Cuzz Media

Cuzz Media

Cuzz Media is part of t...



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

Members Login

Get Connected!

  • Connect and expand your network
  • View profiles and add new friends
  • Share your photos and videos
  • Create your own group or join others

Recent activities

  • CBA chief Comyn entangled in Aussie’s dramas
    The Australian
    12:00AM March 19, 2018
    Share on Facebook
    Share on Twitter
    Share on email
    Share more...
    Richard Gluyas
    Business correspondent

    Commonwealth Bank’s hopes for a smooth leadership transition to Matt Comyn could be disrupted by the revelation that its incoming chief executive is CBA’s shareholder representative on the Aussie Home Loans board.

    The news comes after a torrid week for Aussie in the financial services royal commission, which heard on Friday that the mortgage broker had failed an internal risk audit as recently as last December, and that a responsible lending policy had only been introduced two weeks ago.

    Aussie failed to report to police four brokers who were eventually convicted, did not inform customers that their broker had been sacked for misconduct, and still lacked a team dedicated to tracking down fraud.

    The internal risk assessment concluded: “Our findings stress the need for the group to strengthen its oversight of (Aussie) ... in short, (Aussie’s) risk culture needs to lift.”

    CBA declined to comment yesterday on Mr Comyn’s involvement in Aussie.

    However, it’s understood he will relinquish his role as a non-executive director when he becomes CBA chief executive on April 9.

    Also, the bank’s ability to exert full control over the nation’s biggest mortgage broker was limited until last August, when Aussie founder John Symond sold his remaining 20 per cent stake.

    In anticipation of a further week of bad news, Mr Comyn penned an email to retail banking staff on Friday afternoon, warning there would be cases examined where customers had been treated unfairly.

    “In many cases, our actions have had a significant impact on the financial and emotional wellbeing of our customers. This is unacceptable,” Mr Comyn said.

    “Where we have made mistakes we must and will take responsibility for them, we will make things right for our customers, and not repeat the same ­mistakes.

    “We will exceed our regulatory and compliance obligations, and enhance the financial wellbeing of every single customer we serve.

    “Together, we will make our bank better, and one we can all continue to be proud of.”

    Still Mr Comyn’s role on the Aussie board could embroil him in further controversy after his retail banking division rolled out a network of misfiring intelligent deposit machines in 2012.

    The IDMs, which were used by criminals to launder dirty cash, lie at the heart of Austrac’s sensational money-laundering allegations against CBA.

    The financial intelligence agency took action against the bank in the Federal Court in August last year, alleging it had engaged in “serious and systemic noncompliance” with anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing laws.

    The seriousness of the Austrac allegations, and Mr Comyn’s position as head of the retail bank, led to many calls for the appointment of an external successor to the current chief executive Ian Narev.

    However, on January 29, CBA chair Catherine Livingstone anointed the 42 year-old Mr Comyn, saying he was best-placed to maintain the momentum of the business while making the necessary changes.

    In the final week of hearings on consumer lending, beginning today, CBA will again feature in relation to add-on credit insurance for home loans, personal loans and credit cards.

    It will also be targeted for unsuitable overdraft facilities and failure of automated systems.

    The commission will hear from a CBA victim Irene Savidis.

    In his note to staff, Mr Comyn expressed regret that CBA’s initial submissions had not met the commission’s expectations, with Aussie failing to complete, as requested, a separate, 50-page document outlining its misconduct. Instead, the CBA submission covered Aussie in eight paragraphs, and there were no misconduct admissions. “We will work to make sure this doesn’t happen again,” Mr Comyn said.

    1 hours 43 minutes ago
  • From: Mitchell, Chris [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.]
    Sent: Friday, 23 August 2013 3:02 PM To: John Biddle Cc: Koster, Rachelle; Hancock, Steven; Tilley, Charles
    Subject: Surveillance Tasking
    Importance: High Sensitivity: Confidential


    Good afternoon John,

    As per our phone conversation could we please organise physical surveillance of an individual for 4 days from the 28th of August to the 1st September. Details are as follows:

    The individual, Michael Fraser (dob. 09/03/1981) calls himself ‘The Arbitrator’. He has a webpage ( and Face book page and can also be found on twitter .

    There are numerous photos of this individual which should be suitable for your needs.

    He has been systematically harassing a bank Executive and seems intent on destroying our employees professional reputation and compromising his ability to work for the bank. There is some suspicion that he is being fed information from another employee of the bank but we have not been able to confirm this.

