Menu
Cuzz Media

Cuzz Media

Cuzz Media is part of t...

NAB VICTIM

NAB VICTIM

In late 2008 we became vi...

Banking In Australia Today

Banking In Australia Today

Visit Banking in Austra...

Donate Please

Donate Please

We need your support. ...

Prev Next
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
Welcome to the Kunena forum!

Tell us and our members who you are, what you like and why you became a member of this site.
We welcome all new members and hope to see you around a lot!
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2

TOPIC: 7News on FBI Sting on CBA IT Bribery Keith Hunter

7News on FBI Sting on CBA IT Bribery Keith Hunter 1 year 10 months ago #3246

  • Scrag
  • Scrag's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 2703
  • Thank you received: 9
  • Karma: 0
www.msn.com/en-au/sport/watch/bank-emplo...ikGn1?refvid=BBijWqk

7 News confirmed the FBI jumped out of the bushes. Customers of the Victorian Legal Services Board are adamant that they were lent on, intimidated, threatened with prosecution by the Board, and threatened with foreclosure by the lawyers for most of Australia's big banks and the bank arbitration scheme that calls itself an Ombudsman. Keith Hunter's Sentence on the Australian charges is due to be handed down 2pm December 16 2016 at Sydney's Darlinghust Court (or Downing Street) by Judge Arnott after hearing Submissions over the 15th. "This is the tip of the iceberg" says Supt Arthur Katsogiannis of NSW Cybercrime in the broadcast on March 18 2015. Is it ethical and legal for an ethics board to assist sham lit support firms in Brighton to get information on active and secret investigations into international brbery and a fraud on stockholders in the US computer giant CSC?, ask victims in a SEC Protected Discloser Program who want compensation from the Victorian Legal Services Board for breaching privacy to boastful self proclaimed Brighton-based characters who threaten to use standover men as part of their 'expert' 'mediation' services. Or is threatening people a breach of 18USC1513's extradictable extraterritorial offence of hampering people who were unwilling to hinder the US Feds requests for more information?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Queens Counsel says crimes committed 3 months 1 week ago #3938

  • DesiredUserName
  • DesiredUserName's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 943
  • Thank you received: 8
  • Karma: 0
Banking royal commission: criminal charges recommended against Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund
A moment of reflection outside the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.
A moment of reflection outside the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.

The Australian
4:12PM July 6, 2018
Save
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on email
Share more...
22
Michael Roddan
Reporter
Sydney

Potential criminal charges have been recommended against notorious funeral insurer Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund, the royal commission has heard.

In a raft of open findings recommended by counsel assisting Rowena Orr, the royal commission heard it was open to find ACBF had breached 12DF subsection 1 of the Australian Securities & Investments Commission Act for misleading conduct — a breach that is open to criminal charges and carries a maximum fine of $420,000 for an individual and $2.1 million for a company per offence.

Ms Orr told the royal commission it was also open to find ACBF had breached Section 12DA and Section 12DB subparagraph E of the ASIC Act which regulates misleading and deceptive conduct.

“ACBF plays on the cultural significance of funerals to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and indigenous mortality statistics to actively sell its policies to children and young people in those communities, in circumstances where they have little need for the product,” Ms Orr told the royal commission.

“ACBF’s health classification system may result in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people paying more than they would if they obtained funeral insurance from another insurer,” she said. “This policy is unlikely to cover all aspects of sorry business.”

The royal commission has held a week of hearings in Darwin to probe financial company dealings with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Funeral insurer Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund was deducting money from the Centrepay benefits of about 6000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people despite not knowing where they were, and cancelled the policies when it was cut off from the welfare payments, the royal commission has heard.

The royal commission on Wednesday heard Bryn Jones got the chief executive job at ACBF despite holding no related qualifications and no financial services experience, after having a coffee with the group’s founding director Ron Pattenden, who was a client of Mr Jones’ father.

As part of consent orders following a 1999 Federal Court case with the Australian Securities & Investments Commission, ACBF was forced to stop using the Aboriginal flag on its advertisement and to declare that the company was a “private company, not sponsored by or otherwise connected with any governmental or similar body or an Aboriginal organisation”.

The company is run by a Gold Coast family with no ties to Aboriginal communities.

However, ACBF had advertised its policies on the National indigenous Times website, in the Koori Mail newspaper, on national indigenous radio services and in television ads where the disclaimer was not included.

Mr Jones admitted that about 30 per cent of ACBF’s policyholders are aged under 18, while a further 15 per cent are less than 25 years of age

ACBF has been a thorn in the side of regulators for years. It has signed up thousands of Aboriginal children and babies to insurance schemes which could cost upwards of $100,000 over a lifetime for a funeral.

