had all these loans been rejected as a prudent banker would have, there would be no suggestion of sub-prime activity.  It seems there are no Prudent bankers?  Competition forced all to follow the same Model of Deceit?   

But wait....there's more....these were no isolated incidents: These were systemic issues, surely?

Yet ASIC, APRA, AOFM, RBA, Treasury all told Parliament in August last year: "We have seen no systemic issues in banking."  Really Boys?????  So why so serious about not handing over the LAFs and the SERVICE CALCULATORS?   What is there to hide?  All loans were prudent?  You, the licence regulators, permitted brokers to sell a "financial strategy" to customers of the bank?   But ASIC KNOWS Brokers need a licence to offer financial advise.  How does that work?  Oh I see....you permitted brokers to continue to sell these strategies to help out your Bank Buddies in their plot to grow into the TOO BIG TO FAIL zone?   But ASIC approves the licences...................ah I get it:  You all look the other way - all on song!  "We are happy little Bankermites as bright as bright can be!"        Well that makes sense.....ASIC also look the other way at Banks creating Jumbo Loans for pensioners - no limits.  Yet ASIC set the limit of claim against all of our banker rogues at <$280,000.  Which ASIC Moron approved that gem?  

Al Capone's Protection Rackets pale into insignificance on this lot.  

Why is ASIC failing consumers so miserably?  Well we need a Royal Commission for that Granddaddy of a question.   For the sake of FAIRNESS, ASIC should immediately raise the EDR compensation limits to "unlimited" status to match the bankers "unlimited Jumbo loans."  

ASIC protecting consumers?  That's a bit of an oxymoron.  ASIC of course is protecting the Banks......rivers of dollars flowing from the top down.......everyone gets paid.

By now the shredding machines must be whirring long after midnight in the Bankster Towers, built upon foundations of misery and wrecked lives.  The Bank Credit Assessors, under banker orders to "pump up the volume", were tweaking the LAFs after the fax was sent from Broker to Bank.  The Bank CA calculator was set at 1.1 x and the innocent brokers use the same bank calculator set at 1.47x (we have copies).  Neither CA or Broker knew the set up. Bank executives on the top level dreamed up this scam and its very ugly indeed!  ASIC, FOS and COSL were the Bank Protectors.  In other industries and in Al Capone's time it was known as a "Protection Racket!"  

The core responsibilities of ASIC and APRA as the sister "Twin Peak Model" which the UK shunned, are: Financial Products and Services, Financial Market Confidence and Consumer Protection.   If ASIC truly looked into a mirror it would see:  faulty and fraudulent financial products flooded with forgery, zero confidence in the product manufacturers - the Banking sector as The Engineers and, the Broker Channel to provide the Banks with people to be fed as cannon fodder to the greedy and highly corrupted banking system.  

Then ASIC displays zero tolerance to whinging consumers about to lose their only asset: their homes.

Yes a bit of a rant I admit, but documents do not lie.  Only regulators and banks lie.  Stan Wallis Inquiry 1996 revealed a critique by Phil Hanratty where it had been suggested that the new (ASIC) regulator may be accused of a conflict of interest in serving two masters:  banks/financial products and services and customers.  Perhaps we should have all understood the foreseen outcome: regulators serving the bankmasters of the universe and permitting the bank officers to run amok, driving army tanks over the homes and lives of ordinary innocent Mums and Dads.

One could be forgiven for criticising ASIC when grass roots groups have to call out from under the rubble.   Consumer Protection needs to be taken out of the hands of the hopelessly conflicted, possibly corrupted and compromised ASIC.  

The Federal Government should immediately agree to a Royal Commission into the Banking Sector - wide Terms of Reference to include lawyers, liquidators, accountants and every other person on the payroll.  The Federal Government should immediately agree to set up a Consumer Protection Agency that is dedicated to Consumer Protection and not a Bankster in  sight of the fortress.

Until those important tasks are fully funded and underway, expect the sub-prime lending rackets to continue and expand.   

