Michael Sanderson on Equality of Arms in the Law in Australia

8/17/2019 Michael Sanderson on Equality of Arms in the Law in Australia

1/28

1Bank Reform Now - Impairment of Customer Loans Inquiry 2015

Bank Reform NowTaking Real Action To Bring About Real Change In Banking

www.bankreformnow.com.au ______________________________________________________________________________

Bank Reform Now Submission to Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and

Financial Services re: The Impairment of Customer Loans.

This inquiry is concerned with bank engineered defaults: the practice of banks deliberately setting

up clients to fail. Hard to believe that so many people involved in banking and finance actually

make their livings by deliberately stripping bank customers of their assets – often their life’s work.

______________________________________________________________________________

A key aim of this submission is to highlight several case studies of Bank Engineered Defaults astold to my organisation - Bank Reform Now. The experiences of these bank customers will inform

the committee about the practices of banks and their associated agents. See pages 5 to 20 for a

more in-depth description of each case. Any fair minded person reviewing this material would

want to see to it that the families involved should be fully compensated by the institutions

responsible. While you have determined that it is not your committee’s role to directly arrange

justice for each and every individual victim – it is critical that you take this information seriously.

These and the other cases you will be reviewing more than justify a properly constituted Royal

Commission. Pages 2 to 5 list the seven key elements of the Engineered Default. Pages 22 to

26 are important resources showing the magnitude of banking misbehaviour. The Appendix

gives a brief summary of the Bank Reform Now recommended reforms (see pages 27 to 28).

The Cases:

1. George & Erika Biritz – A NAB criminally Engineered Default. Written by Erika Biritz

2. Sante and Rita Troiani - A NAB criminally Engineered Default. As told to Bank Reform Now by

Rita Troiani.

3. Malcolm Taylor - A NAB criminally Engineered Default. As told to Bank Reform Now by

Malcolm Taylor

4. Faye Andrews - A NAB criminally Engineered Default. As told to Bank Reform Now by 71 year

old widow Faye Andrews.

5. Philipp and Lynne Kreutzer - A NAB criminally Engineered Default. As told to Bank Reform

Now by the Kreutzers.

6. Elliot Sgargetta - A NAB criminally Engineered Default. As told by ABC journalist Neal

Woolrich.

7. Michael Sanderson - A Bank of Queensland criminally Engineered Default. As told to BankReform Now by Michael Sanderson.

18.8.15

The impairment of customer loansSubmission 116

http://www.bankreformnow.com.au/http://www.bankreformnow.com.au/http://www.bankreformnow.com.au/


2/28


We have heard many cases of bank clients who have never missed a payment being forced into a

default when property valuations have been unconscionably manipulated. It is common

knowledge in the industry that if a valuer wants regular work from a bank they need to supply

figures that suit the bank.

It is important to realise that the engineered default or constructive default does not begin and end

with fudged bank valuations at the time of purchase. Sure higher values at the origination of theloan enable larger loans - but to really understand the full picture it is necessary to look at multiple

influences on the property market and banker activities. All of which affect the degree of financial

stress borrowers face. In addition - the engineered default can only proceed with significant

assistance from politicians, bank lawyers, liquidators, Courts and Judges.

The following step by step analysis show how the racket works. It enriches financial institutions

and governments but increases the likelihood of a default from the extremely well milked

borrower. The property market is a very good example of how the interaction between big

business and big government harms our society and our people. Everyone’s standard of living is

far lower and harder to maintain because of this.

Step 1 - The Elevation of Property Value at Time of Purchase:

House values and prices are directly elevated by government policy. GST, Stamp Duty and other

government generated imposts have been shown to increase the cost of buying a home

significantly. Also, governments control the release of land for housing. Limiting supply leads to

increased prices. Both these factors increase the amount that needs to be borrowed from financial

institutions.

The Property Council has shown that property owners have become Australia's largest collective

taxpayer contributing 9 per cent of total tax revenue. Property taxes make up as much as 46 per

cent of state, territory and local government budgets. [ http://www.smh.com.au/federal-

politics/political-news/scrap-stamp-duty-and-increase-gst-says-property-council-of-australia-

20150614-ghnko7 ]

On top of this bankers are more than happy to have dubious valuations inflate a property's value

prior to purchase and thus manipulate the Loan to Value Ratio. Once again this allows a further

increase in the amount that can be made available to the borrower.

Step 2 - The Creation of the Loan:

So the above inflated cost of property requires the purchaser to borrow more money from a

financial institution. Let's also remember that for some inexplicable reason Governments have

given private bankers the power to create credit (the history of this makes interesting reading but it

is beyond the scope of this document and inquiry).

The money that a "borrower" obtains does not exist until a promissory note is signed and given to

the bank. This is a deliberate misrepresentation of a contractual obligation. Thus the bank is

actually handing a further representation of the obligors own promissory obligation back to them


http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/scrap-stamp-duty-and-increase-gst-says-property-council-of-australia-20150614-ghnko7http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/scrap-stamp-duty-and-increase-gst-says-property-council-of-australia-20150614-ghnko7http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/scrap-stamp-duty-and-increase-gst-says-property-council-of-australia-20150614-ghnko7http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/scrap-stamp-duty-and-increase-gst-says-property-council-of-australia-20150614-ghnko7http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/scrap-stamp-duty-and-increase-gst-says-property-council-of-australia-20150614-ghnko7http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/scrap-stamp-duty-and-increase-gst-says-property-council-of-australia-20150614-ghnko7http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/scrap-stamp-duty-and-increase-gst-says-property-council-of-australia-20150614-ghnko7


3/28


and then pretending it is they the bank who is giving up commensurable value in any purported

loan. Even worse, the bank then charges interest on this "loan."

If you think about this for just a very short time you will quickly understand why the world's finance

system is the corrupt, unsustainable, immoral mess that it is. You will also understand how it is

that banking is so profitable and why the wealth of the middle class is being siphoned to the upper

echelon money manipulators. I would strongly argue that this indeed is a crime against humanity -particularly when you factor in that governments also borrow and then tax citizens to pay interest.

Step 3 - The Loan Application Form:

Bank loan officers earn bonuses and promotions by increasing the bank's loan book. Thus there is

an incentive to lend as much money as possible to as many clients as possible. There is then a

perverse incentive to engineer the Loan Application Form so that the client appears to have a

higher income, more assets and fewer liabilities. Figures are routinely fudged to manipulate an

LVR to less than 80%. By doing this clients are pushed into a position where the risk of default is

much higher.

Step 4 - The Struggle With A Time Bomb:

So now we have a client who has purchased an overpriced property with money that was created

through a contractual deception. The "borrower" is paying interest on this "loan" and finds that

because of a fudged Loan Application process his or her disposable income is not enough to

comfortably look after the family's needs. The kids miss out on treats and then essentials. There is

continuous worry about the finances. Holidays are few and far between. The bank has managed

to get about as much as possible of your income. Relationship stresses build. Life isn't quite so

enjoyable - it has become a struggle.

The bankers involved knew from the start that this would happen. They also knew that this was

unsustainable and that around the five year mark .... boom .... the time bomb goes off and the

mess likely ends in a default with the bank seizing the client’s assets. Does the bank or banker

care? No - because all commissions, bonuses, interest payments, penalty fees, shareholder

dividends have been collected and distributed.

Step 5 - The Parasites Feast:

We have seen cases where if the above is not enough to extract as much as possible from a

client, with or without a default, bankers have been known to set up a complex web of hidden

accounts. Client funds are secretly siphoned away (stolen?) and shifted at the bank's discretion to

accounts without the client's knowledge. This inevitably leads to business cash flow problems.

Once the bank documents the difficulties the client is now experiencing the next phase is

triggered. Penalty interest rates and fees; fresh property valuations are ordered by the bank ....

and this time they show significant, often inexplicable, reductions. The LVR is now way over

100%. The bank can demand payment in an unreasonable manner. Don't forget some clients in

this situation have still not missed a payment. Regardless, at this stage - valuers, lawyers,

liquidators are called in - all at the client’s expense - so you can imagine how fees are inflated. It

becomes a feeding frenzy.



