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 


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.


Articles View Hits

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: ASIC has the Evidence. Now it has to Investigate Bankster Fraud

Posted by on in BANKSTERS
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 1776
  • Print

My dear Captain Haddock.  At BFCSA we have no secrets but here is a small one for you:  I had a very informative meeting with ASIC hierarchy and lawyer in early February.  Prior to that meeting,  I spent three months going through a massive amount of emails (hard copy) at my expense and time, to highlight the most diabolical instructions from bank business managers to brokers.  I then had to copy and PDF the documents and sanitise them to protect the brokers from being the scapegoats. 

BDM's from over 20 lenders, including the major banks regularly communicated by either blanket emails to 20,000 broker channel members, or they actually chatted in conversations to their broker teams via email.  I was given 1000's of these.  In reading these documents and observing the nature of the marketing and the instrcutions given, one can only be advised that a wholesale looting was taking place with Brokers simply asking questions directly to BDMs for individual cases and being coerced and taught how to use "ZIPPY."  Brokers did not realise the higher income figures generated by the banks' computers, and which they were taught to write on the Loan Application Form after they came back to the office to do the math fort he client, were in fact an elaborate Bankster scheme to have the brokers take the blame for exaggerated income figures. 

Brokers have said they did not know this was illegal as it was the bank's system.  Bank Managers saide "our lawyers have been oevr this with fine tooth comb."  In some cases BDM's were asssiting brokers in the offices and writing up applications for the brokers to "pump up volume."   More on that another day.  The point to you is this.  I do not believe I am as you said "whinging."   I thought I was trying to report a massive and obvious fraud to Parliament.  At least the Senators appreciated my efforts and so do the victims. 

Of course I have the evidence including copies of 1000 people's files!  How many truck loads do you require?  Do you really think i would have lied to Parliament: a jailable offence?  Do you really belive I made all this up, that I manufactured evidence, that I forged the signatures, that I assisted credit assessors with their handwriting to exaggertae incomes?  $100 bllion worth of loans?  Gosh I must have been busy!

The emails prove it was not the brokers who genberated the fraud and ASIC admit the Bankers were the engineers.  The banks in a cartel model created a monstrous and wonderfully engineered Low Doc Sub Prime scam that even ASIC failed to detect. 

If you believe I have not delivered the evidence, then you Sir, were in the room when I met with ASIC, meaning you work for ASIC.  You would therefore know I delivered the goods.  Perhaps ASIC is gearing up to say we have been through the 200 plus bundle and there is nothing there?  Yes we are waiting for that one and will be releasing all documents publicly for everyone to be the judge. 

If you were not there, then you have once again no idea what you are talking about.  Perhaps one day you will thank me for exposing the scandal, as you may have friends and rellies who have been quietly caught and suffering.  If you are truly an insider you would have warned your family, as I did years ago:  "do not have a bar of LOW DOC LOANS - THEY ARE A  MASSIVE BANKING RORT."    As Joe Hockey stated publicly: "I wouldn't trust the non bank lenders."  Joe, if I were you I would't trust the Major Banks and Lenders either.  Has anyone ever heard of Banksters saying "we're sorry!"  Not that I have ever heard ASIC say those words.

I guess a cover-up is as good a reason for a Royal Commission.  If you have nothing to hide then why not agree with us on the need for one.  Do you really think I asked 1000 people to fudge their own documents?  The Loan Applications prove the fraud and the three different sets fo hand-writing means there was a "Mr Nobody" in the room after the bank received the FAX.  Oh dear.  And why would recdit assessors do this?  Same reason they were taught to alter the LAFs if the deal "doesn't fit servicing."  That in law they could do this to assist the bank customers.........they say: "we had no idea this was agaiunst the law, we were told the opposite by our Managers."

Perhaps the Australian Banksters Association forgot to tell their members to have regard for the old S25 of the Bankster Code?   If we can expose the dealings so far between 1000 people who ahve never met each other and communhciate only via email, and we do so on a shoestring budget, then imagine what we can do if we had ASIC's budget?

BTW: Doing ASIC's research, investigations and collecting, collating and scanning documents etc is not my job.  However, I made the effort.  In fact I have been doing just that for past 14 years......for free and in the public interest.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Last modified on
Rate this blog entry:


  • doyla66
    doyla66 Sunday, 10 March 2013

    "... I have been doing just that for past 14 years......for free and in the public interest". And a magnificent job of it too Denise!

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Sunday, 10 March 2013

    Denise is only one person with a zero budget, but the work that she has been doing for many years now should be putting Asic to shame and also our Government who should be allocating an appropriate budget for her to be able to continue her investigative work - after all she is doing it for the thousands of suffering victims all over Australia and to clean up this mess for our future generations.

