Iso 9001 Consultants Abudhabi - Our team of consultants have a 100% success rate in assisting clients implement or achieve ISO certifications for ISO 9001 QMS, ISO 14001 EMS, OHSAS 18001, ISO 27001 ISMS, ISO 20000 ITMS, ISO 17025, ISO 13485, ISO 50001 EnMS, SA 8000, HACCP ISO 22000, ISO 10001and ISO 10002 etc. and other management systems. Any consultant that works with The Kayzed Consultants is personally interviewed and selected.
Media captionAustralia bank inquiry: 'They didn't care who they hurt'
Australia is holding a 12-month national inquiry into misconduct in its banking and financial institutions.
Five months in, some allegations aired in public hearings have shocked even industry watchers.
They include evidence of predatory loans, widespread reckless practices and even one bank charging fees to dead customers.
Amid the scrutiny, thousands of Australians have come forward with stories of losing homes, businesses and their life savings. The BBC spoke to some of them.
'You just feel so hopeless and overwhelmed' - Craig Caulfield
Image caption Craig Caulfield says he has been emotionally and financially crippled
Craig Caulfield's battle with the nation's largest lender, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, is in its ninth year.
In 2010, he asked the bank for assistance after struggling with loan repayments for his sugar cane farm in Queensland. The bank rejected his request.
The parties then disagreed over the original loan type, and whether Mr Caulfield was legally entitled to mediation.
When he asked to review those documents, he found they contained errors for which he was not responsible.
According to Mr Caulfield, the application listed his driving licence number as "123456". Other details about his income and assets were also wrong, he said.
Why is Australia investigating its banks?
Australia bank charged fees to dead clients
Commonwealth Bank 'to compensate customers'
When various resolution attempts failed, he fell into despair.
"The people who were supposed to help me were so neutered and the banks and lawyers [were] so strong," he said. "Given their financial might, what justice is there?"
At one point the bank offered to restructure the loan, but Mr Caulfield declined, saying the deal remained "unaffordable".
"You just feel so hopeless and overwhelmed," he said.
The bank told the BBC it would not comment specifically on Mr Caulfield's case, but said it was an "unfortunate reality" that some clients experienced financial stress.
"When this happens, we try to work with customers to find a financial solution to their problem, based on their unique circumstances," a spokesman said.
But Mr Caulfield says he has experienced years of unfair treatment: "I thought I would just talk to the bank and it would be sorted."
'I'd have signed anything' - Carolyn Flanagan
Image caption Carolyn Flanagan testified at the royal commission inquiry in May
Carolyn Flanagan, 67, signed a contract in 2010 with bank Westpac. But she could not read the form herself, and has difficulty recalling the day it happened.
Ms Flanagan is legally blind and suffers from several medical conditions. She was recovering from cancer surgery and a stroke when she went to the bank.
Despite her vulnerability, the bank accepted Ms Flanagan's offer to use her Sydney home - her only asset - to guarantee a business loan held by her daughter.
When that business failed, Westpac seized Ms Flanagan's home and began steps to evict her.
She told the royal commission inquiry in May: "I'd have signed anything for her [my daughter]... if you can't help your children, who can you help?"
Her lawyer, Dana Beiglari, said the bank should not have permitted the contract.
"She had no capacity to pay without losing the roof over her head, and her medical condition severely limited any ability to understand the contract," she told the BBC.
Ms Beiglari ultimately negotiated a deal to allow Ms Flanagan to live in the house for the rest of her life. However, the home is now owned by the bank.
A Westpac representative told the inquiry that "technically" there was no problem with how the deal was signed.
However, he said that bank staff should have realised "warning signs" at the time.
'They will bleed us dry until we die' - Deborah and Jim Barker
Image caption Deborah and Jim Barker say their loan documents were falsified
Deborah and Jim Barker, from Victoria, say they were caught up in a scam after applying for a loan at Commonwealth Bank.
They say they had taken out a A$1m (£560,000; $740,000) loan, but later learned they were making repayments on a A$1.5m loan.