4/28


Once it progresses to liquidation the main aim is for the liquidators to maximise their returns.

Getting the best possible return on assets sold to minimise the client's obligations to the bank are

not the top priority. Often insiders with connections to lawyers, liquidators or bankers can pick up

properties and businesses at bargain prices. This process explains how a bank victim can end up

with absolutely nothing after their assets are sold from under them. See the Biritz, Troiani and

Andrews stories (Cases 1, 2 & 4 respectively below) to see the horror and treachery inflicted by

NAB where incredibly hard working families lost everything in exactly this manner.

Step 6 - The Charade - Where Justice Is A Game:

Some bank victims know that they were deliberately set up. The injustice burns deep. You work all

your life building a successful business - providing real goods and services of real value. Then

you see the parasite class who produce nothing of real value come in to take it all away by fraud,

forgery and force. The victim may have the idea that the crime is so clear, so obvious, and so

blatant that they could go to Court and easily find justice against the crooked bankers.

Unfortunately there has been, up until recently, a hidden truth. The bankers own the Courts -literally and figuratively. We have documented cases where Judges have resided in rooms owned

by banks. Cases involving Judges who made sure they sat on disputes involving their own bank.

Even cases where Judges owned large shareholdings of the bank involved.

It is very important to also understand that many bank victims lose their assets and never actually

realise that they were set up and deliberately taken down with predatory maladministered loans.

They blame themselves. They don't want to talk about it. They are embarrassed and think they

have failed their family. How do these people get justice when governments and politicians ignore

their distress and turn a blind eye to bank crimes and corruption?

What hope does a victim have with no resources as a direct consequence of a bank’s predatory

actions? Because our legal system has become monetarised - by taking the assets - the bank

also takes the defendant's right to a fair hearing and fair trial. Bank victim Michael Sanderson

(Case 7) is fighting as a self-litigant in the Brisbane District Court to level the playing field. He is

asking the Court to make orders consistent with the principle of "Equality of Arms," which the

Australian Attorney General’s Department says must be observed to ensure equality. He is not

just asking the court for minimal legal assistance resulting in crucifixion, rather legal assistance

that is equivalent and equal. He makes a very good argument, that in the case where the plaintiff

(the aggressor) has a disproportionate advantage the plaintiff should underwrite the defendant'scosts.

Step 7 - The Protection Racket (aka Insurance Policy):

You will have noticed that the above six steps are overflowing with bad behaviour – much of it

already illegal. What may not be illegal is immoral, unethical and just plain mean, nasty and

despicable – to put it mildly. Of course none of these crimes should be allowed to happen.

Perpetrators should be severely punished and victims should be compensated. Why does our

“Justice” system appear to be malfunctioning?



5/28


The financial institutions that profit from a non-functioning legal system are paying protection

money to both the main political parties in Australia. These are not just vicious rumours or

scurrilous accusations. I won’t spell it out here, suffice to say over the years millions of dollars

have been paid by the big four banks to the big two parties.

For more details you can perform searches such as this at the Australian Electoral Commission:

http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=55&ClientId=19045

It really appears that politicians are not looking after the interests of citizens as far as finance

system crimes are concerned – in large part - due to a conflict of interest involving party funding.

Another aspect of the protection racket is the inaction of the police, regulators and Courts. They

appear very reluctant to investigate fraud, forgery and other bank crimes. Victims are routinely

given the run around - with each player just referring them away to another of the players.

Regulator terms of reference are rigged to protect the bankers. This game must be stopped.

Much of the above seven step process is well illustrated in these seven case studies. This is

heartbreaking reading.

___________________________________________

Cases of Bank Engineered Defaults as told to Bank Reform Now

1. George & Erika Biritz – A NAB Criminally Engineered Default. Written by Erika Biritz

In 1984 a NAB employee advised George Biritz that the NAB was prepared to consolidate all

borrowings under a facility for Litchurch Pty.Ltd as Trustee for the Biritz Family Trust, providing the

business with extra working capital, and the loan should be a foreign currency loan in Swiss

Francs equivalent to $A 550,000. The bank also advised Mr Biritz that the following properties

were required to be held as security to the draw down $550,000 facility.

The properties requested by the NAB were:-

1) The matrimonial residence at 3-5 Paxton Drive, Glen Waverley;

2) Factory at 39 Kembla Street, Cheltenham;

3) Factory at 41 Kembla Street, Cheltenham;

4) Apartment 92 at Acapulco, Surfers Paradise, Queensland.

The registered proprietors to those properties were Mr & Mrs Biritz, and the Biritz's consented for

the NAB to registered mortgages against their respective titles.

The NAB insisted that Biritz's establish a Sinking Fund with the bank at Moorabbin. This fund was

to generate sufficient monies to repay the principal and interest of the loan facilities. Biritz signed

the monthly transfer debit with the NAB, and the bank from 18th August 1984 withdraw $10,000


http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=55&ClientId=19045http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=55&ClientId=19045http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=55&ClientId=19045


6/28


every month until December 1987, being the total of monthly transfer of $410,000 for that period

of time.

Subsequently Biritz also paid upon the NAB's demand, for "top up" deposits to the credit of the

sinking fund of $250,500 over and above the monthly $10,000 transfer. All these money were

stolen by the NAB from the term deposit Sinking Fund. This was just the beginning of a series of

NAB misleading and illegal activities.

In 1985 Biritz purchased another property at Lot 54 Springvale Road, Keysborough. The property

consisted of 20 hectares with a 5 acre dam and in 1986 Biritz arranged for plans to be drawn up

for a construction of a 102 square residence. In 1987 whilst Mr & Mrs Biritz were on a trip around

Europe, the NAB management team strategically plotted the financial and professional demise of

Mr George Biritz.

On 15th June 1987 NAB without given authority by anyone whomsoever, (illegally) transferred all

the 5 properties from Mr & Mrs Biritz as joint proprietors to a sole/single proprietor of Mr George

Biritz and registered falsification mortgage instruments over each and every title deeds. The Biritz

family returned from their holiday in Europe, oblivious to the impending false claims of mortgage

defaults soon to be made by the NAB in the Supreme Court.

In between 1990 to 1995 NAB obtained possession of the Biritz's properties via the Supreme

Court and sold each one of them. In order to conceal all of those fraudulent activities, on 22 July

1997 NAB presented Mr Biritz with a sequestration order, allegedly issued by the Federal Court of

Australia.

On 13 July 1998, Mr Biritz filed an Application with the Federal Court pursuant of ORDER 35 Rule

7 sub-rule 2b. Biritz sought to set aside a Sequestration order made against his estate which has

been procured by NAB engaging in fraud. During the course of proceedings His Honour AnthonyNorth J. made an order which obliged NAB to account by 5pm 21 April, 1999 for all the sale

proceeds of the Biritz properties being credited with the NAB.

Although 16 years has passed since North J. made the order, the NAB has yet to deliver their

accounting. Unfortunately however the consequences have become catastrophic. Notwithstanding

the fact that the Biritz family was made penniless and homeless -

On 27 August 2007 Mr George Biritz passed away. Almost all my adult life has been invested into

this case and there is no way that I can walk away from it. The only option for me is to deliver

justice for my family so as to honour the legacy of my late husband.

____________________

2. Sante and Rita Troiani - A NAB Criminally Engineered Default. As told to Bank Reform Now

by Rita Troiani.

By 1993 the Troiani’s brick works, Wide Bay Bricks, was the second largest private brick

manufacturer in Australia. NAB was keen to get the couple to bank with them - but getting their

business was really part of an elaborate setup to steal the multimillion dollar assets that Sante hadbuilt up after decades of hard work. Once NAB had the opportunity it engineered a default. Using



7/28


the well-oiled machine of the "Shadow Ledger" and friendly - liquidators, lawyers & Courts NAB

stripped the couple of all their assets. Sante was left penniless by NAB and died after suffering a

stroke in 2007. His widow Rita has had to struggle on a pension.