    Your task is to:
    Pick the individual up at the Sydney domestic airport and maintain surveillance of him until he leaves on the 1st September (24 hours per day)

    Photograph the individual and premises he visits during his time here in Sydney ∞ Photograph the individual and those with whom he meets – these photos should be suitable for us to allow for the identification of individuals.

    I would like to meet with you early next week for further instructions. Please let me know when this is possible.

    In the meantime I am endeavouring to confirm flight details. However, he has in the past arrived from Brisbane into Sydney between 0730 and 0900. I am not sure at this stage which terminal he may come out of so to be safe we should have a team at each. However, if I can confirm a flight I will send that information to you.

    In the absence of a specific time I would like the teams to be in place all day on the 28th from the time of the first flight arrival from Brisbane or Gold Coast until he is picked up or until the time of the last flight from Brisbane or the Gold Coast.

    Could you please send me a cost proposal for this task? My contact details are on the bottom of this email – I would like to be kept up to date during the course of the activity.
    Could you please ensure that my contact details are shared with the team?
    Finally, could I please ask you to make contact with Charlies Tilley to organise signing an NDA.

    Commonwealth Bank Charles Tilley | Head of Major Disputes & Employee Relations Legal Group Corporate Affairs Level 5 | Tower 1 | Darling Park 201 Sussex Street Sydney NSW 2000
    P: +61 2 9118 5763 | M: +61 424 133 763 E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
    Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require anything further from me at this stage until we meet early next week.
    Kind Regards Chris Mitchell
    Commonwealth Bank
    Chris Mitchell M.Sc Manager, International & Executive Security Financial Services 1 Harbour Street Sydney NSW 2000 M: +61 418 450 911 E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

    4 hours 15 minutes ago
  • The chair of that legal board sits on APRA with Wayne Byers from the Reserve Bank Payment/Credit Cards Committee. Goodness, the lawyer for Mastercard confessed and awaits sentencing in the USA for her role in narcotic and document smuggling operations that scammed US retailers to agree to accept only $5.75 billion in damages. but luckily the US Feds jumped from the bushes and confirmed Reserve Bank info was unethically colluded over with lead lawyers in class actions in the USA.

    4 hours 23 minutes ago
  • Keep the fight going. Join the rest of us to discuss a few things.
    Be there Tuesday, 1pm at the Malaysian Restaurant opposite City Library in Hay st. We need to get together, stick together and work together to have the law re-instated in our courts. ALL of them!

    4 hours 25 minutes ago
  • the People from the CBA and other banks
    are in prison due to the hand clentched truth given by the Whistle blowers (the people) of the AUSTRSALIAN

    4 hours 27 minutes ago
  • Pane QC added Trevor Mctaggart's legal team to the Writs, Glenn Hodges and Barrister Stirling.
    Clare Marshall whispered to Howard Bowles about him on Feb 26th 2015 during the covert operations.

    4 hours 29 minutes ago
  • This was in Court last Week but very little Media...
    Keeps getting adjourned.....
    Some of the players have been jailed?
    This should be on the Front Page...
    It took until 2011 for the CBA, through a CBA, Fraud Analysts, Mr Justin Neylan, to finally brief and engage the Fraud Squad and sadly it was to try and implicate the Victims but that did not happen!!!!
    So it took until 2017 to get to Court and here it is 2018...
    The CBA just doesn’t want the TRUTH to be exposed..
    That the Box Hill Branch was Involved!!!!!
    The Poor DPP have worked so Hard...
    But they are fighting a MONSTER!!!!!
    It’s being revealed in the Royal Commission...
    Thank you

    4 hours 34 minutes ago
  • Ex-Big Law Partner Faces Jail Time, Owes $7.9M Over Bogus Invoices
    Keila Ravelo, a former Willkie Farr & Gallagher partner, faces four to six years in prison and has been ordered to pay $7.9 million in restitution in the wake of her guilty plea Monday in Newark, New Jersey, federal court.
    By Charles Toutant | UPDATEDNov 21, 2017 at 03:08 PM | Originally published on The American Lawyer

    Keila Ravelo pleaded guilty to submitting fake invoices to her former law firms and profiting off of the reimbursements.

    A former lawyer with two Big Law firms has pleaded guilty to her role in manufacturing fraudulent invoices for fake litigation vendors that she then submitted to her firms, using the reimbursed funds for personal expenses and other items.

    Keila Ravelo, a former Willkie Farr & Gallagher partner, faces four to six years in prison and has been ordered to pay $7.9 million in restitution in the wake of her guilty plea Monday in Newark, New Jersey, federal court.