They allege their loan documents were falsified with copied signatures, fake assets, and the listing of Mr Barker's salary as A$343,000 - when in fact he earned about A$80,000.
"Even the telephone numbers were wrong so they couldn't ring us," Ms Barker says.
Australian bank lost data of 20m accounts
Bank admits failures in laundering case
The couple say they are victims of a wider scam that led to the convictions of a mortgage broker and an accountant, neither of whom were bank employees.
The Barkers were the first to raise the alarm with the bank, after discovering two unauthorised withdrawals amounting to A$26,000.
Commonwealth Bank has denied allegations that bank staff were involved in the scam.
It has also denied that the Barkers' A$1.5m loan size was invalidly set, although it refunded them the A$26,000.
The Barkers say they have been financially ruined by the bank's position, which they still dispute.
After losing their four investment properties and eventually their home, they now live with their son and survive on a pension.
In 2016, the pair made an unsuccessful court bid to overturn a default judgement from 2014 that sided with Commonwealth Bank.
"The banks won't admit to anything unless you take them to court," Ms Barker says.
"Even then they've got this bottomless pit of shareholders' funds to fight you. They will deny and deny and bleed us dry until we die."
The bank would not comment directly on the Barkers' case, but a spokesman told the BBC: "In the event mistakes are made by the bank, we look to put these right."
These stories are among more than 7,000 submitted to the royal commission inquiry so far. At this point, only a few dozen cases have been publicly examined.
All entries are reviewed but the inquiry does not have time to examine every case in hearings, a spokesman said.
The Minus wars ... Struggle by the Australian Bar Association to keep its name to itself ... Barrister's business used a similar name ... Attempt to make barristers' service more accessible ... Long and tiring litigation ... Read more ...
Keeping the government safe ... Collaery prosecution ... Whistleblowing conspiracy ... Fallout from Australia's Timor Leste bugging spree ... Woodside and Alexander Downer ... Selective prosecution policy ... Canberra's long, slow dance with duplicity ... Read more ...
BLOW THE WHISTLE
This is an anonymous submission form. No personal information is recorded.
"I would also encourage any member with an interest in this case to be conscious of the fact that the priority must be to allow judicial processes to be conducted without commentary which could impact on the fairness and regularity of those proceedings."
Attorney General Christian Porter trying to hold back the tsumani of commentary about his decision to allow the prosecution of lawyer Bernard Collaery and Witness K. June 28, 2018 ... Read more flatulence ...
Lorenzo Street's passing out parade ... Street the Stockman ... The shirt of flies ... Platypus Junction ... Street the charmer ... Friend of the press ... A legacy in law and love ... The sea and the bush ... Read more ...
Sydney lawyers and TINS ... Barry Lane tracks in exquisite detail the Kala Subramaniam case, which should have sounded a warning bell for The Mensch ... Alas ... From Justinian's archive, March 31, 2009 ... Read more ...
« Surviving swotvac | Main | Fury Road »
Newman's poisoned legacy
Stephen Keim SC & Alex McKean • Wednesday, June 3, 2015
The Carmody catastrophe ... The damage to Queensland's Supreme Court wrought by the former premier and his attorney general ... Challenge to the concept of an independent judiciary ... Release of secret recording under Right to Information held up in the consultation phase ... Stephen Keim and Alex McKean review the landscape
Newman and Bleijie: damaged Queensland's key institutions
THE LNP has released the Borbidge-Sheldon report, the product of a review of the factors that led to its surprising electoral loss in January, this year. The report is being hailed by its authors as a fearless and frank appraisal of the failures of the Newman government.
However, many matters remain unaddressed.
While it does identify that the Newman government was arrogant and alienated stakeholders, it does not address what was central to many voters in rejecting outright a second LNP term.
This was the government's track record of attacking the independence of key institutions whose role it is to keep executive power in check and to protect the rights of the individual.
The legacy of the former attorney general, Jarrod Bleijie, working with his former premier, requires attention. Apart from Newman himself, Bleijie, more than any other, is associated in the public mind with a disregard for principles and a willingness to attack key independent institutions. It is these qualities that have so damaged the LNP.
