|
|
GLOBAL SUB-PRIME CRISIS BANKILEAKS Click on our Secret Library of Evidence ------> |
BANKILEAKS Secret Library Loan Application Forms (LAF's) Then Click on 'VIEW NOTEBOOK' |
Join us on facebook
|
|
|
|
||||
|
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
- 771466
Whistleblowers' Corner!
"Confidentiality is assured."
Cartoon Corner
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.
BFCSA: ASIC with new false and misleading Statements re Broker Conduct: Making a Mockery of Banking Regulation
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 3517
- 3 Comments
- Subscribe to this entry
ASIC has pointed the finger at mortgage brokers in its defence against Banking and Finance Consumers Support Association (BFCSA) allegations of loan fraud in its latest submission for the Senate Inquiry into the watchdog's performance.
BFCSA head, Denise Brailey has been at the forefront of an on-going steam of accusations and claims ASIC has failed to investigate ‘hundreds’ of cases of loan fraud and subsequently covered up a ‘systematic banking failure’.
However, in its submission on reforms to the credit industry and low doc loans, ASIC says that, while it’s received more than 150 letters from BFCSA members alleging widespread misconduct by lenders in relation to falsifying low doc loan application forms, the evidence doesn’t stack up.
“Almost all of the loans that BFCSA members have raised concerns about were entered into before the [NCCP Act] commenced, with most of the loans issued between 2004 and 2008. Where the borrower has provided details on the purpose of the loan, just over half were for investment or business purposes and as such were not regulated under the state and territory credit laws,” reads the submission.
Furthermore, the regulator claims that allegations of loan fraud is more commonly initiated by unscrupulous mortgage brokers – not lenders.
“Consistent with ASIC’s more recent experience under the NCCP Act, it appears that dishonest or fraudulent conduct has been more commonly found in relation to mortgage and finance brokers, rather than lenders.”
The submission comes as ASIC continues to dodge accusations over its failure to prosecute the Leighton Holdings bribery scandal and the CBA financial planners and Securency issues.
A date for Senate hearings is yet to be set.
Comments
-
Friday, 25 October 2013Didn't Human Civilisation Move Beyond the "Dark Ages" - Do They Want Us ALL To Live in Caves & Wield Clubs?
Robert, go with BDM. It's ALL just one GIANT sham. In my case, 2 distinct "episodes" of bank-fraud took place.
The 1st, a 'garden' variety Cr-Assessor tampered LAF, usual white-outs, multi-handwriting, false figures etc.. after signing, without the APP's knowledge.
The 2nd 'rare' variety incriminates ING DIRECT officer/s colluding with it's "authorised-agent" being the Loan Originator's Cr-Assessor "Mr X" from Pioneer Mortgages Services P/L (PMS) based on the Gold Coast (Q).
In my ING DIRECT criminally "tainted" Loan Application Process---
1.PMS officer, initially 'altered' the LAF, to make-it-fit and approve a loan refinance [$506k] as signed-off by PMS' Cr-Assessor "Mr X" who then faxed (60pages) to ING head quarters on 27 March, 2008 expecting his ill-gotten gains for his hard-days-fraud; then
2. ING scanned the PMS recorded fax to create a HQ "electronic file". But something extraordinary happened - ING Direct over-ruled their Cr-Assessor and 'rejected' the Loan APP (without explanation) & the ING Cr-file consequently closed around end of March, 2008; this should have been the end of the matter, but...
3. Best Banking Practice warranted PMS to destroy (all evidence of fraud) the original documentation, PMS relied upon (after doctoring) to fed into its fax machine @7.17am 27 March, 2008-- standard ING DIRECT protocol, nothing irregular; and
4. PMS [thru it's sub-agent(broker) subsequently contacted me in early April, 2008 saying loan APP rejected @75%LVR ($506k) but unilaterally will do the refinance business @70%LVR ($472,500) subject to accountants letter confirming "working-for-yourself"; but misled-by-omission to inform their "sub-agent", that ING DIRECT (ITS PMS Cr-Assessor) hatched a "new" scheme to steal my home--
5. ING, early April, 2008, after ING (HQ's) had rejected my Loan-APP dated 19 march, 2008 -- and after ALL the original docs were destroyed -- it sent an obsolete/defunct electronic-Cr-file-copy to PMS for ulterior purposes; and
6. a scheme was hatched for PMS to substitute 6 pages (to-make-it-fit) of the 60 FAXED page copies contained within the ING Cr-file... to contrive a second FAX back to ING DIRECT (HQ) having sorted out the "bugs", so ING could create a SHAM electronic Cr-file on 10 April, 2008 -- to pretend it didn't have an earlier Cr-file rejecting the same LAF -- then unilaterally approved a 'compromised' loan amount = 70%LVR, but without obtaining a "fresh" Loan Application Form (LAF) nor with the knowledge nor authority from the client; and
7. ING have now produced and rely-on the second electronic Cr-file (only) it created after PMS re-faxed 54 LAF pages sourced from the first Cr-file it initially created on 27 march, 2008 + the 6 substituted pages, relating to Cr_Assessor approval form, called a "Schedule-4" and a new Loan Check List form... to make it all work.
