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
728367

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: The COOK case outcome TODAY would be FAIRER re TOXIC LOAN SCAMS. Here is why....

Posted by on in ROYAL COMMISSION URGENT
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 2127
  • 1 Comment
  • Print

MICHAEL and Karen Cook were no longer happy home owners despite a landmark case attacking Australia's version of sub-prime lending. They were living in a tent with their two young daughters out the back of a friend's place in Camden.  The NSW Supreme Court attacked the sub prime lending case.  Yet the court still permitted the lenders to keep their interest, fees and charges.  That would not happen today. Why?

The case highlights the 2003 prevalence of FRAUDULENT LENDING PRACTICES.  As stated in Parliament 8 August 2012: "Governments cannot, ought not to profit from a fraud."  Very simple law: neither can Banks and Lenders and all those in the SUB PRIME LENDING business can profit from a fraud.

There have been few cases presented to court against the banks, displaying victory for the victims of this insidious crime. WHY?  People do not have the funds to defend their positions and homes, in court.  Bankers know this conundrum and use this disadvantage to the max.  

Major Bankers continue to MANUFACTURE FAULTY FINANCIAL PRODUCTS that even planners and brokers do not know what happens if your are vacuumed into the vortex of INSTANT and calamitous DEBT.  

The reason why outcomes can be far different if placed before the judiciary these days, is very simple: no satisfactory investigations ever took place: not by the NSW Police Force, other state Police, the Australian Federal Police, the agencies such as CCLS's nor the ultimate corp cop; the useless Australian Securities and Investment Commission ("ASIC").  BFCSA and its members and predecessor's RECA, were the only grass roots groups to properly investigate how the Lenders pulled off the greatest bank heist in Australian history.

The "facts" represented by the defence in COOK rendered the justice system impotent from digging into the real (and intentionally hidden) truth of the matter.  In 2003 no-one had even heard of Mr and Mrs Khoshaba, nor  O'Donnell, Tavares, de Benedetto, Kotveski and Schmidt.  Even those cases were flawed in the information provided but when the Judges started to learn a few more facts they "threw the book of justice" at the Bankers involved.

With only a dozen cases in  Australia being funded to stand up to these banks, the unfortunate victims involved seem to be "isolated" cases and the ugly 'biased to banks' ASIC fuelled the MYTH, for devious self interested purposes; such is their own demons partially exposed by the recent Senate Inquiry into ASIC's own disgraceful conduct.  Was it a cover-up from those with high pay-packets?  It certainly looks that way.  Systemic neglect of serious complaints lodged with ASIC over a 15 year period will be how history records their nefarious activities.

The FACTS of the Fraud that only BFCSA and RECA have discovered will finally be revealed.  Did the NCCP laws in 2010, solve the problem?  Not at all, the so called new laws, also became a cover-up mechanism to allow banks to continue to manufacture intentionally toxic Low Doc Loans and allow the poison to flow into the FULL DOC MARKET.  The old laws worked as all the earlier cases showed, but only of the cases were fully funded.

Conveniently, ASIC funded NONE.   Not one case, no effort and no interest in consumer protection.  Why did ASIC oi nothing, knowing explicitly of the fraud, forgery and unjust contracts and imprudent lending?  Why did banks do this?   Bankers because of personal GREED, because they were enabled by a 'friendly' regulator who knew of their dirty secrets but assisted in keeping the public from learning the truth regarding these 30 year loans.  

The perfect climate for sub prime lending to mushroom and sustain is dependent upon biased and/or corrupt regulators.

No public warnings re Low Docs, have ever been issued, except by BFCSA:  that these loans are all set to implode within five years or less.  

All the 2001 loans imploded by 2004/5 as Cook's found out the hard way.  Cook's were not warned of the inevitable outcome.......just sign here, press hard, no copies handed out.  

Banks stated: "Denise, those are all settled."   Of the 50 loans I reported to ASIC Chairman in 2003/4 re Streetwise, all but those in the High Court group, lost their homes, yet each file had been treated in the same way.   Two were arranged by NAB bank officers who came out to the home for the signing ceremony.  187 of these loans were arranged by Firstmac, whom I reported as Tonto.  ASIC permitted TONTO to change names during the middle of the investigation and then conveniently permitted the the thief who stole some of these funds to escape to Dominican republic and then on to the USA for two years more rorting using same sub-prime lendiing system.  

The aussie version of lending was identical to the United States.  We started a media campaign.......................... a highly embarrassed ASIC had to fly to the USA and bring the villain home to face criminal charges. The broker thief was charged and tried for stealing millions of dollars after ASIC was forced to bring him back to Australia.  Kovelan Bangaru is now in jail.  However, he was not charged with Loan Application fraud,  Why?  Whatever the villain wrote on the LAF, he did not approve the loans.  Nor did the other brokers who worked in the same office.  Nor did brokers who worked for other firms at the time.