The Borbidge-Sheldon report correctly identifies that the Newman government did not listen well or react positively, even to mild criticism. When the President of the Court of Appeal, Margaret McMurdo, gently, drew attention to the fact that the LNP government had appointed many more men than women to the bench, her words provoked an extremely hostile response from Bleijie, which included the selective use of confidential conversations with the president, herself.
However, one act of the Newman-Bleijie duumvirate continues to wreak havoc upon the Queensland justice system - the elevation of the then chief magistrate, Judge Tim Carmody, to the office of chief justice of Queensland.
Newman and Bleijie did not have to rely on suggestions that Judge Carmody did not have sufficient legal experience or deep enough legal knowledge to know that what they were doing was not in the interest of the state.
When chief magistrate Carmody made his new "new sheriff in town" speech, when refusing a number of bail applications, Bleijie might have been gratified for the political support from a leading judge for the attorney's new bikie laws. He should have been aware, however, that such partisanship on the part of a judicial officer was not to be encouraged.
The same mixture of warm pleasure and loud warning bells should have been present when chief magistrate Carmody came to Bleijie's defence in the wake of his attack on president McMurdo.
A third example of Judge Carmody's unsuitability for the office was his willingness to be part of the political campaign in support of his own appointment. Carmody agreed to attend the announcement press conference with premier Newman and forcibly proclaimed his own independence.
The pattern of Newman and Bleijie's encouragement of actions by Judge Carmody, which were positively unjudicial, was becoming set in stone. The evidence of recent weeks suggests that that pattern may run much deeper than the public was allowed to see.
Once he was appointed, Chief Justice Carmody had the opportunity to put his displays of partisanship behind him. As we have previously written, the chief justice might have put his head down, worked hard, and earned the respect even of his most grudging critics. Others had done it before him.
In doing so, the chief justice might have provided a lucky bounce for the legacy of Newman and Bleijie and, ironically, strengthened the institutions they had sought to weaken.
One sign that the chief justice was not turning his world around involved observations by journalists that he was scheduled to spend less time in court than other judges and had provided very few written judgments.
The retirement speech of Justice Alan Wilson in late March indicated that the destructive effect of appointing Judge Carmody went beyond just leaving the other judges shorthanded when it came to the day to day grind of judging.
Justice Wilson’s speech still provides informative reading. He makes specific allegations, but his general charge also raised serious concern. He said that it was the contrast between what the chief justice said in public and the reality of what was happening that was causing a loss of the court's morale, so significant as to cause even junior judges to consider stepping down.
A proclamation of judicial independence
It was the inability of the judges to canvass these matters in public that had driven Wilson to speak.
Of the four matters raised by the retiring judge, that which was most concerning for the justice system was the allegation that the chief justice had, until other judges intervened, been engaged in interfering with a long standing protocol that decided, ahead of time, which judges would sit in the Court of Disputed Returns.
At the end of January 2015, an election was held and the result was on a knife edge. An application to the Court of Disputed Returns had been foreshadowed and the result of that case might decide the result of the election.
Particularly, in circumstances where the chief justice's appointment had been criticised for his apparent partisanship, common sense as well as a sense of integrity, would guide any new chief justice to place as much distance as possible between himself and the processes and decisions involved in appointing the judge to the Court of Disputed Returns.
But that was not the chief justice's preferred path.
Further evidence of the damage arose during the Brett Cowan appeals.
In responding to the possibility that a meeting with a social campaigner during the currency of the appeals may have raised an impression of bias, chief justice Carmody accused president McMurdo of attempting to improperly influence him and the lawyers acting for Cowan of seeking to profit by raising points on behalf of their client.
Of all the qualities that judges need, an ability to remain imperturbable in the face of criticism is one of the most important. Trials are places where ideas are floated and questioned and an attack on a judge's ideas must not be perceived by the judicial officer as a personal attack.
The events of the Cowan appeal, however, showed the chief justice displaying extreme personal sensitivity and striking back at his judicial colleagues and at the lawyers whose duty it was to raise all points available to their client.