Elaborate? No! Just crooks playing with our lives.
and FOS failed to disclose any ING cr-file to me for 18mths from 5 March, 2012 to 5 Sept/2013 and only after issuing a recommendation in favour of ING DIRECT on 30 August, 2013....
But... FOS' big problem is why and how was it able to access & source copies of documents -- which it relied upon to form its 'preliminary' findings (as duly attached to its Recommendation) -- from the first obsolete/tainted ING Cr-file, while at the same time, knowingly concealing the second contrived ING electronic Cr-file it had received as early as 5 March, 2012, which it chose to sit-on for 18mths, denying me critical "evidence" adverse to the ING position?
...and now when I ask FOS, to respectfully furnish me the whole set of documents contained within the first Cr-file, accessed by FOS... it answer is (go figure)...
Dear Mr Pearson
Dispute with ING Bank (Australia) Limited
Case number: 272XXX
" Thank you for your emails dated 5 September 2013 and 6 September 2013. The documents exchanged are the documents we have on file.
Your comments are duly noted and will form part of the Ombudsman’s final investigation. "
I shall be visiting the offices of ASIC, to put them to the test on this little FOS "COVER-UP"... and after FOS also refuses to investigate overwhelming evidence of ING DIRECT serious misconduct in my previous FOS 'hardship' case closed 2011 which under FOS Rules, it must report such conduct to ASIC, which is why, amongst other things, chooses "wilful blindness" as the best approach, it seems. -
Saturday, 26 October 2013
Thankyou, Denise. Blow them away with the truth of their own words.
It's looking more like a conspiracy now. ASIC supervises and advises COSL. They're working to get the Lenders and Banks, presumedly, off the hook. Framing Brokers and blaming Borrowers. Distortion of Law. Corruption and more corruption at EDR.
Despite Statute Law, despite Case Law. ASIC apparently have their own Law - or believe the Law doesn't apply somehow?
Hence no breaches of Law? Any non-lawyer business person can look at the LAFs and see fraud, forgery.
As for Fraud and Forgery being irrelevant ??... they wish! Maybe it will take the Government to seek justice from the Banks over the Fraud and Forgery on a mass scale ... recover the Bailout money which made Banks even richer under false pretenses!
Clearly we're dealing with corporations who have little or no respect for the Law, so long as they can get away with it!
And they have, all too often, under laissez-faire govt policies ...
Freeze all mortgages at EDR now - this fight is going to get very dirty before it's over - the vulnerable must be protected while this Bank matter is cleaned up properly. Banks have been learning the ropes again from the US. Under our laws they won't get away with it - provided judges and politicians have the guts to stand up to them.
Royal Commission into Banking - Australian's deserve honesty and safety in Banking too!· doyla66 likes this comment.
ASIC just plain lying to protect their Bankster Mates
I dont care how many times ASIC try to fob the blame off on someone else apart from their Bankster Mates, its the Banks and no one else that produced the FRAUD. Oh let me tell you our Broker was and still is a crook no one doubts that and ASIC have charged him as such, but I had 2 Banks involved in my finance of the purchased investment property and both loan documents from both Banks were full of wrong, misleading and plain FRAUDULENT information. Well ASIC will tell me that I was just plain unlucky to get 2 Banks that have made the same slip of the pen on our documents on the same day (nothing systemic here). Oh and they only tripled your income and included 3/4 of a million $ worth of death cover to increase your asset register, could happen to anyone Im sure it was just an honest mistake anyway no harm done, its not like you have lost your home or anything...............yet. Well truth of the matter be our original loan was never through our broker in the end he only sourced the property and we organised the finance directly through our Branch Manager at the Bank direct. The Bank drew up the first loan document and the deposit was arranged via that document, but the loan changed and had to be shared between 2 Banks oddly enough both had almost the exact same Fraudulent figures on the LAFs. Now that leads to this question our Bank Manager had left the Bank and become a Broker himself so we used him to set up the split loan when the loan had to change, so did he give the Banks the new information that is on our LAFs. Some would say that that makes him the crooked one and it was probably him who has changed our documents to get the loan approved but the original LAF for the deposit loan has been lost so we cant check against that and neither Bank ever did a varification of any of the information with us. The information that we signed for as correct contained our true taxable income as supplied to our broker by our accountant, these documents have been changed after our signing and even one signature has shifted position on our copy from the Branch as opposed to the one supplied from the Banks archive centre. It could be that the broker changed all the information and sent it to both banks neither checked with us that the information in it was true and correct and they just disregarded the information sent from the accountant or the Broker sent all the information as we filled out with him then the Banks BDMS put in the information in to get the loan across the line. Same formula for all same fudged figures plug it into skippy and change the figures to suit. Im going with the Bank, the BDMS and the skippy thing with no checking with the customer because it seems the Banks have nothing to fear they know that because ASIC tell them that every Friday at lunch. When the heat goes on we will blame the brokers, well isnt that just starting to fall apart, sorry Bank CEOs the Christmas bonuses might be a little smaller this year.