According to the corporate regulator, about 80 per cent of customers end up cancelling their insurance. ACBF, where about a third of policyholders are aged under 20, extracted money from indigenous customers’ Centrepay benefits before money made its way to their bank accounts, a practice that ceased after a court order.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Keila Ravelo disbarred: 3 months 1 week ago #3940

  • DesiredUserName
  • DesiredUserName's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 943
  • Thank you received: 8
  • Karma: 0
This is the case that Howard Bowles and McGarvie claimed they discussed with a landlord called Jones who was evicted. No he wasn't. He threatened to sue McGarvie if McGarvie covered up for the legal board's role in tipping the crims off. www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/docu...CourtOpin?1530968917
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Keila Ravelo disbarred: 3 months 1 week ago #3942

  • DesiredUserName
  • DesiredUserName's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 943
  • Thank you received: 8
  • Karma: 0
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT

In the Matter of Keila D. Ravelo, an attorney and counselor-at-law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Keila D. Ravelo, Respondent.
M-1366

June 28, 2018, Order Filed June 28, 2018, Decided

THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.


Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Raymond Vallejo, of counsel), for petitioner.

Keila D. Ravelo, Respondent, Pro se.


John W. Sweeny, Jr., Justice Presiding, Dianne T. Renwick, Angela M. Mazzarelli, Ellen Gesmer, Anil C. Singh, Justices. All concur.

Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Kaila D. Ravelo, was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department on July 20, 1992.

PER CURIAM

Respondent Keila D. Ravelo was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on July 20, 1992. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Department.

In 2017, respondent was convicted, upon her plea of guilty, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 USC §§ 1343 and 1349 , and tax evasion in violation of 26 USC § 7201 . Respondent is scheduled to be sentenced on June 28, 2018.

Respondent's conviction stemmed from her involvement in a conspiracy with her husband by which she defrauded two law firms (where she was employed as a partner) along with a client of approximately $7.8 million by submitting false invoices for litigation support services purportedly rendered by two entities formed by respondent and her husband.

Now, the Attorney Grievance Committee (Committee) seeks an order striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(a) and (b) and the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.12(c)(1) , on the grounds that she was convicted of a felony as defined by Judiciary Law § 90(4)(e) , namely, conspiracy to commit wire fraud ( 18 USC §§ 1343 and 1349 ), and has therefore been automatically disbarred.

The Committee served respondent with its motion by mail, on consent, but she has not submitted a response.

The Committee's motion to strike respondent's name from the roll of attorneys should be granted.

Judiciary Law § 90(4)(a) authorizes automatic disbarment of an attorney convicted of a felony. Under this statute, a "felony" includes "any criminal offense classified as a felony under the laws of this state or any criminal offense committed in any other state, district, or territory of the United States and classified as a felony therein which if committed within this state, would constitute a felony in this state" ( Judiciary Law § 90[4][e] ). Thus, a federal felony conviction will result in automatic disbarment if an equivalent felony exists under New York law (Matter of Rosenthal, 64 AD3d 16 , 18 , 880 N.Y.S.2d 603 [1st Dept 2009]).

For a determination that a federal felony has a New York analogy, the federal felony does not have [*2] to be a "mirror image" of a New York felony but must be "essentially similar" (Matter of Margiotta, 60 NY2d 147 , 150 , 456 N.E.2d 798 , 468 N.Y.S.2d 857 [1983]). Thus, we must compare the applicable federal and state felony statutes, as well as look to our own precedent on this issue. If this initial analysis is inconclusive, "essential similarity" can be established by admissions made under oath during a plea allocution, read in conjunction with the indictment or information (see Matter of Adams, 114 AD3d 1 , 2-3 , 977 N.Y.S.2d 248 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Lin, 110 AD3d 186 , 187 , 971 N.Y.S.2d 47 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Sorin, 47 AD3d 1 , 3 , 845 N.Y.S.2d 250 [1st Dept 2007]).

Automatic disbarment is warranted herein because respondent's federal conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud under 18 USC §§ 1343 and 1349 , if committed in New York, would constitute the New York felony of scheme to defraud in the first degree ( Penal Law § 190.65[1] ). Although conspiracy to commit wire fraud has no direct felony analogue under New York law (see Matter of Merker, 140 AD3d 1 , 4 , 30 N.Y.S.3d 94 [1st Dept 2016]; Matter of Sorin, 47 AD3d at 3 ), admissions made by respondent as part of her written plea agreement and plea allocution, read in conjunction with the indictment to which she pled guilty, satisfy the elements of scheme to defraud in the first degree, a class E felony ( Penal Law § 190.65[1] ).