Yet 100% of all loan applications we looked at in 2004, contained fraudulent incomes and were sold as unaffordable loans.

The other brokers explained to me: "we did not invent the income figures - they are projections prepared by the banks that we have to use." 

The other brokers working for Streetwise were also not charged for filling in LAFs.  WHY?

The truth is the LAFs were altered and massaged by bank staff who used the same BANK SUPPLIED calculator but different leverage, after the brokers sent in the application forms.  

In any case, the true criminal conduct lay in the evidence of widespread APPROVAL of the TOXIC loans, not in the information the LAFs did or did not contain.

If the loan needed tweaking....no problem, signatures were forged, as common practice - all Banks including the four majors CHECKED NOTHING except a 5 star credit rating prevalent with pensioners who own their own home (A1 credit rating).  

The Non Bank Lenders needed the same immunity as the Major Lenders, to sell these TOXIC LOANS.  The systemic nature of the model in use, and the tools to create the fraud were service calculators.  These finance calculators were identical and NOT available to the public.  The Loan Mortgage Insurers used the same calculators to evaluate 'risk', as created by the banks.  The printed 'income calculation form' was attached to the Loan Application documentation.

Karen & Michael Cook had their defence funded by Government agency, yet there was no criminologist ready to dig into, not only the lending process and secrets service calculator fiasco, but to investigate the endemic and widespread abuse by lenders of this toxic system.

In 2012, ASIC lied to Parliament and stated "no systemic issues,"  due to the fact that ASIC had to brief APRA and the chain of ABA, RBA, AOFM and Treasury, everyone misled Parliament, telling the Senators in the Banking POST GFC Parliamentary Inquiry: "no systemic issues."

The Cooks had no such luxury of information.  The Courts had been twisted into believing there was "pro-proportionate liability" all the way to the TOP. The High Court found against O'Donnell's leaving Firstmac to prey upon these pensioners for a further $250,000 pieces of silver.  The High Court inadvertently permitted the lender to PROFIT FROM A FRAUD.  The judgement in Tavares and Di Benedetto is a safe one and justice in action, thanks to funding by the Jenman Group, but no thanks at all to ASIC.

However, the High Court judgement heard simultaneously in O'Donnell is unsafe.  How can there be proportionate liability in a case involving processing of obvious fraudulent documentation by Firstmac and others, when the victims had no knowledge of this systemic fraud.

The funds ran out to travel further and appeal that decision.........................therefore justice was not served in the O'Donnell case.

Once again these cases did highlight the FACT there were federal laws in place to protect consumers of financial products and services back to 1980 and 1998 to protect consumers from predatory lending practices pre - NCCP.  The new laws are a revamp of the old ones but are useless unless used by the regulator in these civil actions.

The fraud and forgery was obvious, yet no lender was charged.  ASIC took no action regarding civil or criminal cases except to take on a few cases against POPOV, BANGARU and a couple of others - brokers who stole money..................AFTER the media started its own investigations and exposing these criminals, to the embarrassment of ASIC.

Yet no criminal charges were handed to the CDPP relating to the fraudulent use of secret service calculators, created by Bankers and designed to alter a pensioners income on a  document, after the client had signed and without their knowledge or consent.

Karen and Michael Cook may well want to ask why all of the above issues were not raised at their own trial. Meanwhile, they and the O'Donnells have been left paying ongoing debt to bankers - the very entities that have for years, profited from FRAUD.

How did the Supreme Court Judge in O'Donnell, see that O'Donnells played no part in the FRAUD, yet the High Court Judges thanked ASIC for its assistance!"  The first Judge was scathing against ASIC's meddling..........................the 2009 transcript indeed, makes an interesting read.

The TOXIC LOAN SCANDAL will hopefully ring consumer warning bells to the systemically fraudulent Low Doc Market.  

Dear Mr Kim Cannon....if I were you, I would forgive this loan immediately!  You know why....its called timing.  You cannot profit from multiple frauds that your bank was found by the High Court to be responsible for.  Deal with it.

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

Last modified on
Rate this blog entry:

Comments

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Saturday, 19 April 2014

    How easy to award Maladministration and Unconscionable Lending to we who have been and are being defrauded by the Banks and Banksters.
    Its a totally different matter to actually receive any Justice against the perpetrators. Lip service is all we the victims get. A pat on the head and told to keep paying up !!!!
    When do we put a stop to this?????

Leave your comment

Guest Saturday, 15 August 2020