Al Capone is whispering: full steam ahead boys.  Grab the rivers of dollars whilst you still have protection!  Everyone gets paid and everyone's happy. Who cares about the dumb punters?      BFCSA does!    This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

Last modified on
Rate this blog entry:

Comments

  • Denise
    Denise Wednesday, 29 May 2013

    ASIC Chairman should be singing: "yes I'm the great pretender!" If an unaffordable loan is approved by any bank or lender its an IMPRUDENT LEND. Its asset lending: Maladministration in Lending times 200,000 families and no systemic issues? Still in the denial stage Greg? Of course you are. [email protected]

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Thursday, 30 May 2013

    Good one, Denise. I've been wondering whether the govt/future govt aim was to get the Banksters on tax fraud, like the famous Gangsters.
    Even without the LAF the borrower's actual figures can show whether the loan was affordable or not.
    I'm taking the attitude that if the Bank won't ("can't") supply the legal documents of the loan then they have something to hide e.g. forged signatures, unauthorised changed figures, etc.
    If FOS refuse to get those documents then they are failing in their impartial duty of care in their role as Ombudsman.
    Who audits FOS, COSL, ASIC? Who audits the auditors? Compliance gaps all over the regulatory system resulting in malpractices.
    ASICs bias is so obvious it's obscene. When are the Opposition going to shine a few lights on this bureaucratic lemon which is the embodiment of government funded empire building and gross, blatant and long term conflict of interest? It amazes me that politicians have to have this pointed out to them. And it's still going on!
    I'm of the firm opinion that a deal was struck between the government and the Australian lending community when the "new laws" were being formulated and the EDR system that we have now in its genesis. This deal included the restriction to the amount payable to borrowers. Restricting the amount payable, which is the borrower's actual money, is unlawful. The EDR handling of the concept of "no one can profit from fraud" is a farce, unlawful and unethical. The borrower certainly does not profit from the lender fraud, when all losses and personal damages suffered by the borrower are taken into consideration. Plus the lender, through their shareholder relationships with the arms length companies (originator, manager, SPV, credit provider) derives considerable profit from the lending contract in a variety of ways, not all of which are lawful. This includes offering the loan risk for HYIP investment, where the product offered may not be correctly categorised as there was insufficient supervision and auditing. Thus every cent paid by the borrower must be returned to the borrower where imprudent lending or fraud are proven.
    Of course ASIC and co can't see systemic issues - they look at one loan at a time so they ensure they can't see systemic issues. They lack the capacity and the will to see systemic issues as they are looking for the differences not the similarities. ASIC will need the systemic issues spelt out to them - they are blinkered by their egos and their fear of the consequences of being caught out or just plain wrong.
    The entire system is fraught with conflicts of interest, rorting at the expense of the borrowers, preserving the sacred Banking system through the sacrificing of borrowers, their families, farmers, their livelihoods and whole communities. When the large list of names of the deceased, the still breathing casualties and the total financial losses are listed for the Royal Commission the Australian public may then understand why we who are old enough to have witnessed so much of this destruction over the many years of banking misconduct are continuing to bring this serious and complex matter to their attention.
    It's not just about our homes, our loans, our families and our departed loved ones. It is a matter of principal and it is in the actual public interest to get all the secret deals, the psychopathic conduct and the dreadful consequences out on the table and to ensure that the Banks are made to do what ever can be done to compensate the victims appropriately. The ASIC/FOS/COSL games about "jurisdiction" are as ridiculous as they are insulting. How dare they call what they do "justice".
    Frankly if I were Greg Medcraft I'd be too embarrassed to take home my pay each week. I can only conclude that he's so distant and disinterested in the well being of individuals that it makes no difference to him. Just like the Banksters. Proof of the old saying: sleep with dogs for long enough you'll get fleas.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Friday, 31 May 2013

    Anti‑Money Laundering and Counter‑Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (AMLCTF Act):- "The principles of agency" ~ Identification procedures:

    Capone would enjoy Aust."Anti‑Money Laundering Act"[AMCTF] sham reporting regime thru 'FSP authorised-agents' who knowingly contravene procedures relied upon by the FSP, who in turn creates new "Customer Loan Accounts" --

    in my instance, no ID docs were ever sighted -- nor copies obtained -- by the nominated FSP Agent[checking officer] - he simply "ticked the box" & furnished "100 Point ID Form" -- without supporting docs (none sought) -- in fact every box -- bar none, ticked by the FSP "agent" on the LAF cover page -- was knowingly falsely asserted to be satisfied, and the only doc provided was the falsified FAXED Laf -- which, in any event, didn't comply as it's "original" was required (as stated on Laf) to be furnished directly to the FSP and "prior to instructing (FSP's) solicitors -- which never occurred.

    *Notably: --referring to the Act, the reporting entity(FSP) "must not continue to provide", [and/or "must not commence to provide"], any designated services to the customer until the reporting entity "carries out the applicable customer identification procedure" in respect of the customer.