In April, the chief justice foreshadowed that he might resign. Some interpreted this as no more than a strategic move in a campaign to outflank his critics.
Then, in an exclusive interview, published on May 25, he announced that he was prepared to resign at a price. He required compensation for giving up his salary, three years before he would be eligible for a judicial pension.
The chief justice referred to serious cultural and structural problems within the judiciary that had their origin and were festering long before his appointment. He accused his colleagues of being resistant to change and modernisation.
Carmody said that he was appointed to bring in needed reforms. Part of the chief justice's price for his resignation was that the government commit to an unspecified program of reforms. He had promised to outline the content of his reforms in a speech on May 29, but the speech was cancelled.
Apart from mention of a judicial commission (to assist in recommending judicial appointments and in dealing with complaints against judges) and a suggested program of televising the courts, there seems to be no indication that Carmody has proposed any reforms of the court system in the recent past. Neither of the two suggestions he has made has received any public resistance from his fellow judges.
His demand for a fair price for his resignation does, however, raise deeper questions about the damage being done by the appointment of Carmody as chief justice by Newman and Bleijie.
The CJ seemed to be attacking the heritage left by his predecessor, the current governor of Queensland, Paul de Jersey. Chief Justice de Jersey served in that role for over 16 years. He was a fine, hardworking jurist. He was highly respected as the public face of the courts. He was regarded as standing up for the courts as an institution against governments of all political colours without straying into the overtly political.
No one could have done more than the current governor to achieve Chief Justice Carmody's stated objective of creating a court system that the people of Queensland could respect and trust; a court system that was accountable for what was done not only through the court's judgments but through the conduct of the court's judges and how the courts treated other human beings.
Newman appeared to have recognised Chief Justice de Jersey's fine legacy by choosing him to head the executive and represent the Crown in Queensland.
By his political campaign for his own future, Carmody has launched an attack on the court system which forms so great a part of de Jersey's legacy.
Even more ominous is the chief justice's reference to the needed reforms he was appointed to bring in.
Was he appointed by Newman and Bleijie with an agenda of changes that they wanted made to the way the courts operated? If so, what were these changes? Did chief justice Carmody believe that changes to the protocol for appointment of judges to the Court of Disputed Returns was part of this agenda? Was his attack on the fellow members of the appeal bench and on the lawyers appearing for Cowan part of the grand vision?
The idea that a head of jurisdiction is appointed to bring in an agenda of reforms may yet be the most disturbing aspect of the Newman-Bleijie attack on the institutions of justice in Queensland. It challenges the whole concept of an independent judiciary.
In place of the cancelled reform speech, last Saturday another unsourced story appeared. This article portrayed a recorded conversation between the chief justice and two other justices of the court as a set-up by the other two judges.
At the same time, release pursuant to the Right to Information Act of that recording, and other documents going to the matters discussed by Alan Wilson, has been held up in the consultation phase by at least one judge who wishes to delay their release.
There is no prospect that chief justice Carmody's price for his resignation will be met by the executive.
The damaging legacy of Newman's and Bleijie's choice for chief justice may yet continue for some time.
As grand juries and the Organized crime drug task force arrested Commonwealth Bank Executives, Democrats Eric Pulier and Keila Ravelo, and the Feli crime ring, customers complained that Howard Bowles invented pretences, spied on them and political groups, and threatened to jail or besmirc people. Dr Peter reported McGarvie to the SEC under 18 USC 1513. But is this section relevant?
U.S. Attorneys » Resources » U.S. Attorneys' Manual » Criminal Resource Manual » CRM 500-999 » Criminal Resource Manual 901-999
923. 18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added). See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371).
The operative language is the so-called "defraud clause," that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the "offense clause" in Section 371. Both offenses require the traditional elements of Section 371 conspiracy, including an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act.
Although this language is very broad, cases rely heavily on the definition of "defraud" provided by the Supreme Court in two early cases, Hass v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910), and Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182 (1924). In Hass the Court stated:
The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government . . . (A)ny conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operation and reports as fair, impartial and reasonably accurate, would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation.
Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined "defraud" as follows:
To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.
Hammerschmidt, 265 U.S. at 188.
The general purpose of this part of the statute is to protect governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices. Section 371 reaches "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government." Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987); see Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966). The "defraud part of section 371 criminalizes any willful impairment of a legitimate function of government, whether or not the improper acts or objective are criminal under another statute." United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1989).
The word "defraud" in Section 371 not only reaches financial or property loss through use of a scheme or artifice to defraud but also is designed and intended to protect the integrity of the United States and its agencies, programs and policies. United States v. Burgin, 621 F.2d 1352, 1356 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015 (1980); see United States v. Herron, 825 F.2d 50, 57-58 (5th Cir.); United States v. Winkle, 587 F.2d 705, 708 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 827 (1979). Thus, proof that the United States has been defrauded under this statute does not require any showing of monetary or proprietary loss. United States v. Conover, 772 F.2d 765 (11th Cir. 1985), aff'd, sub. nom. Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987); United States v. Del Toro, 513 F.2d 656 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 (1975); United States v. Jacobs, 475 F.2d 270 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 821 (1973).
Thus, if the defendant and others have engaged in dishonest practices in connection with a program administered by an agency of the Government, it constitutes a fraud on the United States under Section 371. United States v. Gallup, 812 F.2d 1271, 1276 (10th Cir. 1987); Conover, 772 F.2d at 771. In United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendants' actions in disguising contributions were designed to evade the Federal Election Commission's reporting requirements and constituted fraud on the agency under Section 371.
The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government. It is sufficient for the government to prove that the defendant knew the statements were false or fraudulent when made. The government is not required to prove the statements ultimately resulted in any actual loss to the government of any property or funds, only that the defendant's activities impeded or interfered with legitimate governmental functions. See United States v. Puerto, 730 F.2d 627 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 847 (1984); United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Sprecher, 783 F. Supp. 133, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)(Ã¾it is sufficient that the defendant engaged in acts that interfered with or obstructed a lawful governmental function by deceit, craft, trickery or by means that were dishonest"), modified on other grounds, 988 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1993).
In United States v. Madeoy, 912 F.2d 1486 (D.C. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1105 (1991), the defendants were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the government and other offenses in connection with a scheme to fraudulently obtain loan commitments from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or Veterans Administration (VA). The court held that the district court had properly instructed the jury that:
the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a scheme or artifice to defraud, with the objective either of defrauding the FHA or the VA of their lawful right to conduct their business and affairs free from deceit, fraud or misrepresentation, or of obtaining money and property from the FHA by means of false and fraudulent representations and promises which the defendant knew to be false.
Madeoy, 912 F.2d at 1492.
Prosecutors considering charges under the defraud prong of Section 371, and the offense prong of Section 371 should be aware of United States v. Minarik, 875 F.2d 1186 (6th Cir. 1989) holding limited, 985 F.2d 962 (1993), and related cases. See United States v. Arch Trading Company, 987 F.2d 1087 (4th Cir. 1993). In Minarik, the prosecution was found to have "used the defraud clause in a way that created great confusion about the conduct claimed to be illegal," and the conviction was reversed. 875 F.2d at 1196. After Minarik, defendants have frequently challenged indictments charging violations of both clauses, although many United States Courts of Appeals have found it permissible to invoke both clauses of Section 371. Arch Trading Company, 987 F.2d at 1092 (collecting cases); see also United States v. Licciardi, 30 F.3d 1127, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 1994)(even though the defendant may have impaired a government agency's functions, as part of a scheme to defraud another party, the government offered no evidence that the defendant intended to defraud the United States and a conspiracy to violate an agency regulatory scheme could not lie on such facts).
In summary, those activities which courts have held defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 affect the government in at least one of three ways:
[cited in USAM 9-42.001]
They cheat the government out of money or property;
They interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity; or
They make wrongful use of a governmental instrumentality.
