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
631478

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: How ASIC continues to mislead Parliament - sneaky and tricky

Posted by on in ROYAL COMMISSION URGENT
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 2059
  • 3 Comments
  • Print

 

 ASIC’S FALSE AND MISLEADING RESPONSE TO PARLIAMENT contained in their supplementary submission #45.1.  BFCSA responded to these in our Supp Sub # 156.1

 

IN BRIEF AND KEY POINTS

 

Response to 85 & 86  (pg 23)  ASIC states: “there was no specific onus on lenders to ensure that borrowers could afford to repay loans.”  (see s 25.1 of the Bankers Code – now 27.1)

 

That is a false assertion and likely to mislead the Senators and the Inquiry.

 

Response to 95 (pg 24) “ASIC has been looking for evidence of breaches of the law.”

 

Response to 96 (pg 24) “It is difficult to establish that conduct is unconscionable”

 

Response to 97 (pg 25) ASIC states: “Context of earlier laws……the material provided by borrowers does not provide evidence of breaches of the law by the credit providers involved.  It does not establish:

 

a)Lenders had awareness of false information being inserted into LAFs.

 

b)Encouraged intermediaries to insert false information etc

 

c)Inserted false information etc.

 

 

 

Its ASIC’s job to investigate these matters and serious allegations.  Borrowers cannot provide material because lenders refuse to hand over the entire file.

 

Response to 98 (pg 25) ASIC states: no confidence in establishing unconscionable conduct

 

ASIC just has to take the lead of the courts and established cases that have set the precedent.

 

The advice provided is inconsistent to what the public would expect of a tough regulator in dealing with the banking and finance sector:  

 

Response to 104 (pg 26) ASIC states: “In ASIC’s experience…it appears that dishonest or fraudulent conduct has been more commonly found in relation to mortgage and finance brokers rather than lenders.”

 

Evidence shows this is a completely false assertion.

 

credit providers allow finance brokers access to calculators to ensure  consumers meet the lending criteria before a formal loan application is lodged.   

"Similar online calculators provided for borrowers to access online. "   That is a BLATANT LIE

 

 

 

 

 

 

The public online calculator is totally different to the SERVICEABILITY CALCULATOR that fudged all incomes via the Banker Engineered computer.  ASIC is telling a BLATANT LIE to Parliament..............................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TRUTH bank staff write up 36% of loans no broker involved yet all (100%) are fraudulent and tampered with after signing.  Fraud on both Lender created LAFs and Broker created LAFs as all use the INTERNAL Serviceability Calculators are vastly different to Bank public online Calculators and ASIC discussed this with me for two hours Feb 2013. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ASIC know that the two calculators are vastly different.  The public version just has estimates of how much you can borrow and is very basic.  When a bank victim uses online public version the answers are completely different to SERVICEABILITY version and would mean the loan would be immediately REJECTED by the public version.  Victims tell me this all the time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ASIC KNOW and is ASSSISTING WITH A BANK COVER-UP………………………..they are therefore LYING to Parliament.  ASIC refuse to help victims recover this VERY page which was attached to the LAF.  ASIC know the banks are claiming “commercially sensitive” excuse under FOI to not hand over the “attached document.” 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only thing the document contains is the personal financial details of the client and is therefore discoverable – SO WHY NOT HAND OVER?   Banks know the income was FUDGED BY THE BANK computer therefore ASIC assisting the Banks in THE BIGGEST COVER UP THIS NATION HAS SEEN.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Approval of Serviceability Calculators involve NSR’s (controlled by bank execs daily) and the program (computer) that generates the INCOME for the client without client’s knowledge or consent.  Broker and Bank Staff taught by BDM’s to enter BASE INCOME and allow calculator to dream up a futuristic income  eg $50k BASE RATE NETT and then $180K futuristic englobo income created and must be copied onto the LAF by the writer of the loan.

 

 

 

Bankers pump up the volume by changing the levers of the NSR.  It’s a complex calculator that uses add backs and add on’s and technical tax advantages ONE SIZE FITS ALL. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We know what is going on.  We have cracked the Code – we even have the passwords.  But the Senators are at a loss to understand this……………………………….I have no idea why.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The second statement is grossly misleading.  FACT: the online calculators do not re-calculate income using mathematical calculations which include tax rebates.  Anyone viewing either the internal serviceability calculator and then viewing the online public calculator would immediately see the difference.    The public calculator gives the borrower an idea (if they know to use one) of whether their TRUE INCOME would allow them to borrow over a certain number of years and if so, how much.

 

 

 

It is a fact that some victims of Low Doc Fraud have since tested the loan out on one of these public calculators and are horrified that the revelations are clear – their income could not possibly service the loan offered to them, so they ask: “why wasn’t our loan rejected?”

 

 

 

Older borrowers, those with little education, those with disabilities are particularly vulnerable, yet according to ASIC in point 126,: the old laws and the new laws consumers were left unprotected.

 

 

 

That is completely False & MIsleading:  The Six Court Cases setting precedent involving 18 Judges, were won under the old laws, prior to new laws being gazetted and implemented.

 

ASIC admit: Response to 83 (pg 22) “weagree lending of unaffordable loans to borrowers was excessive.”

 

 

 

 

 

Last modified on
Rate this blog entry:

Comments

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Saturday, 29 March 2014

    If altering a "direct debit request" ,and re-configuring a loan agreement to suit the brokers agenda of getting the loan approved,is not unconscionable then I don't what would constitute "unconscionable".
    By the way this was all done without our knowledge or approval.
    If I took money from someone's account without their permission,I would lose my job and be jailed,simple as that,the banks don't tolerate this kind of behaviour,so why is there one rule for one and one rule for the other?
    Whatever happened to : if a legal document that is altered has to be initialed and agreed to by both parties.
    ASIC obviously didn't think this was unconscionable conduct.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Sunday, 30 March 2014

    I agree, Honesty.
    It may not be unconscionable to ASIC or their staff who have seen so much of this conduct.
    It would be fair and reasonable to say this was unconscionable to anyone who had no idea this was going on and had never seen this kind of conduct.
    A judge would probably take this into account (Koshaba principle).
    Surely ASIC, FOS and COSL should be doing exactly the same in the context of Civil dispute resolution.
    According to reports they don't necessarily agree with this approach with consistency.
    Unfortunately that results in the EDR system coming under criticism and scrutiny for what appear to be arbitrary decisions.
    Of course the EDR could be just testing people to see if they really know what's going on.
    IMO that's neither fair nor reasonable, as many people bringing a dispute don't have law degrees or lawyers on hand. Some people have found it's a bad idea to argue with the EDR. Many people have no idea how to do EDR. How would they learn such skills? It's not easy, despite all the rah rah about how easy and user friendly FOS/COSL is. People could be forgiven for thinking it's a smoke screen that has strived to hide the fraud for years and call it something else. We could call that trend malpractice too, if intent could be proven. It looks too obvious. :o

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Sunday, 30 March 2014

    Judging from the blogs,I have no faith in the system which is supposed to protect the consumers.
    Once screwed, twice shy.
    Banks, Asic and Government all in bed together,giant cover-up folks that's all I can say.
    Would love to do a survey on how many home owners know their mortgages have been securitised and sold off to investors,percentages would be very low I suspect.

Leave your comment

Guest Wednesday, 18 September 2019