Click on our Secret Library of Evidence ------>

    BANKILEAKS Secret Library

Loan Application Forms (LAF's)  

    Bank Emails to Brokers  

    Then Click on 'VIEW NOTEBOOK'

Join us on facebook

facebook3           facebook2 


What BFCSA Does...

BFCSA investigates fraud involving lenders, spruikers and financial planners worldwide.  Full Doc, Low Doc, No Doc loans, Lines of Credit and Buffer loans appear to be normal profit making financial products, however, these loans are set to implode within seven years.  For the past two decades, Ms Brailey, President of BFCSA (Inc), has been a tireless campaigner, championing the cause of older and low income people around the Globe who have fallen victim to banking and finance scams.  She has found that people of all ages are being targeted by Bankers offering faulty lending products. BFCSA warn that anyone who has signed up for one of these financial products, is in grave danger of losing their home.


Articles View Hits

Whistleblowers' Corner!

To all mortgage brokers, BDMs and loan approval officers! 
Pls Call Denise: 0401 642 344 

"Confidentiality is assured."

Cartoon Corner

Lighten your load today and "Laugh all the way to the bank!"

Denise Brailey

Led by award-winning consumer advocate Denise Brailey, BFCSA (Inc) are a group of people who are concerned about the appalling growth of Loan Fraud around the world. BFCSA (Inc) is a not for profit organisation in the spirit of global community concern and justice.

Click on the Cluster Map.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Login
    Login Login form

BFCSA: Modicum of Movement at the Station of Ombudsmen? Shredding of evidence? Cleansing of cases prior to SENATE Inquiry into ASIC?

Posted by on in Australian Federal Police
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 3104
  • Print

Tom is spot on: 

Denise, As know FOS are now eliminating the appeal avenue from their decisions and going straight to determination effectively benefiting the banks and themselves.  By the time the Senate Inquiry into Lazy ASIC reports  in March FOS and COSL hope to reduce their over bloated case load.  The one they both pretend they do not have.   Our Banks and ASIC, reminiscent of the Nazi tactics in the latter stages of WW11: holding centres and send everyone to gas chambers before the Allies arrived.  This time its the Bank Case Manager executioners.  Naturally, it's in everyone's interest except consumers of toxic bank loans, to have ASIC lie twice to Parliament: "we see no systemic issues."  Industry Regulators and their Banking Buddies must be desperate to shred the evidence to skew the figures of case numbers.

Yes Sir:  The most experienced INCOME FIGURE FUDGERS and Document Magicians with disappearing files living under rocks in the banking business, are indeed our illustrious Bankers. 

This matter will not go away.  So have the Ombudsman's offices been used as a shredding centre?  I can only imagine the shredding of files taking place right now in some of our tallest Banks.

The weirdest excuses for closing files is happening right now and no mention of fraud statute of 20 years and no mention of FOS and COSL sitting on valid cases for two years or more.

So ASIC paid of the AFP?  Did they really?  neat as.................

No more mention of Banks assisting their own customers who have been financially and emotionally done over in a bid for even fatter bonuses for bank CEO's and Chairmen.  Our Reserve Bank is hardly a model of virtue.  They condone bribes.  Its a glorious plot to steal people's hard earned retirements to feather their own anticipated 10 star retirements.  What worms they all are.

So the figures do not add up?   We are on to the lot of you as the patterns of extremely desperate behaviour from Ombudsmen materialises.  NO regard for Judges' decisions in protecting consumer rights.  You will all come undone eventually, I promise you.

Truth always has a delicious way of bubbling to the service, despite the evil minds of mostly men and money greed and power.  Wait for the Consumer Paradigm Shift and it will be giving you all a very big WHACK.  Coming soon.

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

Last modified on
Rate this blog entry:


  • doyla66
    doyla66 Wednesday, 16 October 2013

    You are totally on the ball Denise. Lies, fraud, deceit will never stay hidden. It always comes out. With age I have learnt and seen this to be so true. It just doesn't stay concealed. Do the Banksters, ASIC, FOS etc really believe that they will get away with their treachery.? It will not happen!!!!! If I was a part of this sordid and cruel scam I would be starting to shake in my boots and having a panic attack. What are they really going to achieve by shredding. Not much, just buying a bit of time. So what!!! It will come out eventually. You are gone for all money fraudsters.!!!!!!!!

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Wednesday, 16 October 2013

    So have the Ombudsman's offices been used as a "shredding" and massive "cover-up" centre?

    Denise, FOS refuse to hand-over ING 'electronic credit file' from which it sourced copies & attached to its Recommendation dubiously in favour of ING DIRECT, and, after finally receiving on 5 Sept, 2013 the below FOS held "electronic credit file" created by ING on 10 April, 2008 (File 1), which FOS knowingly hid since its receipt on 5 March, 2012--- and it only then became apparent to me, that FOS had knowingly sourced three documents from an earlier and distinctly separate ING "electronic credit file" created on 27 March, 2008 (File 2).

    So I requested a full copy of that further hidden 'File 2' which FOS relied upon - in part - to push the 'interim decision' ING's way. FOS's answer was--- "Thank you for your emails... 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."

    But why not simply hand-over the copy of 'File 2' it relies on to demonstrate FOS is acting "fair & impartial" at all times?

    Dispute with ING Bank (Australia) Limited
    Case number: XXXXXX

    [FOS] says..."I refer to your email dated 3 September 2013 requesting a copy of the full loan application and supporting documents. Please find attached an electronic copy of the documents from ING Bank (Australia) Limited in relation to your dispute as enclosed with our correspondence dated 5 March 2013. [should read 5 March, 2012] I apologise if these documents weren’t properly enclosed at that time."