Once the case was thoroughly investigated it became clear that right from the start NAB was

actively working against Sante's interests and in fact was helping Sante's competitor

NAB has a very big debt to pay the Troiani family - justice will be done. Particularly now that a

fresh analysis of bank documentation has identified exactly how NAB manufactured the default

and stole a lifetime’s work from Sante Troiani. The Troianis were set up by NAB, their lawyer and

their accountant. Money was siphoned through hidden accounts to deliberately impair cash flow.

The letter (link below) from Rita Troiani to who found in favour of

NAB (coincidentally his own bank) tells you the story as known at that time. The rest of the story

has only recently been fully elucidated. This is a distressing read but it shows why NAB has the

worst reputation of the Big Four. It also clearly proves the case that bank reform is needed.

Rita Troiani's signed Letter to the Judge - - (for a brief and powerful

summary see the last 2 pages in that document’s Appendix).

____________________

3. Malcolm Taylor - A NAB Criminally Engineered Default. As told to Bank Reform Now by

Malcolm Taylor

Farmer - Malcolm Taylor is a community leader and former President of the Shire of Lower

Chittering.

In 1994 an abattoir known as Tip Top Quality Meats was to be shut down, the impact on his home

town would have been profound. Several hundred workers would be sacked and forced to leave

the district with the flow-on disaster of downsizing schools, policing and other essential services,

effectively destroying the hub of their community.

Malcolm and two others sought to buy the abattoir to save their way of life.

They had to deal with NAB and the existing owner whose company structure was essentially

insolvent.

In the period when negotiations commenced, NAB effectively concealed crucial information and

assessments from the purchasers. NAB encouraged the sale to divest itself of a failed business

which was without assets to cover its debts and pass their own exposure on to the buyers, of

whom only Malcolm had substantial assets, his two successful wheat and sheep farms just south

of Moora, a couple of hours drive north of Perth.

In a process of legal discovery Malcolm found documents from the period of negotiation. Theseincluded: bankers' notes; memoranda; and internal assessments. These notes had been taken

from orderly files and deliberately scattered randomly to cause confusion. Malcolm asked for and



8/28


was given permission to photocopy everything. He took his own copier into the law firm

representing NAB whereby the question of client privilege was waived and confidentiality ceased

to reside in these documents.

It thus became clear that NAB found the abattoir to be the worst managed company they had

come across in many years of banking. At a meeting with the company Managing Director - Mr

- it was made clear that his company was insolvent, although when typed up the notes

were altered to say - “whilst not technically insolvent …” etc.

The objective of NAB was to conceal the true situation by hiring and arranging payment for an

investigating accountant whose covert purpose was to manipulate events for the bank so that a

sale could ensue and who, thereafter, conveniently disappeared.

Basically there was an orchestrated scenario to dupe Malcolm into placing his assets in NAB's

hands to replace the bankrupt owner's debts which clearly were never going to be repaid to NAB.

Part of the plan was to have a purported representative of the seller, who was secretly engaged

by the bank, tout the abattoir as being valued at better than $15 million.

Banking notes revealed: "Whilst the Company may not be technically insolvent it surely is

struggling to meet its obligations as and when they fall due. Our dissatisfaction with the company's

financial reporting and monitoring was aired and we reiterate that for a company of its size and

indebtedness it is amongst the worst we have encountered in our time in banking. … the quality of

information we are being fed is poor and that there is a problem with existing accountant. … we

should be turning up the heat on owner to sell. … Timing is now critical as with the lack of

throughput our position is deteriorating each day. … we could not have orchestrated a better

scenario to manage and service our exposure."

NAB offered to finance Malcolm's purchase of the abattoir's assets. However, unbeknownst to him

at the time - NAB was in possession of a valuation of the abattoir and the business - a total of $3.8

million. It was ultimately bought for $4.5 million.

At settlement NAB acted as financier and settlement agent for both buyer and seller.

Instead of $4.5 million as per the agreement, $4.75 million was paid to the seller by NAB. The

bank immediately took the cheque back and started disbursing funds from the additional $250,000

without authority.

Consequently the new business was immediately under financial stress with little working capital.

Notwithstanding this, NAB continued to withdraw unauthorised amounts from the abattoir

accounts. The business was insolvent right from the start - and eleven weeks after Malcolm

purchased it a receiver was called in.

Amazingly, it was not until July 2008 that Malcolm discovered by a search of Landgate records

that the transfer of the abattoir land and assets had never taken place. This is critical - the stamp

duty on the sale and the transfer of the land and business was never properly finalised.

Malcolm fought NAB's efforts to throw him off his farm. NAB used their vast legal team to harasshim mercilessly. Eventually in 2006 Malcolm settled with NAB for much less than the bank was

demanding. Malcolm also managed to regain complete control and ownership of his farms. NAB



9/28


knew they were in big trouble over this deal - that's why they settled without taking Malcolm's

property. NAB is not off the hook.

Fighting on, Malcolm applied for to the WA Supreme Court on 5 December 2008 for discovery of

documents prior to issuing a writ so that he could assess whether he had grounds to proceed.

Malcolm sought only two core documents regarding the multimillion dollar transaction. These

should have been easy for NAB to locate. NAB had a very big problem though - the documentscrucial to the false acquisition, did not exist.

The Master of the Court refused the application out of hand. Such a small and easy request

would, if granted, have pushed the bank into a declaration on oath that the documents could not

be found. NAB could never have produced them. The Master was not on the side of the battlers

but of the big and powerful bankers.

____________________

4. Faye Andrews - A NAB Criminally Engineered Default. As told to Bank Reform Now by 71 year

old widow Faye Andrews.

My annihilation by NAB:

I live in Sydney and have been a customer with NAB for 46 years (also - my husband was a

manager with NAB decades ago). In 2010, my facility expired and as before, I expected to

refinance my loans.

I had not missed a single payment of interest and had sufficient income together with $865,000Term Deposit which met a shortfall interest on a vacant property in Parramatta. This property is

equal to the best in Parramatta in terms of location and size was subject to Council's changes to

the DCP - which was but a matter of months away - and I expected to be allowed to wait for the

DCP to be tabled. Changes to zoning meant that my property would increase in value by at least

$2 Million.

For no better reason than I "was eroding the Bank's security" - the NAB foreclosed. The NAB

froze my $865,000 in Term Deposit and then, instituted Penalty Interest of 15.9% - which, of

course, I couldn't fund.

They appointed Price Waterhouse receivers who refused to allow my tenants of over 20 years to

proceed with a signed, witnessed Contract of Sale to purchase another property which would then

have meant that the remainder of my properties would not have to be sold.

Price Waterhouse then proceeded to sell my properties, including a magnificent block of Units in

Edgecliff. They sold it for less than the NAB's valuation and allowed the purchaser, a developer, to

put the units for sale the day following exchange of Contracts on 5% deposit. He sold 8 of the

Units on this first day - at extremely cheap prices; $480,000 compared to recent sale of

comparable unit in adjoining block for $710,000. Speed was the order of the day.

They also allowed him to continue with my Strata application under my Company name and by

the time settlement was due - 6 weeks later - the building was strata titled and sold - and the



10/28


developer made in excess of $2,000,000 profit. It was the same with the remaining properties.

Though the sales of my properties were completed in 6 months, Price Waterhouse didn't close the

file for 20 months. Eventually, with "losses" cited by Price Waterhouse, NAB then evicted me &

sold my home for $1,640,000; the following sales in close proximity reached over $2,030,000. The

NAB used up the $865,000 term deposit in penalty interest and now say I owe them

approximately $120,000 for "losses." This is after humungous fees charged by Price Waterhouseover 20 months.

Along with many others who have been annihilated by NAB and other banks, my health has

suffered dramatically. I have a relatively rare autoimmune disease which affects the veins in my

head - akin to walking around with a live hand grenade.

After working alongside my husband (deceased) for an average working week of 72 hours for

most of our lives - I am destitute. Price Waterhouse told me "start again." I'm nearly 70 years old

and completely worn out.

How is it possible in Australia that the bank can prevent us from using our own funds to pay our

mortgage?