    She pleaded guilty to two counts of her nine-count indictment. Ravelo pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of tax evasion, on the condition that the seven remaining counts be dropped. She also agreed to sell real estate and cars she owns to fulfill the restitution obligation.

    A sentencing hearing was set for March 5, 2018.

    Ravelo, 51, also faces three years of supervised release post-incarceration. She also agreed to refile her tax returns for years 2008-14 before sentencing.

    Monday’s hearing before U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty of the District of New Jersey hit a few snags when Ravelo was questioned about details of her actions in order to provide that her guilty plea had a basis in fact. Ravelo engaged in lengthy, whispered consultations with defense counsel, Lawrence Lustberg of Gibbons in Newark and Steve Sadow of Schulten Ward Turner & Weiss in Atlanta, before ultimately answering affirmatively to questions such as whether she committed fraud amounting to $7.8 million through a scheme of fraudulent payments to vendors.

    The government ultimately accepted her answers even after she added caveats that her involvement in the scheme began in 2012 and that she did not know the total cost of the scheme.

    McNulty said he provisionally accepted Ravelo’s guilty plea pending his receipt of a sentencing report from the federal probation department, and if that report did not allow a sentence within the range of 48 to 72 months, the defendant could withdraw her plea.

    Ravelo was first arrested alongside her now-estranged husband, Melvin Feliz, in December 2014.

    New Jersey federal prosecutors alleged the two used bogus litigation vendor companies to obtain more than $7.8 million from Willkie and Hunton & Williams, where she previously practiced.

    Prosecutors said the couple funneled the majority of the funds into a joint bank account, using the money for personal expenses and investments. Ravelo is further accused of failing to report the earnings on her tax returns.

    Prosecutors said the couple funneled the majority of the funds into a joint bank account, using the money for personal expenses and investments. Ravelo is further accused of failing to report the earnings on her tax returns.

    Ravelo was charged with nine felony counts, including one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, four counts of wire fraud and four counts of tax evasion. The maximum potential sentence for the conspiracy charge and each count of wire fraud is 20 years in prison, while the tax evasion charges each carry a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

    In August 2015, Feliz admitted to his role in the scheme, pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of tax evasion. He is awaiting sentencing on the charges and a separate drug charge.

    Before she was arrested, Ravelo was representing Mastercard as a defendant in long-running antitrust litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. After her arrest in late 2014, Willkie conducted an internal review and uncovered behind-the-scenes communications between Ravelo and plaintiffs attorney Gary B. Friedman that ultimately led a federal judge to reject a settlement in similar antitrust litigation against American Express Co. The judge said Friedman improperly sent Ravelo confidential information and attorney work product.

    In Ravelo’s criminal case, her attorney in the past year has been seeking documents from law firms in the credit card litigation and documents from Friedman, a potential witness at her trial.

    Meanwhile, Friedman, whose legal career was upended after his communications with Ravelo came to light, is working on what he has called a “deeply personal memoir” related to the drama that will be out in 2018.

    After the hearing, Sadow said in a statement, “Ms. Ravelo chose to plead guilty because she felt it was important for her two college-aged sons and family to understand that she has accepted full responsibility for her conduct—the failure to expose her husband’s fraud upon the law firms where she worked and her client Mastercard when she became aware of it in 2012. Instead, and under intense emotional pressure to keep silent, she wrongfully covered up his fraud, and by doing so, allowed it to continue. It has taken her time to come to grips with the reality of her conduct, and after three long years of living with this nightmare and having lost everything, looks forward to putting this behind her.”

    14 hours 4 minutes ago
  • Keila Ravelo's plea deal

    Howard Bowles' cover story is that he spoke to Glen Jones about Jones' eviction on 26 Feb 2015 at 10am - which is 25 Feb 2015 in New York. Jones however wasn't evicted, says EE Bateman Barrister and N Pane QC to Justic randall's Supreme Court Case against McTaggart's legal team. Howard Bowles knew more than Willkie Farr, American Express' Mr Cravath, De Boise, and all the others. The Crime Commission's Dr Douglas and Dr Peter Brandson assessed Bowles' ofice as inolved in a malcious extraordinary cover up of the information they passed about Parliamentarians for a Royal Commission.