The indictment to which respondent pled guilty alleged, in in pertinent part:

"[v]endor 1' was a limited liability company formed by [respondent] and [her husband] in or about January 2008. From at least as early as in or about March 2008 through in or about October 2013, Vendor 1 purportedly provided millions of dollars in litigation support services to Law Firm 1 and Law Firm 2 for the benefit of Client 1 and received payments of more than $5,000,000 from Law Firm 1 and Law Firm 2 for these alleged services. Law Firm 1 and Law Firm 2, believing that Vendor 1 had provided the litigation support services, in turn, billed and were reimbursed by Client 1 in connection with these purported services. In reality, however, Vendor 1 provided no services to Law Firm 1 and Law Firm 2 for the benefit of Client 1 or otherwise. Moreover, the vast majority of the money that went into Vendor 1's bank account from Law Firm 1 and Law Firm 2 was either: (i) used directly to pay for [respondent's] and [her husband's] personal expenses, or (ii) wire transferred into [a] Joint Bank Account and then used to pay for [respondent's] and [her husband's] personal expenses or investments. At no time, however, did [respondent] disclose to Law Firm 1 or Law Firm 2 that she and [her husband] had [*3]a direct financial interest in Vendor 1."

It is undisputed that respondent engaged in substantially similar behavior for "vendor 2," a limited liability company formed by respondent and her husband, that provided services to Law Firm 2 from July 2011 through July 2014. As part of the conspiracy, respondent authorized payments from Law Firm 1 and Law Firm 2 to both vendors 1 and 2 falsely representing that these vendors provided certain services.

The indictment also alleged that:

"It was further part of the conspiracy that when questioned by Law Firm 2 about Vendor 2 invoices, [respondent], in order to cover up and enable the conspiracy to continue, provided Law Firm 2 with documents [*3] that [respondent] claimed were produced by Vendor 2, but which in fact [respondent] knew were not produced by Vendor 2 as [respondent] had obtained many if not all of those documents from an attorney at another law firm."

Through this conspiracy, respondent and her husband "fraudulently obtained approximately $7,800,000 from Law Firm 1, Law Firm 2, and Client 1." Respondent entered into a written plea agreement in which she admitted to conspiring to commit wire fraud and reaffirmed the admission during her plea allocution. Respondent's plea admissions, read in conjunction with the indictment to which she pled guilty, satisfy the elements of Penal Law § 190.65(1)(b) because respondent admitted that over a period of time she and her husband engaged in a systematic course of conduct by which they fraudulently obtained over $7 million from her former law firms and a client thereof.

Respondent failed to notify the Committee or this Court of her conviction as required by Judiciary Law § 90(4)(c) and 22 NYCRR 1240.12(a) .

Respondent's admitted conduct corresponds to the New York felony of scheme to defraud in the first degree ( Penal Law § 190.65[1] ); and, thus, is a proper predicate for automatic disbarment under Judiciary Law § 90(4)(b) and (e) and 22 NYCRR 1240.12(c)(1) (see e.g. Matter of Kuber, 151 AD3d 124 , 55 N.Y.S.3d 229 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Boden, 146 AD3d 69 , 43 N.Y.S.3d 755 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Feuer, 137 AD3d 78 , 24 N.Y.S.3d 608 [1st Dept 2016]).

The Committee's application is timely even though respondent has not yet been sentenced because she was automatically disbarred at the time of her guilty plea (see Matter of Lin, 110 AD3d at 188 ; Matter of Armenakis, 86 AD3d 205 , 207 , 924 N.Y.S.2d 84 [1st Dept 2011]).

Accordingly, the Committee's motion should be granted and respondent's name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective nunc pro tunc to November 20, 2017.

All concur.

Order filed. June 28, 2018

Ordered that the petition is granted, and pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(b) , respondent's name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, nunc pro tunc to November 20, 2017.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Directors Officers Insurance refused; 3 months 1 week ago #3943

  • DesiredUserName
  • DesiredUserName's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 943
  • Thank you received: 8
  • Karma: 0
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Link to US Pension Funds vs CBA Moneylaunder Case 3 months 6 days ago #3949

  • DesiredUserName
  • DesiredUserName's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 943
  • Thank you received: 8
  • Karma: 0
The administrator has disabled public write access.
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2
Time to create page: 0.404 seconds

News

Major Topics

Helpful Resources

Socialize

About Us