____________________

5. Philipp and Lynne Kreutzer - A NAB Criminally Engineered Default. As told by the Kreutzers.

When, in 2011, the NAB began its campaign of bullying and intimidation against us, by

manufacturing defaults and setting up predatory loans designed to fail, we had been loyal

customers for over nineteen years. Over that time we had had more than twenty different loan

facilities and accounts with the NAB. Not one had ever been in default. We had had a good

relationship for many years with our local manager and trusted his advice.

In 1998 we bought land in Northern NSW and established an organic coffee plantation from

scratch. Prior to this we had been country solicitors who had become increasingly disenchanted

with the legal profession. Our families had farmed for many generations, so the change of career

was not too radical a move. For fifteen years we toiled through the usual vagaries of farming -

drought, flood and cyclones, planting and tending the trees, harvesting, processing, roasting and

packaging coffee. We won over forty medals for our coffee and after about ten years of hard work,our plantation finally began to break even. During the last three years that we owned the farm it

had become a profitable enterprise.

In April 2011 we approached the Bank for an extension of $100,000 on any one of our numerous

facilities. We needed this money to undertake renovations and to cover the shortfall in income that

we expected when a rental property we owned became vacant. We estimated it could take up to

twelve months to find a replacement tenant due to the nature of the property and the depressed

market. In fact we found a new tenant just on the twelve month mark.

The Bank agreed to lend us the money, but only as a new loan and only for effectively a fivemonth term, upon which it had to be repaid in full. We told the Bank we didn't believe it was

possible for us to meet this short time frame and again requested that any of our existing



11/28


mortgages be extended by the $100,000, as all had ample equity. Failing that, we asked at the

very least that the Bank give us a twelve month term, as we felt confident we could meet this time

frame to repay the loan. The Bank refused, and as they held all our properties as security, we

couldn't raise the money with any other lender. Unable to negotiate more suitable terms and

needing the capital, we accepted the only offer on the table. We hoped that things would work out

and we could sell the properties as demanded, or at the very least that NAB would renew the loan

after five months expiry date when they saw that we had continued to maintain all our loans inorder.

When we went to sign the mortgage we discovered that the Bank had included all our other

properties as security for this $100,000 loan. This was inappropriate and unnecessary

given that the combined value of these properties was some eighty times the amount of the

new loan. We had not agreed to this, but once again the Bank would not negotiate with us. As

this loan was a consumer loan and was regulated by the National Consumer Credit Protection Act

(NCCP), it was a breach of that Act for the Bank to lend money unless it had determined the loan

was "not unsuitable." This loan was clearly not suitable to our circumstances and we told the Bank

we didn't think we could repay it in the short period the bank was insisting upon. There were anumber of suitable alternatives but the Bank refused all of them even though their position would

have been as equally protected. Addi tionally, the Bank had included our pr incipal place of

residence as security, which is prohibited by the NCCP Act.

In retrospect it is clear that NAB were setting us up for default so that they could use this

predatory loan to seize all our assets.

Then in December 2011, without any warning or statutory notice, (as required under the NCC),

NAB sent us a letter informing us that it had commenced recovery proceedings against us

for all money owed i.e. $4,000,000, not just the $100,000. Most of the loans were ten or moreyears old and had been used to buy the farm and establish our coffee business and to purchase

several investment properties. This had been done with a view to providing for our retirement

down the track, as we had no superannuation. We had not been irresponsible with this borrowing

and had always been able to service the loans and had never missed a payment.

The Bank gave us no prior notice it was about to take this action even though a few days earlier

we had met with the new branch manager to discuss amalgamating several loans in order to

obtain a better rate of interest. This letter was extraordinary in that it did not state why NAB was

taking enforcement action, or what loans or amounts it referred to and the author, described as a

"senior legal counsel" did not provide their name or contact details on the letter (which is a breachof the Legal Practitioners Act) so we could not contact him / her and ask why such a distressing

letter had been sent. I emphasise again, that not one payment had ever been missed, and we

were paying the Bank more than $340,000 per year in interest.

NAB also sent this enforcement letter to my elderly parents who were co borrowers in relation to

two of the investment properties we owned jointly. My parents were in their late seventies and, as

could be imagined, were extremely distressed to be told that the Bank was taking action against

them when all their loans were, and always had been, in order. The Bank also sent this letter to

our former legal practice, which we had sold some fifteen years earlier. This firm did not even

have loans with NAB and had no ongoing connection with us.



12/28


When my father rang the local manager to find out what was going on, he was told that all his

loans were in order. The manager wouldn't tell him why the Bank had sent him this distressing

and false letter. During the conversation with my father the manager told him that my husband

and I could not afford our loans, which was not only false and defamatory but also a breach of our

privacy. The NAB has never withdrawn this letter or apologised, even though it was sent to people

who either had no loans, or had loans that were completely in order and which the manager said

no action was being taken.

When we telephoned the manager to ask why this letter had been sent, she told us that it was

probably "just a hurry up" as the Bank would like to "encourage" us to sell up and pay back our

loans. When asked why, she replied that the Bank no longer wanted "our sort of business," which

we took to mean agri-loans and small business loans. The FOS case manager also confirmed this

same sentiment. Apart from describing what the Bank was doing to us as akin to “crushing a

walnut with a sledge hammer,” he also said that the Bank’s actions were "nothing personal, it is

just that the Bank does not want to support your category of loan anymore." I can tell you, from

our perspective it is very personal when a Bank bullies, intimidates, and defames you in

order to fr ighten you in to paying back all money on threat of it seizing all your property.

We now believe that this enforcement letter is a "fake" in that it was sent to us and various people

associated with us, in order to embarrass, bully and intimidate us into repaying debt that the Bank

could not otherwise legitimately call in. Section 2.2 of the Banking Code of Practice requires the

Bank “to act fairly and reasonably in a consistent and ethical manner, considering our conduct,

their conduct and the contract between us.” Given the Bank had not in fact commenced action

against the recipients of this letter as claimed and hadn't sent the statutory notices, or

given the minimum 30 days to rectify any alleged breaches as is required under the NCC, it

is clearly in breach of the Code.

It could also be argued it is also a breach of the Crimes Act 1900 NSW s.192 G, in that the Bank

intentionally wrote a "false and misleading" letter with "the intention of obtaining a

financial advantage or causing a financial disadvantage." The Bank later admitted to Legal

Services Commission (LSC) that many Bank solicitors had used this pro forma letter over a long

period. We therefore believe it has been used as a tool to intimidate and frighten other people into

selling and paying back loans they should not have had to. This would not be the first time NAB

has been caught out using these tactics. Fairfax journalist Nick McKenzie exposed similar

behaviour in October 2010 in an article titled “Revealed NAB’s dramatised debt collection tactics" -

http://www.smh.com.au/national/revealed-nabs-dramatised-debt-collection-tactics-20101001-

161b3.html

When we argued that it was unreasonable to expect we could sell everything immediately, given

the economic downturn and poor state of the property market and that we needed more time, the

Bank manager told us it was out of her hands as our file was now with the enforcement section.

We asked to speak to the author of the letter, she refused to tell us who that was or even what

state it came from. We then wrote to the Bank, protesting that it was unconscionable to call in our

loans when we were not in default. NAB's response was to begin manufacturing defaults in order

to justify their action.

This started with appointing valuers to revalue our property at considerable expense to us, in

order to try and trigger the loan to value default provisions. However even though valuations came



13/28


in very low, they still showed our equity was more than sufficient to suppor t the loans. Having

failed to trigger default by revaluation, NAB next resorted to cancelling the automatic payment

authorities without telling us, causing our loans to not be paid automatically from our accounts.

This technically put us in default until we realised what had been done and we rectified it by

paying the interest manually.

Next NAB claimed our income to loan ratio was insufficient to support the loans. We challenged

the Bank to show that this was the case. The manager came back with a spreadsheet that

misstated our income to be $120,000 less than we were actually receiving and showed interest

that was more than $75,000 higher than we were paying. Despite us providing accountant's

statements, bank statements and tax returns to prove the true position of our finances, NAB

refused to correct the mistakes.