    17 hours 17 minutes ago
    The Honest Bank·Sunday, March 11, 2018
    As an advocate I’ve heard the expression ‘it made no commercial sense for the Bank to do what it did to me’ more times than I can recall.
    In many cases this sentiment is true. Particularly when a borrower could meet varied contract terms yet the Bank chooses to sell the asset in a distressed state or during a real estate downturn. This was the case for thousands of property purchasers in Gladstone Queensland whom were provided large loans above the value of property supported by high rents driven by the short lived mining boom.
    Once all is done and dusted the borrower may uncover evidence of wrongdoing on part of the initial loan process, conduct during the loan itself or the use of depressed valuations significantly under the value of previous Bank valuations to sell property at a loss.
    More often than not the borrower is left with a significant shortfall.
    A Bank’s decision to pursue a shortfall or take legal action will be entirely dependent on whether you will make for ‘fair game’. Determining fair game is not an exact science but at its core resides some unsavoury extrapolations being conducted in secret.
    Firstly they determine the impact Bankruptcy will have on your career, then how much money your family has (i.e spouse, parents, siblings), what businesses you are associated with, who your friends are (i.e James Packer, Bill Gates), the health of your parents and number of siblings (i.e inheritance pool) and your health (i.e life insurance).
    If any of the above identifies you as ‘fair game’ then its game on. Expect that claim for the shortfall to arrive sooner rather than later. Expect loved ones to promptly remove you from their wills. Alternatively if you have less prospects then the Bank may choose to put the shortfall into the ‘slow cooker’ or hand over to a collections agency to harrass you for payment.
    In the event that you take the Bank on because you have a ‘great’ case and are in possession of ‘damning evidence’ then you would be totally within your rights to believe there is a ‘commercial sensibility’ factor the Bank would weigh in considering to settle your claim earlier rather than later.
    However commercial sensibility from a Bank’s perspective resides in a parallel universe. As a borrower you look at your evidence, the claim and can totally see how it makes commercial sense for the Bank to settle rather than spend hundreds of thousands if not millions on litigation fighting the indefensible.
    But a Bank being in a parallel universe speaks a whole new language. This is a language that borrowers don’t know exists. Commercial sensibility to a Bank means assessing ‘risk’ according to different variables. None of these variables are connected in any shape of form as to whether the Bank is guilty or not guilty of the allegations made against it. These variables just come down to the game of litigation.
    What most of us are not aware of is that when a claim is made the Bank’s insurer is notified immediately. The Bank’s internal legal counsel will advise the insurer the claims are baseless and that the chances of successfully defeating the claim are significant (as advised by Counsel usually a Barrister of significant name). Banks will routinely not disclose pertinent information to their insurer because largely they’ve got away with not doing so in the past.
    Once external lawyers are engaged the Bank will then open up a loan account or litigation slush fund based on a quote to defend the claims. Almost invariably, particularly where there is a shortfall, the Bank will counter-claim for that plus costs. This always looks good to the insurer because it legitimises the Banks position. Even if the Bank knows it is guilty of the allegations it will still file a counter-claim to just ensure this legitimacy is protected on the surface for the insurer.
    Part of the Bank’s commercial sensibility is in fact based on cost. But even then cost is not just a monetary factor. Most importantly monetary cost for a Bank is buffered by their access to the slush fund they set up exclusively to fight you in court.
    The slush fund the Bank has approved to fight you will then be insured itself (yes another layer of insurance is initiated) so if the Bank does in fact lose the case the loss will be restricted to the cost of the insurance policy rather than the total slush fund itself. So say the Bank opens up a loan account to fight your case of $500,000 (adjusting accordingly) then the insurance cost will be around 25% of the total loan.
    So if we are talking pure monetary cost as a factor of commercial sensibility then we are not even on the same page. Where a borrower sees the risk as the total legal bill the Bank only sees the risk of the lost insurance paid. So we are comparing $500,000 to $125,000 which of course is commercial insensibility.
    But it does get worse. All Legal Firms have agreements in place with the Big Banks. It is how Law Firms compete with one another for a larger slice of the litigation pie. Aside from being on retainers they have commercial agreements in place providing Bank’s themselves with a commercial interest in the fees derived from the work the Bank refers to the Law Firm. So if the fee’s are $500,000 it may entitle the Bank with a 25% fee credit for future services. This generates a form of corporate dependency allowing bad Bank behavior to prosper under the watchful eye of the legal fraternity. Thus that $125,000 cost comes down to $0. Of course the incentive for the Law Firm is to drive up the fees. They know the slush fund is there so they set a cracking fee pace.
    Banks are in the business of leveraging. They leverage your claim, they leverage the Law Firms against one another and they leverage the legal system against the Borrower. They make a buck on every level because every level is an opportunity to be leveraged.
    On the non monetary commercial sensibility side of things this will depend on whether you are represented or unrepresented. As a represented litigant they’ll exhaust your available funds and frustrate proceedings. Inevitably you will turn against your lawyer and your lawyer will turn against you. As an unrepresented litigant they will simply exhaust your will, frustrate proceedings and drown you in unfamiliar interlocutory actions and excessive demands while belittering your lack of legal knowledge. The Law Firm has $500,000 to play with and they know Law is the playing field but the game is something entirely different.
    In the end the Bank will claim its full legal expenses even though it could have settled with you for far less years prior. There is just no incentive for the Bank to settle disputes because put simply they are insured to not settle.
    So even if your case is strong and you have a chance at winning this will be severely undermined by the uneven playing field you find yourself. You are not only disadvantaged by the Bank’s resources but their access to products that undermine one of the core functions of the judicial system which is to encourage parties to exercise a commercial judgement based on cost of litigation and risk.
    By Natasha Keys
    This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