    If Denise doesn't do this then who will??

    Asic, are not taking any action because of the fear of what the outcome would bring.

    Asic is scared of something and/or they have been instructed on no account to undertake any investigation against the banks.

    But now that Asic have admitted that the banks were the engineers, surely this will stir them into taking justifiable action or suffer the consequences later down the track.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Monday, 11 March 2013

    Get ready for the tsunami of complaints against banksters!

    ASIC knows exactly what is going on. Mr Medcraft was in the thick of low doc lending back in America and with his good timing ??... landed back in Australia and with the help of some powerful friends is now in charge of ASIC with a $700,000+ salary. We Taxpayers want our money back. Denise has shown that she has been doing alot of ASIC's work on zero budget!

    We are not stupid. Enough is enough. Social media is a powerful tool and word is spreading about our corporate leaders here....Same old same old the world over and people are sick of the lies, cover ups and trickery... bringing down governments, hunting down the banksters and jailing them, some countries plan to execute a few banksters.

    Denise estimates there are 100,000 dirty loans - [b]$57 Billion dollars worth[/b].. get ready for the tsunami once mainstream media (and whistleblowers) get their act together and stop being afraid to tell the truth for a change. Corruption is ruining Australia.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Friday, 15 March 2013

    Denise, I apologise - I did not mean to imply you were whinging personally.

    Why not post all this material at the same time as ASIC are considering it?

    Can I ask you another question? Why would the banks do this on a systemic basis? No matter what happens, they can only get back the money they are actually owed. They make no more money on loans that default than good loans - in fact less as there are costs associated with enforcement. There is nothing in it for banks to do this - if every loan they wrote went bad, they would not make any profit even if they recovered all the money lent because of costs. I can assure you, writing loans that default is not a profitable business.

    Sure there have been a few dodgy individuals in banks but common sense tells you that brokers are infinitely more likely to have been motivated - they are paid upfront and have no downside risk so they were highly motivated to carry out application fraud. And please don't point to the US as a comparison. The model for mortgage lending over there was completely and utterly different to Australia. In the US, the parties that wrote the loans (coincidentally, much like brokers over here) had no connection to the party ultimately funding the assets and so there was massive agency risk which was duly exploited to the maximum, mainly again by broker types. Banks facilitated and ended up carrying the can for much of it when the musical chairs stopped but here in Australia they own the loan from cradle to grave, to throw in a mixed metaphor.

    I just cannot understand how you could think that any lender would systemically set out to write a bunch of bad loans. There is absolutely no upside for them. By contrast there is massive upside for brokers to commit fraud.

    In any event, only time will prove one of us correct.

    One thing though - my family and friends wouldn't be affected. And do you know why? If they borrow money, they pay it back. No complaints about whether they should have been lent it in the first place. It you take it, you pay it back - here endeth the discussion.

    Food for thought perhaps though no doubt this comment will result in a shower of vitriol.

  • Denise
    Denise Saturday, 16 March 2013

    Dear Captain Haddock You ask: Why not post all this material at the same time as ASIC are considering it? WE want to see what their assessment is. Why would banks do this? Money and Greed, big fat CEO bonuses and used the broker channel to avoid liability and to hold absolute power in a dereg market. Its clever. Even ASIC agree with us the banks were the "Engineers." That fact is obvious and uncontested. Brokers calculated figures on the banks calculators were fudged by the credit assessors on orders from the Managers - we have the documentary proof.
    The Brokers were the Agents of the Banks and those cases have filtered through the courts now. These are Judgments in our courts. More will come along as lawyers figure out the pathway through. Its TRUE the banks though they had beaten the argument of agency in court time and again by hiding crucial documentation - THEY WERE WRONG! The Upside for Banksters was grossly inflated bonuses, fuelled by the $100 million "ARIP" market and I was there front row all those years ago when The Treasurer told broker to "look for new markets" but it was the banks who told the brokers and planners about the ARIP Market. Why? The Banksters planned the scenario in meetings with 1000 planners to target pensioners. Brokers had three weeks training to learn to fill out and sign forms and place THE REAL INCOME in the bank's calculator on the bank's computerized system. Why not allow the custoemr to fill them out? Why only three pages presented for signing? It was the Banksters Computer that fudged the figures....we know that now. Too hard to believe? Sadly, its all true and the banks know I am on to them. Politicians do not agree with Royal Commission in light of the evidence? That means systemic and corrupt goings on and our members are still busy digging. IF you lobbied for a Royal Commission it would mean you had a sense of decency and wanted to seek the truth. We applaud you! Ask yourself this question: what if its true? Our members know the truth - the documents don't lie. Why did the Banksters plan to never have a bank staff members call the client and ask the simple question: "WHAT IS YOUR INCOME?" Why are three people's hand-writing on every LAF across Australia (one is credit staff insiders)? Why were brokers instructed by bank officers to write the details from the bank computer onto the LAF? And why were NO CUSTOMERS in any circumstances to receive copies for the LAF? Why did banks insist the service calculator form MUST BE attached to LAF?
    Why did banksters find it necessary to employ the Broker Channel to spruik for customers instead of placing a white sheet of paper in their windows and say "we do low docs here?" IN whose interest was that? Why did Bank Managers write up FULL DOCS and the calculator exaggerate incomes (no brokers involved)? Do you think brokers got together and planned this? So 100% of brokers are crooked? Do you really believe that? Even ASIC believe there are 3% untrustworthy why were 97% all following the same instructions and producing the same paperwork that was faulty? Why were complaints ignored by ASIC for over 14 years? Enough questions for a Royal Commission? There are plenty more. At least you are asking questions Captain. And when [email protected]