Finally NAB said i t didn't matter what our financial posit ion was anyway as they were going

to rely on clauses in our mortgage contracts that allowed them to call in loans at anytime

without cause. At this point they also began to impose "penalty interest" (their term)

upward of 20% on several of our faci lit ies.

Banks are not entitled to charge penalty interest; the Bank can only charge a default interest

rate where it is a legitimate pre-estimate of the extra cost of administering an account that is in

default. In our case the manager told us the penalty interest was being charged to encourage us

to sell quickly.

We lodged a complaint with FOS and during the conciliation conference the Bank manager

conceded that she had breached our privacy in discussing our personal finances with third parties

and apologised. However, in an attempt to justify its actions against us to the FOS, the Bank

dishonestly claimed we had been in default on four separate occasions. Of these, two related to a

Council Bond taken out by us and four other people. The Bank concocted a story that the Bond

had expired and they were not going to renew it. This was a total fabrication as it had no expiry

date and had always had been in order. The other two involved an overdrawing of our personal

account by a matter of $300 following overnight payments of a private health insurance premium

and a car lease payment. Both were remedied the same day.

It is important to note not one of these trumped-up “defaults” actually related to any of our fourteen

loan facilities and therefore they were not defaults at all. When we proved the dishonesty of

this claim NAB simply backed down. However it refused to withdraw its demand that we sell

everything and pay back all loans. By the time of the FOS conference we had already sold twoproperties and had paid back four loans including the $100,000 referred to above. As a result the

Bank had agreed to give us to the end of the financial year to sell the rest, including the farm.

However, at the conference the Bank went back on this written agreement and reduced the time

to only three months (which included the Christmas/New Year period) in which to sell or hand

them over with vacant possession.

Again, this was totally unreasonable given both the state of the property market where we lived,

and the time of year, but also because our commercial properties had tenants with registered

leases, so even if we had wanted to give the Bank vacant possession, we legally couldn't. Then -

when we did replace the tenant that had vacated, the Bank refused for several months to consentto the lease.



14/28


These unreasonable demands and actions reveal the NAB's unconscionable intention to cause as

much financial harm to us as possible. We were only able to make repayments because we

received income from tenants and from our coffee business. Causing us to abandon the farm and

coffee business and to remove tenants who paid rent, and hand these properties to the Bank

vacant, would leave us without any income and would severely impact on the value of those

properties.

NAB wanted to put us in a position where we had no income or resources and therefore could not

fight them. Then, once they had run the debt up sufficiently by employing huge penalty interest

charges, while letting our farm to deteriorate and business to become non-existent, they could sell

the properties cheaply, taking all the proceeds and probably bankrupting us in the process.

We believe we were targeted as we were in a category of farm/ small business loans that

NAB no longer wanted and we had assets that the Bank could seize. How we had

conducted our accounts for decades, our fiscal responsibility and our long relationship

with the Bank, counted for nothing.

As concerning as NAB's behaviour is, it has been the wilful blindness of the agencies such as

FOS, ASIC and Legal Services Commission (LSC) and their failure to apply or enforce the law

that has been the biggest shock of all.

These agencies have resolutely refused to take any action against the Bank, providing various

excuses including: that there was no proof that the behaviour we complained of was "systemic"

(ASIC); or excusing it as simply the Bank making "commercial decisions" (FOS); or refusing to act

on the basis "we do not act for individuals" (ASIC); or excusing the Bank's lawyer from being

accountable for breaches of the Solicitors’ Rules because every lawyer at the Bank had been

doing it, and not one of the dozens of senior lawyers working there knew it was a breach and now

it has been bought to their attention they promised not to do it anymore, (LSC) and finally, that we

should simply seek other avenues of redress (ASIC, LSC).

None of the Agencies provide any right of independent appeal or review and therefore they

can get away with blatantly protecting the NAB, safe in the knowledge that no one wil l call

them on their bias.

As a result of NAB's actions we have been forced to sell our farm at a heavily discounted price in

order to meet the Bank's unreasonable deadline on threat of repossession. The coffee business

and income that we spent fifteen years establishing, along with all the stock and equipment has

been lost, as it had to be included in the farm sale at no extra cost, in order to induce a quick sale.

We have also disposed of two other properties in the depths of the property downturn at fire sale

prices to meet unreasonable time frames. The Bank took the entire proceeds of these sales and

would not even allow us to retain enough to cover the capital gains tax that was payable.

NAB now has the audacity to claim that all the property they forced us to sell at under

threat of repossessions were sold "voluntarily" and therefore any loss to us a result cannot

be blamed on them. The sheer magnitude of the dishonestly is breathtaking.

As the Bank does not communicate with us we don't know what their next move will be, or when.

We have refinanced half the remaining debt but still have three loans with the NAB. While these



15/28


are all in order, we now know that means nothing. The NAB's unconscionable and predatory

actions have been emotionally and financially devastating, but we fight on.

Al l banks want their vict ims to bel ieve the ci rcumstances they find themselves in as a

result of predation is entirely their own fault, thus silencing them through fear and

embarrassment. This, together with the insidious practice of having anyone and everyone

they can sign confidentiality agreements, has been very effective in hiding bank

malfeasance. But as Bank Reform Now founder Dr Brandson says, "The jig is up."

We all need to speak up, to expose the corruption, greed and fraud. Together we can make

enough noise that won't be silenced until the system is transformed.

Thank you for taking the time to read our story. We hope it help bring about changes that will help

everyone.

____________________

6. Elliot Sgargetta - A NAB Criminally Engineered Default. As told by ABC journalist Neal

Woolrich. Also includes an update from a Protected Discloser to the U.S Securities and Exchange

Commission.

Banks under fire over last-minute changes to mortgage payout notices –

5.9.14

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-04/banks-under-fire-over-last-minute-loan-payout-changes/5720516?section=business

Hot on the heels of the Parliamentary inquiry into the Commonwealth Bank's financial planningdivision, Australia's major banks are under fire again.

This time, it is the practice of making last-minute changes to mortgage payout notices when

customers are trying to close out their home loans.

Lawyers say the practice has been going on for years, causing distress and inconvenience to

borrowers on settlement day.

One aggrieved customer, Elliot Sgargetta, has spent six years fighting the National Australia Bank

over his disputed payout notice, and now stands to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in

escalating legal costs.

In 2008, Mr Sgargetta was about to sell his home in the Dandenong Ranges, on Melbourne's

outskirts, and re-finance a new property.

Three weeks before settlement, NAB sent him a payout notice, advising he would need to repay

"approximately $299,000" to close out his existing mortgage.

But with settlement looming, and a raft of logistical and financial arrangements in place, he was

suddenly blind-sided.



16/28


"I got a call on the Friday evening from a National Australia Bank employee that informed me that

they'd made a mistake on that payout notice and required an extra $24,000 by Monday morning,"

Mr Sgargetta said.

"Otherwise, settlement wasn't going to occur."

That sparked a six-year legal dispute, which is still running.

This year, both the Victorian County Court and the Supreme Court's Court of Appeal found in

favour of NAB.

But despite spending most of his time working on the case and representing himself in court, with

the aid of eight pro-bono barristers over the years, Mr Sgargetta is refusing to give up.

He is now working on an appeal to the High Court.

"We were in unconditional contracts, we were stuck. So they knew that one way or another we

had to capitulate in some way," he said.

Last-minute payout changes cause 'huge amounts of distress'

The law requires banks to provide a mortgage payout amount within seven days of a borrower's

request.

However, often an estimate is provided first, and the final figure is not confirmed until 11:00am on

the day of settlement.

The banks explain the late changes as an "economic adjustment" to cover the cost of ending a

loan early.

But one lawyer, who spoke to the ABC on condition of anonymity, said last-minute changes to

payout notices are common, and can leave borrowers stranded.

"Huge amounts of distress. You have to re-organise settlement and the settlement date. All the

cheques have to be re-drawn and altered, you have removalists, you have people who have

packed up their boxes," the lawyer said.

He said that within the conveyancing industry, there is a feeling that some banks are exploiting the

system more than others.