  • Charles Ponzi replied to the topic Systemic Frauds: Queens Counsel says in the forum
    Jackpot at #banksRC. #CBA's #AussieHomeLoans was in the dock. Check out the shocking reports of brokers forging documents in the link below.

    Clearly the commission system is the problem. Here is how it should work if a broker was working in the client's interests. A potential borrower decides they want to buy a home. They have a rough idea of what they can afford but want some help. A properly qualified broker is found. The broker will need to get and confirm key information from the client. The broker will also need to make some inquiries from lenders. This will involve some form filling and phone calls. Much of the work will be done on their laptop.

    The broker is paid a flat fee for assisting the process. If a loan is unable to be found the broker still gets paid but if he or she regularly gets knocked back it means they're not very good at advising clients.

    Why should a character that fills out a few forms properly and makes a few phone calls get millions of dollars a year in trailing commission? This system is structured to work in the interests of loan providers because it generates business that under normal circumstances they would not get. Bankers and brokers push as much debt for as long as possible to insure a continued flow of income. They don’t care if the borrower is struggling with an unaffordable loan. This is not just criminal. It is inhumane. It is pure exploitation.

    Reforms will lead to much lower pay to the minions of the finance sector. If that sort of pay does not appeal then they should find a job where their talents can be better rewarded …… preferably a job that will not lead to jail time.

    Aussie Home Loans brokers forged documents to earn big commissions >>…/aussie-home-loans-brokers-fo…/…

    Good job this week from the Hayne Royal Commission. BRN can’t wait till CBA's #Bankwest scandal gets attention from #Hayne and #Orr.

    We also can't wait to see CBA CEO #IanNarev interrogated by Rowena Orr.

    Justice must be served. Justice will be served. #NoShamRC

    If you haven't put a submission in yet please do.

  • Charles Ponzi replied to the topic President Trump's Order March 1st 2018 in the forum
    Mcgarvie's intentions to 'violate the Economic Espionage Act 1996' were follwed through. The SEC charged he CBA I.T bribery case that defrauded the US Defense Contractor CSC DXC and Hewlett Packard by Waldron and Pulier and Hunter. The DEA charged Mastercard's Keila Ravelo in the Antitrust matters that US associations like RILA say affect the US national interest and economy. The Reserve Bank documents also feature in the case on the 1st Amendement and Prices in Stores, Expressions Hair Design v Schneiderman.

  • Fiona Bennett's APRA to front the RC
    O’Dwyer points to RC review of ASIC and APRA March 2018

    Mike Taylor

    The Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Kelly O’Dwyer has reinforced that the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services industry will be inquiring into the effectiveness and ability of the financial regulators – the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA).

    In an address to the Insurance Council of Australia and on the same day that the Royal Commission listed APRA and ASIC to be part of its hearings next week, O’Dwyer also indicated the Government’s intention to deliver ASIC product intervention powers.

    She said the Government was consulting on draft legislation to give ASIC product intervention powers and to put design and distribution obligations in place.

    “It is critical that these reforms—that of course resulted from the landmark Financial System Inquiry—enhance consumer protections and make sure that financial products are targeted and sold to consumers who might benefit from them,” O’Dwyer said.

    Among the other parties who would appear before the Royal Commission next week are the Commonwealth Bank, Citigroup, ING Bank, National Australia Bank, Westpac and the Finance Sector Union.