The infamous Commonwealth Bank concealed money laundering from pensioners like the Texas State Teachers Retirement Scheme says their class action law case brought by Mr Baron and Phi Finney McDonald against the CBA Bank of Australia . I'll be seeing the FBI office in the Embassy soon about the use of Gas Lighting that this Doctor Doherty went along with to get inside information on the investigations into the Commonwealth Bank.
Bank staff at the CBA in Box Hill and accountants (who are finally awaiting Sentencing because it was all true) used titles and fraud to raise money that went to casinos in Las Vegas. Lawyers - possibly in breach of trust accounting rules and ethics - paid bank mobile lenders in cars their "commission" for procuring funds with fraud on people. We think Racketeering laws were violated, and we think the racket includes every one who tried to spy on the investigations by the FBI into the Bank. Dr Doherty may have to answer some questions because, unless landlords in Australia are evicted, it looks like he was in on the use gas lighting to intimidate witnesses and to spy on the customers who were helping the FBI's side of the investigations. BankReformNow told Parliament that the cover ups by the Victorian Government's legal ethics board were extra ordinary.
No one is happy with the legal board's toothless inaction against these systemic crimes. $75 million was defrauded from customers. Were they protecting the criminals?
Everyone hopes that President Trump's Executive Orders to extradite defrauders of the elderly includes pensioners in the Texas State Teachers Retirement Scheme. More extraditions of high ranking bank officials and criminals and more forefeiture of ill gotten gains would be long overdue.
The new CEO of the Commonwealth Bank might find that his Bank is Ordered to pay restitution to all victims of international bank crime, and we hope that Dr Doherty's role in a cover up is fully exposed.
Reason of review: Poor customer service.
Monetary Loss: $999999.
Preferred solution: Full refund.
I liked: Guilty plea by international poker players at vegas casinos.
We are in association of advocates for the Royal Commission into bank scandals like the Rate Rigging by Australian banks, into FOS' lawyers and FOS, and many other things that the Royal Commission says "It was all true".
We refer to your email to Dennis Sgargetta & Associates on 17 Aug 2015 that says the legal services board in Victoria would act corruptly if its CEO carried out its intentions to lean on his own customers, like Mr Elliot Sgargetta, who reported the legal board's tip offs to US law enforcement. It all came true, says Mr Sgargetta in his complaint at Parliament and to your Ombudsman.
Please investigate Mr McGarvie'slegal services board as we believe it is unethical for lawyers in an ethics board of a State Government to carry out intentions to lean on people while US Grand Juries and US investigators are investigating
Please investigate Mr McGarvie's inconsistent claims firstly to The Opposition Minister for Police & Counterterrorism The Hon Robert Clark that the legal board didn't know anything against Mr Sgargetta's claim that Mr McGarvie's staff blew the whistle on the board's plans, and secondly against a review of Mr Mcarvie's files by US law enforcement where Mr McGarvie's file says he had names of FBI and SEC people and knew all about the investigations. Telling an Opposition Minister that he wasn't aware of things would be regarded as unethical for a government ethics board that has customers complain it procures information on US government investigations for the criminal side about possible witnesses while covert operations are underway on transnational drug and document smuggling rackets like Ravelos. Also look into Mr Mcgarvie's admission that his staff knew because they were advised before the arrests to stop tipping off criminals' front men as claimed by a landlord Mr Jones. .
Given that Mr Mcgarvie also claims that he thought the investigations by people under the SEC's Mary Jo White and the US national security chief prosecutor Eileen Decker was nonsense only goes to show the he was aware of the investigations and he chose to go ahead with the plans as whistle leaked to his customers like Dennis Sgargetta's American clients from backgrounds in I.T and military intelligence. He knew and he covered up, says Submission 116 at the Parliamentary Inquiry into Engineered defaults.
Mr McGarvie's Ms Pakula knew because Mr Sgargetta was updating the FBI.
Victims of the CBA Scandal were defence contractors like Hewlett Packard, CSC and DXC Technology Aerospace and Defense, by the way.