"[Conveyancers] are very tempted to say, 'Which bank are you dealing with? Well, in that case the

fee will be $1,000. If you're dealing with this other bank, it'll be $1,500, to factor in the pain and

suffering," he said.

In a statement to the ABC, a spokesman for NAB said the bank "has always been willing to work

through issues with the customer".

"However, due to privacy and confidentiality obligations, we are unable to go into detail about the

specifics of this matter.

"As the public record shows, this matter has been considered by the Financial OmbudsmanService (31 March 2010), the County Court of Victoria (17 February 2014) and the Victorian

Supreme Court of Appeal (30 July 2014), and each determination was found in NAB's favour."



17/28


Mr Sgargetta lost his mortgage broking business because of the dispute, and now NAB is taking

steps to repossess his home.

"It's been horrific. I've got a three-year-old son, my wife's due to give birth in the next few weeks,

and I'm stuck fighting and addressing all these legal processes," he said.

Lawyers say there is a glaring hole in the law which needs to be fixed, and neither the Financial

Ombudsman Service nor the Australian Securities and Investments Commission is much help incases like this.

But for Mr Sgargetta, what started as a dispute over $24,000 could end up costing him severalhundred thousand dollars more, if NAB recovers six years' worth of legal fees from him as well.

The fol lowing analysis of the Sgargetta / NAB case has been provided and veri fied by aU.S. Securit ies and Exchange Commission (SEC) Protected Discloser –

All statements in this passage can be evidenced.

Sgargetta wanted to see the clauses in his mortgage that had mathematical calculations of his

"break costs" NAB refused to show him the clauses.

Sgargetta also wanted to see the top secret interest rate calculations made up in a backroom run

by NAB's . NAB refused to show him the calculations and how & why NAB calculated

a $24,000 break fee the eve before his family were settling on their home, after NAB having three

weeks to prepare.

Sgargetta questioned , under oath in trial, on how these payout fees were calculated

and if the public were made aware. Mr confirmed that he did not know how payout fees andcosts were calculated as the NAB systems just “pops out a figure,” and affirmed that the public are

not made aware at all, it is strictly internal and private to NAB.

Because he was asked to pay break costs, Sgargetta wanted to know if the original loan money

he received came from the "under 1% Fed Reserve" emergency bail out of the NAB of over $4

billion. Or he wanted to see if the loan money came from the 7% money that the Reserve Bank

gave NAB during the GFC to stay afloat. It seems reasonable to know if the bank really lost a cent

by breaking the contract early, don't you think?

Mr Sgargetta was getting nowhere. The cover-up was blatant and unconscionable. The

engineered impairment tactics were obvious. The complicit bully boys involved just backed each

other up as though this was just some sort of game.

Banks should not be allowed to manipulate payouts at the last minute. NAB breached Sec.83 of

the National Consumer Credit Protection Act. (NCCP) - and Judge allowed them to

do it. How come? It has become clear that Judge made a serious mistake. Judge

affirmed that no other case has been before the court about this payout legislation and

he was in virgin territory. He found that the bank was allowed to verbalise and change payouts at

the last minute. He was wrong. Banks are not permitted to this under the Sec.83 payout

legislation. Judge has made a significant error in judgment that potentially affectseveryone involved with a bank. This judgment contravenes the law and must be reviewed.



18/28


The appeal court found that the $299,000 payment was made to NAB - openly - it was not

"without prejudice." Mr (Barrister - working for NAB) knew that and still deliberately

misled the Court. Perjury is the term used to describe this behaviour from NAB staff and their legal

team.

– NAB senior mortgage manager and Barrister - both confirmed in

trial and under oath that no payment of $299,000 was made by Sgargetta. They lied to the court

and got away with it. Court transcripts provide unequivocal evidence showing these NAB

representatives giving false evidence which affected the judgment in their favour.

In addition, Judge - presiding over the same case declared that he owned

approximately $250,000 worth of NAB shares ..... and refused to recuse himself from the matter.

Should Judges with shareholdings with the bank, or where they have a relationship wi th a

party in lit igation be allowed to sit on the case?

This question is answered with this authority - Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000):

"... a judge is disqualified if a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge

might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question the judge is required to decide.”

Even the Victorian ethics body allowed the bank lawyers to keep representing the bank after the

Court said the lawyers were witnesses that misled the Court. Can barristers and lawyers represent

the bank as Witnesses? Should Shareholders bear the fall out of the high fee bullying where a

bank's "error" of $24,000 ends up costing shareholders around a million dollars?

It's important to note that in the background the FBI has been investigating interest rate fixes

at the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR).

Submissions to the Senate Foreign Bribery Inquiry say that Sgargetta was tipped off by

whistleblowers from the Victorian Legal Services Board (VLSB) to go to the FBI unit that was

investigating LIBOR. Sgargetta pushed NAB's senior staffers - and

as well as NAB's Barrister - and lawyer - to show him the

interest rate calculations they used and, suddenly a $1,000,000 Hush Deed appeared - ie they

wanted to gag him.

As the Joint Parliamentary Committee (PJC) is aware, ASIC and international law enforcement

are investigating the effect the LIBOR scandal has had on home mortgages, credit cards and the

finance system generally.

Also - as some of the PJC are aware, the Senate Inquiry into Bribery of Foreign Officials is looking

into the Hush Deed offered to Sgargetta by the NAB and Lawyers with the approval of the

Victorian Legal Services Board of Directors (that happens to include Directors of APRA, Mining

giants, and KPMG Accountants).

The cover-ups at the VLSB are extraordinary.

Below is one report to the American Securities & Exchange Commission that the VLSB wanted to

see to prove the FBI are really asking questions about the VLSB. Is it proper for the investigatedto use their Act to investigate those who are investigating them? Were the Bank and VLSB in



19/28


cahoots to pervert the course of justice? How did the VLSB know last year to use its Act to

investigate what the Independents planned for future Inquiries?

____________________

7. Michael Sanderson - A BoQ Criminally Engineered Default. As told to Bank Reform Now by

Michael Sanderson.

Dear BRN team,

Why are we fighting Bank of Queensland? A brief outline -

We lost our farm to the Bank of Queensland. Never missed a payment and were able to continue

to service the facility under normal terms and conditions. The bank inflated the value of the

property to get our business then decided its value halved.

Rather than continue to support us resulting in no loss to either side, they decided to sell our

property and look like getting 20c in the dollar. They took a life time of work and we now surviveon the dole and at over 60 look forward to the old age pension, instead of the retirement we were

planning. We are fighting them in the courts as self-funded litigants because we have no money to

purchase justice.

Our battle is not only with the bank but also with the monetarised legal system. I will be asking the

court to order the bank, the aggressor with disproportional advantage, to underwrite our legal

costs. I will be using the legal principle "Equality of Arms" that is supported by the Australian

Attorney General to ensure a fair hearing and fair trial.

Thanks so much for your time.

Michael



20/28


PS - the graph below clearly shows how BOQ used dodgy valuations to get our business and then

steal our property.

____________________________________________________________________________

Since founding Bank Reform Now I have spoken to many bank victims who have worked all theirlives only to see the fruit of their labour stolen by predatory bankers who see their job simply in

terms of transferring other people’s money into their own pockets. A great deal of anxiety,

depression and heartache exists in our communities due to financial stress.

My own family's finances were decimated by the National Australia Bank using falsified loan

application forms to grant totally unjustifiable loans to a member of the family. As I investigated

the circumstances of that loan it became very clear that the bank deliberately engineered a

situation where default was inevitable. Why must I, now also a victim of the NAB’s activities, be

put into the position of giving up a large part of my life in order to attain justice and seek redress

from NAB for myself and others? The reason is because the government refuses to do the right

thing. I told NAB that apart from fully compensating me they will be billed for every minute I spend

working to settle my dispute. BRN is working with a group of NAB victims who have been cheated

out of 100s of millions of dollars. We will help these people attain full compensation from NAB.