  • Our BFCSA submission is now online. My BFCSA 20 page Report has been sent in and distributed to members. I will be attending the hearings next week in Melbourne. We have lifted the lid on the mechanics of this lending approval fraud and we are now are familiar of every component of the insides of the Black Box. Brokers are confused as they had no idea how these unverified loans were being robot approved by major banks. Sellers must admit "only 3 pages of the LAF are presented to customer for signature. Customers until recently have never seen the 8 pages of financial statements laden with Fraud. Then the computerized TRACKER alters those details once again! It's the FUDGE EXPRESS. Lender Policy!! Lenders have admitted they have been Cartel like in their identical loan approval processes by suggesting "no -one wants to be first horse out of the box." Truth is finally emerging, despite brokers being put on display. 55% of loan are approved by the lenders. Fraud in Approvals is still identical to those sold by brokers. Few in the industry understand the Model and that is the genius of this Australian sub prime scandal. Our members stayed firm in their demand for a Royal Commission. This could well roll on a further two years as it all unravels. See you in Melbourne next week.

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

    JOIN us and be part of this quest for justice.

  • Banking royal commission hears of cash bribes, conflicts of interest and hidden fees
    By The Business reporter Daniel Ziffer

    Updated about 4 hours ago
    A graphic shows four men in suits and ties that match the colours of the 'Big Four' banks.
    Photo: The royal commission started badly for NAB. Then it got much worse.
    Related Story: Alleged cash for loans bribery ring detailed at banking royal commission
    Related Story: As it happened: Banking inquiry hears credit cards 'number one' cause of financial stress

    A tailor pushing $122 million in home loans, gym owners assessing peoples' finances, paper envelopes filled with cash bribes, and a bank chief executive revealing his own customers are getting a raw deal.

    And that was just four days.

    It was an astonishing first week of public hearings at the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, better known as #BankingRC.

    Things started badly for NAB. Then they got worse.

    The commission heard NAB's Introducer Program rewarded people such as solicitors and accountants for pushing customers towards its home loans. It was a program that got out of control in greater western Sydney.

    Just one "introducer", believed to be a tailor, pushed $122 million in home loans and reaped $488,000 in fees. A gym owner was another key introducer.

    The benefits became so lucrative that cash bribes in paper envelopes were being given to brokers to help them overlook fraudulent or missing details in applications — to keep the fees coming.

    Whistleblowers called out the fraud, but NAB did not notify the regulator until months after they were required to.
    How bad are our banks?

    The calls for a full banking inquiry have been relentless for years, from a broad section of the community — farmers, small business and households. So just how bad are the banks?

    "It says 'lack of due diligence'," commissioner Kenneth Hayne noted, grilling NAB executive Anthony Waldron. "Is it the introducer? Is the banker? Is the NAB?"

    Mr Waldron, nervous throughout, answered quickly: "It's NAB."

    Not only did NAB delay notifying the regulator, it discussed creating a "straw man" — a potentially fallacious example — to deceive the regulator.

    The nation's biggest bank, the Commonwealth, was also exposed in embarrassing ways.

    The commissioner flagged a focus on the "conflicted remuneration" of mortgage brokers at the start of the process a month ago. This week, allegations of rampant conflicts of interest and hidden fees paid on mortgages were revealed.

    More than half of Australian home loans are funnelled through mortgage brokers.

    Senior counsel assisting, Rowena Orr QC: "The larger the loan, the bigger the commission?"

    CBA executive Daniel Huggins: "That's correct."

    ORR: "The longer the loan, the bigger the commission?"

    HUGGINS: "That's correct."

    Brokers are failing to clearly disclose upfront, on-going fees and incentives to stop people paying off their mortgages sooner.

    "We've acknowledged that there is a conflict … the larger the loan, the longer it takes to pay off — there is a conflict between the customer and the broker," Mr Huggins said during a long day in the witness box.

    At the same time, a surprising and previously confidential submission from Commonwealth Bank chief executive Ian Narev to a review of retail banking revealed customers who use mortgage brokers are losing out through fees, interest and incentives.

    "The use of loan size, linked with upfront and trailing commissions for third parties, can potentially lead to poor customer outcomes. We would support … measures on incentives related to mortgages … for example the de-linking of incentives from the value of the loan," the submission says.

    Customers going through brokers have a smaller deposit as a percentage of the value of the loan (known as loan-to-value ratio), pay more in interest and pay down their loans more slowly.
    Older people losing homes through dodgy loans

    Imagine if your child pressured you into taking out a loan with them that ended in you losing your house. This is the reality for many older Australians.

    Despite the Commonwealth Bank agreeing flat fees would stop brokers boosting the size of loans and suggesting slower pay-down strategies to increase their trailing commissions to maximise profit, it is not fixing the system.