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Saturday, 16 March 2013

    CH you say "By contrast there is massive upside for brokers to commit fraud."
    I disagree with your comment. Most of the Brokers believed they were doing GOOD NOT EVIL for their clients. Brokers NOW REALISE that they were duped by the Banks as well. It has come as a great shock to them. Reading Broker industry news reports, they state that a growing number of mortgage brokers are leaving the industry in DISGUST. Thankfully, Broker whistleblowers are also coming forward to tell of their experiences to Denise. I wish our EX BROKER WOULD! Anyway, here is an extract of an email he sent us. He was a BDM as well, later found out.

    ... "I read the email you sent earlier and there were mortgage practices accepted by the banks that were questionable. They created an environment where money was easy for a while and this did allow some credit disadvantaged people find loans..." I have to bear responsibility for those choices. I have already suffered deeply and been to the verge of bankruptcy"... "If you want to name and shame me as part of it it will probably send us under. If you need that satisfaction I understand. I do not have funds to employ lawyers to fight anyone."...Say hello to XXX for me. i really like you guys and considered you to be friends...."

    As you say CH, "only time will tell" WATCH THIS SPACE

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Monday, 18 March 2013

    Denise, your posts always remind me of that joke that my high school English teacher used to say..."Captain Haddock, I have told you a million times not to exaggerate."

    I note in one of your other posts you make the statement that 100% of loan doc loans are the subject of fraud or are toxic - I can't remember which. 100% of loans - really? Think about that statement. To make that statement you would have to have reviewed every set of loan documentation prepared in the country. What is your self selected, troubled loan sample set? About 1,000 by your own statements. What percentage of loans written over that period would you think that would represent? I would conservatively suggest that this number represented less than 0.1% of loans. And you have actively sought loan documentation from people who think that they have had issues with their loans. Frankly it would be surprising if you had any that were not altered. I note that you mention that there are three sets of writing on all of these - for your supporters proclaiming that brokers were all purer than the driven snow, that would imply that 100% of these loans had broker interference as well. Think about that! The reality is that your claims are simply not credible and whilst they are couched in these terms they will continue to be dismissed as fantastical.

    The average business life of a broker is less than 4 years. That means in any given year, on average 25% of all brokers are leaving the industry. The numbers that have been leaving lately are generally those who were not able to comply with the new licensing requirements, ie at the smaller or dodgier end of the sector. The one quoted above from arree by their own admission sits in this category.

    Denise, you can save yourself the effort of suggesting that I consider what if it were true. I have previously told you that I am in possession of sufficient information to know that it is not true. So would you be if you were only willing to look at the information I have mentioned previously and considered it without the bias that you are operating under.

    There are a suite of answers to your various questions, a number of which I have answered elsewhere and you have ignored. For reference, repeating a question does not invalidate the answer you have been given - it just makes it look like you are not paying attention. For example, the point that I have made that the loan performance which MUST occur if your allegations were true is simply not happening. It. Is. Not. Happening.

    I note with interest that you have studiously avoided my comment in relation to borrower's moral obligations to repay loans even if it was the case that they should not have been lent the money.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Monday, 18 March 2013

    Denise, I just gotta ask - - how big a fish is a haddock to catch?
    Is it a small fry? A marlin size? Or, is it just the medium, plate sized, regular, run of the mill table fish that get served up to dinner?

Leave your comment

Guest Monday, 24 February 2020