As you know, a big part of the problem is that bank loan officers are rewarded for increasing theirloan book. Their pay, bonuses and promotions are dependent on getting increased business forthe bank. The bigger the loans and the more of them they generate the better off they will be. Thisputs in place an incentive for bankers to work in their own interests and often actively against theinterests of their client – this must be neutralised. Up to now CEOs and Directors have turned a

wilful blind eye to maladministration of lending because the bank’s profits and their own pay alsodepends on inappropriate and predatory lending. Why do governments, their regulatory authoritiesand their intermittent inquiries also turn a blind eye to these activities?



21/28


Banking as we have come to know it is white collar crime on a grand scale. This is a systemic andsystematic failure of corporate governance.

Do you think if bankers faced real penalties for real crimes bank CEO's and Directors wouldcontinue to allow these types of abuses? One of BRN’s goals is to see real penalties applied todiscourage real crimes. The current system is not working. It does not encourage ethical, honestbanking.

The Senate has identified crime and corruption in the system and it recommended a limited RoyalCommission just into the CBA’s financial planning arm. That was an inadequate recommendationand, as expected, it was ignored by the government.

Everyone is affected by finance system crimes. Even those that don't have a bank account letalone a loan with a bank. Our time and money is being stolen by the corrupt system we nowendure. We really could meet all our needs with far less work and stress. Getting the balance rightbetween work and family doesn't have to be as hard as it is for most of us.

Bank victims will only see justice when ill-gotten bank profits and banker bonuses are clawed back

.... and crooked bankers are jailed - very simple and very much achievable. In addition, of course,victims must be fully compensated.

It really is crunch time for politicians and regulators. They can be on the right side of history andbecome heroes in the fight for justice and reform. Alternatively they can side with criminals andface the consequences.

Just to make it clear to those politicians sitting on this inquiry – more and more of us understandhow the racket works. We are all being fleeced while you and your colleagues sit on more andmore inquiries. Sorry - but you fiddling while we are burning is not helping.

Call a wide-ranging, unfettered Royal Commission into the whole box & dice: Banking; Finance;Credit Cards; Predatory Banking; Control Fraud; Credit Creation; Fraud; Forgery; VerticalIntegration; Contracts; Managed Investment Schemes; Abuse of Farmers; Liquidator, Valuer andJudicial irregularities; Commission, Bonus and Promotion Systems. THE WORKS..!

It is long overdue. I hate to break it to you - but there is a reason, after a lifetime of work, so manyof our older Australians are dependent on the government's pathetic aged pension. They havebeen screwed their whole working life by a corrupt banking and finance system ….... aided andabetted by successive governments colluding against the peoples' interests. The people arewaking up to the truth. It is a hard truth …… our elected representatives have deliberately allowed

criminals to profit at the peoples’ expense.

Thank you for your time,

Yours faithfully,

Dr Peter Brandson ______________________Dr Peter BrandsonCEO Bank Reform Now

______________________



22/28


More information:

www.bankreformnow.com.au

https://www.facebook.com/bankreformnow

Previous Bank Reform Now submissions to government inquiries:

Senate ASIC Inquiry - Note: the Supplementary Submission was censored by the Senate. The

Senators felt it was “not relevant” to disclose how much money the Big Four Banks contributed to

the Big Two Political Parties. They also felt it wasn’t relevant to have page after page of examples

of NAB fraud and dodgy business practices exposed by their inquiry.

Submission 232: www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=646605ad-7e21-464d-8ffa-

400d69a93b8c&subId=31239

Supplement to 232: www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=ee66f7be-7169-482c-bef4-

ffd868ec8542&subId=31239

The Financial System Inquiry - http://fsi.gov.au/files/2014/08/Bank_Reform_Now.pdf

The Forestry Managed Investment Schemes Inquiry - Submission

122: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=9bb1e9c7-da54-4dd9-9edf-

909ee6b9d240&subId=302325

Interesting Resources:

a). Bill Black explains Control Fraud - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JBYPcgtnGE

b). Positive Money – a). http://positivemoney.org/b). Proposals for reform - http://positivemoney.org/our-proposals/

c). Jeff Morris (CBA Whistleblower) explains very well how it is that rogue bankers just seem tobe able to operate with impunity -

http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/alice-in-worryland-why-financial-institutions-must-become-prohibited-donors-20150630-gi1ewn.html

d). Evan Jones digs deep into NAB and the Troiani scandal. One of the most horrific examplesof a bank engineered default you could find to inform this inquiry –

http://bankvictims.com.au/national-australia-bank/item/10975-the-sting-summary-judgement-to-the-nab-by-qld-chief-justice-paul-de-jersey

e). Evan Jones digs deep into the CBA / Bankwest scandal. One of the most horrificexamples of a bank engineered mass default you could find to inform this inquiry –

http://www.bankvictims.com.au/dr-evan-jones/item/10958-the-dark-side-of-the-commonwealth-bank


http://www.bankreformnow.com.au/http://www.bankreformnow.com.au/https://www.facebook.com/bankreformnowhttps://www.facebook.com/bankreformnowhttp://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=646605ad-7e21-464d-8ffa-400d69a93b8c&subId=31239http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=646605ad-7e21-464d-8ffa-400d69a93b8c&subId=31239http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=646605ad-7e21-464d-8ffa-400d69a93b8c&subId=31239http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=ee66f7be-7169-482c-bef4-ffd868ec8542&subId=31239http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=ee66f7be-7169-482c-bef4-ffd868ec8542&subId=31239http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=ee66f7be-7169-482c-bef4-ffd868ec8542&subId=31239http://fsi.gov.au/files/2014/08/Bank_Reform_Now.pdfhttp://fsi.gov.au/files/2014/08/Bank_Reform_Now.pdfhttp://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=9bb1e9c7-da54-4dd9-9edf-909ee6b9d240&subId=302325http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=9bb1e9c7-da54-4dd9-9edf-909ee6b9d240&subId=302325http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=9bb1e9c7-da54-4dd9-9edf-909ee6b9d240&subId=302325http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=9bb1e9c7-da54-4dd9-9edf-909ee6b9d240&subId=302325https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JBYPcgtnGEhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JBYPcgtnGEhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JBYPcgtnGEhttp://positivemoney.org/http://positivemoney.org/http://positivemoney.org/our-proposals/http://positivemoney.org/our-proposals/http://positivemoney.org/our-proposals/http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/alice-in-worryland-why-financial-institutions-must-become-prohibited-donors-20150630-gi1ewn.htmlhttp://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/alice-in-worryland-why-financial-institutions-must-become-prohibited-donors-20150630-gi1ewn.htmlhttp://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/alice-in-worryland-why-financial-institutions-must-become-prohibited-donors-20150630-gi1ewn.htmlhttp://bankvictims.com.au/national-australia-bank/item/10975-the-sting-summary-judgement-to-the-nab-by-qld-chief-justice-paul-de-jerseyhttp://bankvictims.com.au/national-australia-bank/item/10975-the-sting-summary-judgement-to-the-nab-by-qld-chief-justice-paul-de-jerseyhttp://bankvictims.com.au/national-australia-bank/item/10975-the-sting-summary-judgement-to-the-nab-by-qld-chief-justice-paul-de-jerseyhttp://www.bankvictims.com.au/dr-evan-jones/item/10958-the-dark-side-of-the-commonwealth-bankhttp://www.bankvictims.com.au/dr-evan-jones/item/10958-the-dark-side-of-the-commonwealth-bankhttp://www.bankvictims.com.au/dr-evan-jones/item/10958-the-dark-side-of-the-commonwealth-bankhttp://www.bankvictims.com.au/dr-evan-jones/item/10958-the-dark-side-of-the-commonwealth-bankhttp://www.bankvictims.com.au/dr-evan-jones/item/10958-the-dark-side-of-the-commonwealth-bankhttp://bankvictims.com.au/national-australia-bank/item/10975-the-sting-summary-judgement-to-the-nab-by-qld-chief-justice-paul-de-jerseyhttp://bankvictims.com.au/national-australia-bank/item/10975-the-sting-summary-judgement-to-the-nab-by-qld-chief-justice-paul-de-jerseyhttp://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/alice-in-worryland-why-financial-institutions-must-become-prohibited-donors-20150630-gi1ewn.htmlhttp://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/alice-in-worryland-why-financial-institutions-must-become-prohibited-donors-20150630-gi1ewn.htmlhttp://positivemoney.org/our-proposals/http://positivemoney.org/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JBYPcgtnGEhttp://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=9bb1e9c7-da54-4dd9-9edf-909ee6b9d240&subId=302325http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=9bb1e9c7-da54-4dd9-9edf-909ee6b9d240&subId=302325http://fsi.gov.au/files/2014/08/Bank_Reform_Now.pdfhttp://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=ee66f7be-7169-482c-bef4-ffd868ec8542&subId=31239http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=ee66f7be-7169-482c-bef4-ffd868ec8542&subId=31239http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=646605ad-7e21-464d-8ffa-400d69a93b8c&subId=31239http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=646605ad-7e21-464d-8ffa-400d69a93b8c&subId=31239https://www.facebook.com/bankreformnowhttp://www.bankreformnow.com.au/