Victims of Keila Ravela's Reserve Bank Racket included Amex Mastercard Visa, global banks like Citgroup and millions of American retail stores.
We believe Mr McGarvie's board of executives come from APRA and KPMG, - and KPMG and the CBA Risk Committee knew in 2013 about the role that the I.T had in the CBA played in the global investigations that Austtrac investigated. Austrac found child trafficking, Vietnamese crime rings, Al Quada supporters, weapons and drug trafficking.
Please investigate if these Victorian Government back the wrong side. Mr Jones says the board's Mr Bowles tried to get him to go along with a story that it was investigating his eviction, however he was a landlord and he was never evicted by anyone. Who was Howard Bowles taling to about the Organised Crime Task Force's arrests before the lawyers like Mr KC Wildfang told Judge Orenstein that they had no nowlede that crime rings passed Reserve Bank evidence between lawyers for Mastercard and lawyers like Wildfang's circle such as Mr Gary Friedman? Please investigate if Victorian officials leaned on people in what Submission 116 at the Parliamentary Engineered Defaults Inquiry described as an extraordinary cover up and plans to possible engage in conduct that migh be unethical like hindering international investigations that were led by people like Ms Eileen Decker from the US' organised crime and counterterrorism divisions which was investigating the Commonwealth Bank's I.T Department. Her background at the highest level of international crimes can be accessed here - law.ucla.edu/faculty/faculty-profiles/eileen-m-decker/. In case you are not aware, the SEC went on to charge Commonwealth Bank executives and staff in the bank claim that the CEO Ian Narev knew. www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/former-head...arged-bribery-scheme
We don't like legal ethics board staff who carry out plans to use their government position to 'lean on' people in political campaigns and on tv shows who wanted a Royal Commission into things like the bank's role in facilitation of crimes by bank staff, bank brokers, international criminals and child traffickers.
Whistleblowers in the
SEC Office of the Whistleblower
For more information on the Whistleblower Witess Scheme, and retaliating on whistleblowers by foreign board officials, ask
100 F Street NE
Mail Stop 5631
Washington, DC 20549
Phone: (202) 551-4790
Fax: (703) 813-9322
During elections in Australia of anti-pedophiles and anti-coruption parliamentarians, Howard Bowles was warned to stop using pretences for criminals as he tried to get information on elections that were baced by billonaire donations thru the Clinton Global Initiative with John Podesta on consultancy agreements. Howard's enlightening tip offs were enlightening. He is named in Whistleblower Reports at the SEC regarding his intentions to 'violate the Economic Espionage Act". He may be a foreign official too with a mental aversion to Independent Parliamentarians who want a Royal Commission into things like the child traffickng and counterterrorism law violations that Austrac and US Pension Funds are suing FOS' CBA over. www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/upload...8/07/RussiansDNC.pdf
Decided on June 28, 2018 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial Department
John W. Sweeny, Jr.,Justice Presiding,
Dianne T. Renwick
Angela M. Mazzarelli
Anil C. Singh,Justices.
[*1]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.
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.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Raymond Vallejo, of counsel), for petitioner.
Respondent pro se.
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 [*2]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[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 [1st Dept 2009]).
For a determination that a federal felony has a New York analogy, the federal felony does not have to be a "mirror image" of a New York felony but must be "essentially similar" (Matter of Margiotta, 60 NY2d 147, 150 ). 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 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Lin, 110 AD3d 186, 187 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Sorin, 47 AD3d 1, 3 [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). Although conspiracy to commit wire fraud has no direct felony analogue under New York law (see Matter of Merker, 140 AD3d 1, 4 [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).
The indictment to which respondent pled guilty alleged, 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 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); 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 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Boden, 146 AD3d 69 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Feuer, 137 AD3d 78 [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 [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.
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.
Too Big to Prosecute Pt 4 – Treasury, Bankwest Too Big to Fail www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT7AcNoXgQw&feature=plcp
Treasury questioning. HBOS withdrew Bankwest funding, let it fail?
Concerns on Bankwests illegal or grossly improper activities should go to ASIC