    And = some 18mths undisclosed and attempted to trim non-disclosure period down by 12mths with a "typo"

    [FOS] continues, says.. "However, I note that you have been provided with copies of each of the documents that the Case Manager relied upon in forming her conclusions in the Recommendation."

    But 3 of these docs emanated from the 'other' File 2 FOS pretend they don't possess and/or refuse to hand over and/or refuse to insist ING furnish me a copy because its full of FRAUD not unlike 'File 1' the FOS also hid from me for 18mths...only discovered by receipt of the FOS Recommendation--- a process FOS has now recently eliminated to further the "cover-up of massive endemic bank fraud.

    Oh deeaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. What is going on or going down in spades here?

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Wednesday, 16 October 2013

    Senator Cormann: the Law also applies to those who conceal or destroy evidence. Please advise.

    It's called a coverup, in time honoured public service tradition.
    "In the national interest"???
    Maybe in the National Bank's interest, and all the rest of the gang of thieves!
    Senator Cormann should inform the Ombudsmen, ASIC and all Banks and lenders that any attempt to destroy or hide subpoenaed evidence will result in automatic forfeiture of the plaintiff's "rights" to the security property in question and the Lender's case against the Borrower will be dismissed in favour of the Borrower with all costs met by the Lenders.

    This is a global scam. All scams require coverups to succeed to the finish. Coverups require further coverups as everyone involved tries to ensure their backs and their tracks are covered. A pile of coverups, metres deep.
    Where are our investigative journalists?
    I have one word for the Banks and their regulator buddies and Ombudsmen:

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Thursday, 17 October 2013

    Its still my belief no documents no contract

    I firmly believe that if Banks, Brokers, FOS, COSL or ASIC for that matter destroy evidence to protect their own backsides and can not produce all the documentation relevent to your mortgage in full and correct then that loan no longer is valid. Please remember that any valid contract must be signed, witnessed and the terms agreed to by both parties (the lender and the borrower). The lender must keep a completed signed, witnessed copy for the duration of that mortgage along with any special notes of aditional terms or amendments to the contract requested by either party (lender or borrower) and a copy of these documents forwarded to the borrower for their own records. As many of us have found much of the documentation was not forwarded to us the borrowers and many documents containing our signatures were withheld from us. Documents were only forwarded to us once we had shown a knowledge of our rights to the documents pertaining to the loan containing our financial situation and containing our signatures. These documents of course in many cases were still never returned to us in their entirety with much of the information still kept well clear of our the borrowers view said by the Banks to be for internal use. Not so. They pertain to our position and are part of our assessment of ability to service debt.
    So anything that is not made available that is relevent to us personally and has an impact on our borrowing from any legitimate source must be found and presented or considered to have never been produced thus rendering the lend null and void.
    If this approach is to be taken by the regulators and external mediators the cases become a lot easier to clear, if ALL documents can not be produced then ruling is in favour of the borrower case closed. With this approach Banks and Brokers might not lose quite so much important paper work, of course after much of the documentation we have seen eg: forged, fudged, photoshopped and incomplete they may not want it to see the light of day anyway.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Thursday, 17 October 2013

    It's all a 'charade'

    Charles this is precisely the point(s), "no dox, no sox" and they get to keep their dirty underwear, case closed. FOS requires an "Authority Form" to access all my 'relevant bank a/c's" which I complied yesterday but FOS don't even request let alone demand ING DIRECT produce the 'missing' electronic credit file I identified recently, probably because (i Know) FOS are sitting on that very file it accessed to gain copies to concoct its recent sham Recommendation and are now "caught with their pants around their ankles....

    Ps, I am now in "full investigation" mode (FOS) and its legal counsel asked me (email 10 Oct, 2013) about $10k I deposited into NAB around Sept, 2008 and prior to loan approval 26 March, 2008 (note; ING held 6mths statements) hoping it was some "hidden treasure / income", --but alas, it will be displeased to ascertain it was in fact myself drawing a "cash advance" from my credit card to stop defaulting on the previous loan paid out by ING DIRECT...while i sold a property to gets some cash in the door -- and the broker falsely (without my knowledge or consent) stated in earned $160k a year -- now ING credit assessot could have asked this question at the relevant time and received same above answer, and had they done so "exercising the care and skill of a prudent and diligent banker" -- as per the banking codes it adopted and was obligated as bound by -- then of course the loan would not have proceeded.

    FOS Case No. XXXXXX

    Mr X of FOS Legal Counsel, says via email 10 Oct, 2013...

    " In relation to the queries in your email about the further information I have requested for Case No. XXXXXX, please note that our investigation process is an inquisitorial one. This means that we ask questions to, and request information from, the parties to a dispute, as well as the parties providing information they themselves believe is relevant. The information we request is the information we feel is necessary to investigate the dispute. While you are free to suggest (and provide) the information that you consider is relevant or required to investigate the dispute, the relevance and necessity of information is ultimately a decision for our office to make as it is our office which is in charge of conducting the investigation, not an applicant or a "financial services provider".

    In relation to the additional information I have requested from you in my email dated 10 October 2013 (which is now due by 24 October 2013), I have requested this information because I consider the information is relevant to understanding your overall financial position at the time you received the loans in dispute, and how you funded your loan repayments.

    I funded my loan repayment by way of a friendly "buffer loan" ING DIRECT were kind enough to provide in return for your SOUL for EXTERNITY -- dead we do not part.

Leave your comment

Guest Friday, 04 December 2020