    A report from the competition watchdog piled on the bad news, saying new home loan customers pay less than existing ones.

    The commission has been swamped by more than 1,800 public submissions, more than two thirds of them concerning banking — and most on consumer finance.

    Next week we will hear more about dodgy car loans and Australia's addiction to credit cards.

    Media player: "Space" to play, "M" to mute, "left" and "right" to seek.
    Video: ABC News chief economic correspondent Emma Alberici explains the commission's aims and the scope of the mission. (ABC News)

    Hayne brings levity to proceedings

    One surprising element has been the dry wit of Commissioner Hayne. The former High Court judge has injected some levity when dealing with his team, but has dished out frustration at Big Four employees failing to answer clear questions.

    With the commission falling behind its schedule, he announced he would bring the start time from 10:00am to 9:45am.

    "Anybody game enough to suggest otherwise?" he asked with a raised eye.

    The next day he agreed to a short break.

    "Probably advisable, seeing as I've got everybody working 'forced march' hours," he added.

    When asked about how to submit a document to the commission, either separately or with annexures, he paused before answering: "It's a matter of supreme indifference to me."

    The commission continues next week.

  • Video link to hearings. BankReformNow's customers at the legal services board advised Parliament that the board intended to spy on the politicians in support of the Royal Commission, and that included US billionaire donors to the Clintons that, with the support of the White House's John Podesta, supported groups in the Queensland elections of Independents like Bob Katter's group and tv shows on 60 Minutes. Does the APRA Director's legal board often use its foreign board and false pretences to tip off shady characters like mining and gaming sector accountants about plans by politicians and reporters to get a RC to expose everything like this:

    2 days ago
  • Mar 14 2018 at 5:01 PM
    Updated Mar 14 2018 at 5:01 PM

    My Saved Articles Print License article

    Royal commission: NAB denies trying to dupe ASIC on loan fraud

    Share via Email
    Share on Google Plus
    Post on facebook wall
    Share on twitter
    Post to Linkedin
    Share on Reddit

    Anthony Waldron, NAB executive general manager.
    Anthony Waldron, NAB executive general manager. Jason South
    James Eyers AFR Woodcut

    Share on twitter

    by James Eyers

    The banking royal commission has berated National Australia Bank for failing to formally report fraudulent bankers to the corporate regulator within timelines set down by the Corporations Act.

    Counsel assisting also suggested the bank may have been trying to deceive the Australian Securities and Investments Commission as it put defending its own reputation ahead of customers.

    The inquiry continued on Wednesday following revelations NAB employees accepted cash bribes in white envelopes to facilitate loans based on fake documents.

    NAB's executive general manager for broker partnerships, Anthony Waldron, was asked to interpret a document prepared for an October 2016 meeting that stated: "A straw man has been prepared with respect to the strategic engagement with ASIC about the greater western Sydney introducer fraud matter".
    NAB's Anthony Waldron denied the reference to a "straw man" in internal documents suggested it was attempting to dupe ...
    NAB's Anthony Waldron denied the reference to a "straw man" in internal documents suggested it was attempting to dupe the regulator. Royal Commission

    He said the reference was to "an outline of the issues we identified and how they impacted GWS from a people perspective and behaviour perspective".
    Related Quotes


    volume 7212971value 212686111.2

    5 years
    1 Day

    Loading DataMay14Dec15GMT+1000 (AUS Eastern Standard Time)Mar13Mar18303525.29936.657
    Last updated: Fri Mar 16 2018 - 23:06:19
    View full quote
    16/3/18 Ceasing to be a substantial holder for MTR
    15/3/18 Ceasing to be a substantial holder for CGC
    14/3/18 Becoming a substantial holder for AZJ
    13/3/18 Becoming a substantial holder for CGC
    9/3/18 Ceasing to be a substantial holder for AZJ
    View all announcements

    But counsel assisting Rowena Orr, QC, retorted: "That is not a straw man. What do you understand that term to mean?"

    "A situation of an example, or situation outlining a draft or a hypothesis," Mr Waldron replied.

    "It's a fallacious example, is it not?" Ms Orr asked.

    "[It's] certainly not intended to be," Mr Waldron replied. "...There is no intent to keep from ASIC any true or fair view of this. If you look at the chronology of events, you will see we have interacted with ASIC very often on this...

    "It looks like the use of loose language in the document that we prepared."

    Treasurer Scott Morrison said on Wednesday he considered the revelations "abhorrent behaviour, and that's what was reported to ASIC at the time, and ASIC have since dealt with it."