23/28


f). International banking history explained – this is not ancient and irrelevant. Just considerwhat is happening in Greece right now - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKwO1onXAaI

g). What is happening in Greece – a very big bank engineered default –

http://wallstreetonparade.com/2015/06/goldman-sachs-doesnt-have-clean-hands-in-greece-crisis/

h). Liquidators commonly abuse their position of power - Indian billionaire Pankaj Oswaldoes Aussies a favour by exposing the insolvency racket –

http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/insolvency-profession-questioned-for-one-of-the-biggest-fee-grabs-in-corporate-history-20150705-gi5ht3?skin=dumb-phone

i). The U.S Securities and Exchange Commission has a Whistleblower reward program. Why can’t we have the same in Australia?

http://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-150.html

j). UK Bank Barclays - has set aside a to tal of £1.03bn for customer redress. Why are

Australian banks not required to properly compensate victims of predatory and criminal banking? http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/news-and-features/sectors/products/products-news/barclays-posts-31bn-profit-but-hit-by-1bn-redress-bill/2022848.article

k). The complete CBA Take Down of Bankwest customers - The 4 part expose by Assoc.Prof Evan Jones - CBA under CEO Ian Narev taunts, tortures and rorts its victims — nomercy, no recourse. The lies must be exposed, the perpetrators brought to justice and thevictims compensated.

Part 1. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-1,4443

Part 2. https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-two,4474



l). Assoc. Prof Evan Jones – Demonstrates that there is no bank that one can trust on abusiness loan. Bank corrupt ion is causing immense harm to ci tizens of Australia. The casehas become strong and undeniable. To stop bank crimes we must start jail ing bank CEOs.

Part 1. https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/to-fix-australias-banking-culture-start-sending-bank-ceos-to-gaol,8044

Part 2. https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/stop-the-rot-send-bank-ceos-to-gaol,8060

Part 3. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/corporate-immunity-to-criminal-

prosecution-send-bank-ceos-to-gaol,8067

m). How long before Aussie CEOs are charged for criminal Interest Rate Rigging?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKwO1onXAaIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKwO1onXAaIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKwO1onXAaIhttp://wallstreetonparade.com/2015/06/goldman-sachs-doesnt-have-clean-hands-in-greece-crisis/http://wallstreetonparade.com/2015/06/goldman-sachs-doesnt-have-clean-hands-in-greece-crisis/http://wallstreetonparade.com/2015/06/goldman-sachs-doesnt-have-clean-hands-in-greece-crisis/http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/insolvency-profession-questioned-for-one-of-the-biggest-fee-grabs-in-corporate-history-20150705-gi5ht3?skin=dumb-phonehttp://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/insolvency-profession-questioned-for-one-of-the-biggest-fee-grabs-in-corporate-history-20150705-gi5ht3?skin=dumb-phonehttp://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/insolvency-profession-questioned-for-one-of-the-biggest-fee-grabs-in-corporate-history-20150705-gi5ht3?skin=dumb-phonehttp://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-150.htmlhttp://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-150.htmlhttp://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/news-and-features/sectors/products/products-news/barclays-posts-31bn-profit-but-hit-by-1bn-redress-bill/2022848.articlehttp://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/news-and-features/sectors/products/products-news/barclays-posts-31bn-profit-but-hit-by-1bn-redress-bill/2022848.articlehttp://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/news-and-features/sectors/products/products-news/barclays-posts-31bn-profit-but-hit-by-1bn-redress-bill/2022848.articlehttps://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-1,4443https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-1,4443https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-1,4443https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-1,4443https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-two,4474https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-two,4474https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-two,4474https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-two,4474https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-3,4524https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-3,4524https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-3,4524https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-3,4524https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-4,4605https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-4,4605https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-4,4605https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-4,4605https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/to-fix-australias-banking-culture-start-sending-bank-ceos-to-gaol,8044https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/to-fix-australias-banking-culture-start-sending-bank-ceos-to-gaol,8044https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/to-fix-australias-banking-culture-start-sending-bank-ceos-to-gaol,8044https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/to-fix-australias-banking-culture-start-sending-bank-ceos-to-gaol,8044https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/stop-the-rot-send-bank-ceos-to-gaol,8060https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/stop-the-rot-send-bank-ceos-to-gaol,8060https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/stop-the-rot-send-bank-ceos-to-gaol,8060https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/corporate-immunity-to-criminal-prosecution-send-bank-ceos-to-gaol,8067https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/corporate-immunity-to-criminal-prosecution-send-bank-ceos-to-gaol,8067https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/corporate-immunity-to-criminal-prosecution-send-bank-ceos-to-gaol,8067https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/corporate-immunity-to-criminal-prosecution-send-bank-ceos-to-gaol,8067http://www.afr.com/business/banking-and-finance/financial-services/bank-hearings-to-pry-into-interest-rate-rigging-20150419-1moc3ahttp://www.afr.com/business/banking-and-finance/financial-services/bank-hearings-to-pry-into-interest-rate-rigging-20150419-1moc3ahttp://www.afr.com/business/banking-and-finance/financial-services/bank-hearings-to-pry-into-interest-rate-rigging-20150419-1moc3ahttps://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/corporate-immunity-to-criminal-prosecution-send-bank-ceos-to-gaol,8067https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/corporate-immunity-to-criminal-prosecution-send-bank-ceos-to-gaol,8067https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/stop-the-rot-send-bank-ceos-to-gaol,8060https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/stop-the-rot-send-bank-ceos-to-gaol,8060https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/to-fix-australias-banking-culture-start-sending-bank-ceos-to-gaol,8044https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/to-fix-australias-banking-culture-start-sending-bank-ceos-to-gaol,8044https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-4,4605https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-4,4605https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-3,4524https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-3,4524https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-two,4474https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-two,4474https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-1,4443https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-commonwealth-bank-takedown-of-bankwest-customers-part-1,4443http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/news-and-features/sectors/products/products-news/barclays-posts-31bn-profit-but-hit-by-1bn-redress-bill/2022848.articlehttp://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/news-and-features/sectors/products/products-news/barclays-posts-31bn-profit-but-hit-by-1bn-redress-bill/2022848.articlehttp://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-150.htmlhttp://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/insolvency-profession-questioned-for-one-of-the-biggest-fee-grabs-in-corporate-history-20150705-gi5ht3?skin=dumb-phonehttp://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/insolvency-profession-questioned-for-one-of-the-biggest-fee-grabs-in-corporate-history-20150705-gi5ht3?skin=dumb-phonehttp://wallstreetonparade.com/2015/06/goldman-sachs-doesnt-have-clean-hands-in-greece-crisis/http://wallstreetonparade.com/2015/06/goldman-sachs-doesnt-have-clean-hands-in-greece-crisis/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKwO1onXAaI


24/28


n). Assoc. Prof Evan Jones summarises the Barry Landa Scandal – a criminallyengineered default par excellence - In 2002, Barry Landa was induced by a broker linked toChallenger Mortgage Management to b

Documents

Michael Sanderson on Equality of Arms in the Law in Australia