    Since, no due diligence was carried out in accordance with the Act lawfully at the time -- i believe the FSP is now obligated to terminate/extinguish the Loan A/c "effective immediately" ---as the Loan A/c was established "knowingly contravening the AMLCTF Act", --As such, was "ineffective from the time it was made" --and I am not willing to supply retrospectively the necessary docs to now satisfy the FSP's full obligations owed by it under the Act, at the time of creation of the Loan A/c(s)

    http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2012C00375/Html/Text#_Toc321138506.

    Division 4—Identification procedures etc.
    32 Carrying out the applicable customer identification procedure before the commencement of the provision of a designated service.
    (1) A reporting entity must not commence to provide a designated service to a customer if:
    (a) there are no special circumstances that justify carrying out the applicable customer identification procedure in respect of the customer after the commencement of the provision of the service (see section 33); and
    (b) the reporting entity has not previously carried out the applicable customer identification procedure in respect of the customer; and
    (c) neither section 28 nor section 30 applies to the provision of the service.

    Division 7—General provisions
    37 Applicable customer identification procedures may be carried out by an agent of a reporting entity
    (1) The principles of agency apply in relation to the carrying out by a reporting entity of an applicable customer identification procedure or an identity verification procedure.
    (2) For example, a reporting entity may authorise another person to be its agent for the purposes of carrying out applicable customer identification procedures or identity verification procedures on the reporting entity’s behalf.
    (3) To avoid doubt, if a reporting entity provides a designated service to a customer through an agent of the reporting entity, the reporting entity may authorise:
    (a) that agent; or
    (b) any other person;
    to be its agent for the purposes of carrying out the applicable customer identification procedure or an identity verification procedure in respect of the customer on the reporting entity’s behalf.
    (4) This section does not otherwise limit the operation of the principles of agency for the purposes of this Act.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Saturday, 01 June 2013

    Credit Provider License

    Another point, Andy.
    Have you checked the Credit Provider license number?
    Is the holder of the license the same entity as the "lender" on your contract?
    Does your lender have a credit provider license?
    Are credit provider license holders required to display this information on all their correspondence, promotional literature, website, advertising?
    Are there any other areas of non-compliance wrt CPLs where your lender has stuffed up?
    I had to hunt for the information on mine - no sign anywhere of any of them having a CPL according to Wayback machine and ASIC records. Could have been held by their managing director or maybe the SPV. An old law loan creating lots of headaches for all involved.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Friday, 31 May 2013

    Time to stop hanging out the "welcome" sign for international criminals - Game's up!

    A regulator that pretends to regulate and protect is infinitely more dangerous to non-criminals like us than having no regulator at all.
    In 2011 respected writers around the world were trumpeting Australia's excellent regulatory system on Facebook. It's more like a regulatory framework - there on the plan but not there in reality. Why have the government permitted this fraudulent regulation to persist? Did ASIC simply refuse to work the way they were supposed to?
    I've just browsed the SMH reports on the doings at ASIC during May and come to the conclusion that ASIC management has lost the plot completely. It's beyond comprehension how they could be so incompetent and imprudent. Time for a complete overhaul of our entire regulatory collection - they're about as useful as a flock of china ducks on a wall. ASIC can't deal with a real problem company until it's as dead as a pinned moth and ready for dissection. To make it easier they sometimes kill off the company as well. Too bad for creditors wanting to get their cases through FOS, only to find they're redirected to a liquidator who doesn't want to know about their claims.
    Sorry ASIC - there's a limit to what Aussies will put up with from excessively well paid ambitious bureaucrats, especially when they realise they've been completely conned and ripped off by ASIC misinformation and lost their super/retirement money/home/business to some scammer FSP.
    End of the ASIC road?

  • Denise
    Denise Friday, 31 May 2013

    I agree Lisa: "Time for a complete overhaul of our entire regulatory collection - they're about as useful as a flock of china ducks on a wall. ASIC can't deal with a real problem company until it's as dead as a pinned moth and ready for dissection." The fact is Consumers are far better off with no regulation and a notice on ASIC's buildings saying: "we protect banks....consumers are on their own."

  • Jetfighter
    Jetfighter Monday, 08 September 2014

    It is past time, these banksters need to be apprehended now. Where is Elliot Ness?

Leave your comment

Guest Thursday, 12 December 2019