    However, ASIC has not made any public communication about NAB's introducer program or the loan fraud, which is unusual given the regulator's tendency over recent years to issue detailed media releases at the time banks announce customer remediation programs.

    Asked why it had not reported publicly on NAB's misconduct, and whether it was aware of the extent of it, an ASIC spokesperson said on Wednesday: "ASIC does not intend to provide a running commentary on matters raised before the royal commission, and particularly where it touches on issues that could be subject to investigation."

    Ms Orr also pointed to internal NAB documents, subpoenaed by the commission, which suggested NAB was focused more on its own reputation than compensating its customers.

    "At some point the [remediation] trigger will need to be pulled to minimise any potential reputation impacts," said a NAB staff member at a meeting on October 27, 2016. Mr Waldron said protecting the bank's reputation was not the intent of that meeting.

    The commission also expressed concerns NAB had underplayed the extent of the fraudulent conduct before details of it were revealed on Tuesday.

    While a NAB letter to ASIC in December 2015 had referred to "banker fraud", Ms Orr said: "I raise again for you to consider why, in NAB's response to the commissioner about these events, there was no reference to banker fraud, but instead a reference to inappropriate conduct?"

    After Commissioner Kenneth Hayne warned on Tuesday banks might not be giving proper attention to "obedience to the law", Ms Orr asked why NAB had not provided ASIC with a so-called 'section 912D breach report' until February 3, 2016 - despite the Corporations Act requiring one to be filed within 10 days of becoming aware of the breach. NAB received a report from a whistleblower about the misconduct in September 2015.

    "I can't tell you why" there was a delay, Mr Waldron said.

    Ms Orr also uncovered a January 2017 NAB document, prepared for the consumer banking risk management committee, that she said raised "serious concerns within NAB about systemic problems with controls and monitoring in connection with responsible lending."

    Mr Waldron replied: "If you look at what we have talked about in terms of greater western would absolutely reach that conclusion."


    2 days ago
  • Charles Ponzi replied to the topic John Podesta in the forum
    To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
    Cc: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

    Dear Mr Sandler

    Our group members went to the SEC Office of the Whistleblower about scared whistleblowers from a Victorian government board of directors from minng and fracking and bank regulatory bodies. Can you imagine a government board that tries to find out from victims of bank lawyers what political groups are up to with tv shows and election campaigns? Probably better words than spying exist but no one has come up with a better word yet.

    In 2014 before the Queensland election started and before the American presidential race started, Staff at the Victorian State Government's legal ethics board blew the whistle that they wanted information about television programmes in the works against bank law firms like Gadens (now called Denton Sydney) who look 'protected' by an ethics board that's stacked with mining and coal seam gas companies and directors from the Australian bank regulator called APRA and BHP Billiton.

    This rather strange legal ethics board became really desperate to lean on people for information on grassroots political campaigners when Rupert Murdoch tweeted that the Queensland election was a shock because Independent politicians were opposed to mining like the Adani project and wanted a full Royal Commission to go right through a protection racket for lawyers like Gadens and their banks.

    We think they were terrified of racketeering laws like those cited later by a fellow on The Big Short starring Brad Pitt and Christian Bale in a Court case called Richard Dennis and Sonterra Capital Markets vs JP Morgan and lots of Australian banks based in New York. He says in Court that these stacked boards are a protection racket, and we agree.

    We were also very concerned when whistleblowers in the LSBC board told Dennis Sgargetta and Associates they were terrified about plans by the board to try and find out about politicians and the arrests of the Clinton Global Initiative expert in computers and IT, Mr Eric Pulier, on charges of international bribery with the Commonwealth Bank in Sydney. (The SEC prosecuted one of the bank IT expert so far, Mr Keith Hunter, which only goes to prove they have must have been really worried about spying on politicians and elections campaigns in Queensland and on what the FBI International Corruption division wanted to know more about for their cases with the SEC.

    While not sure what was really going on with this board of banking mining and fracking executives, they carried out the whistleblown plan which verified the staff. We think there must be laws against abuse of a foreign government's stacked board that 'spies' on investigations and politics in places like Oakey Qld and the Qld election and who-knows-who in Democrat political circles.

    You might want to talk to Dennis Sgargetta in Preston Victoria Australia about the advice he received from the Victorian Ombudsman on 17 August 2015 that she thought the board of miners and frackers and banking regulatory people at the LSBC should be investigated by anticorruption Police called IBAC because it look like corrupt conduct to her. Many people think that's what was going on in there.

    2 days ago


Major Topics

Helpful Resources


About Us