On McGarvie's file LNQ 2015 13008 (? ) he advised the Victorian Government Minister for Counterterrorism & Police that he and his delegates didn't know anything about the FBI & SEC investigations into cases like the bribery between Commonwealth Bank execs and the .T consultant Pulier to people like the Clintons or the smuggling by Ravelo' narcotics ring that smuggled Reserve Bank and Amex and Visa secret economic evidence to Ravelo and Gary Friedman. There should be laws against a government board of officials whose clents say it lent on them and blew whistles on its higher up officials.
Section 323(a) provides a maximum penalty of seven years for, inter alia, intending to cause a witness in any judicial proceeding to give false evidence, withhold true evidence, not to attend as a witness, or not to produce anything in evidence pursuant to a summons or subpoena. The essence of a s 323(a) offence is that it strikes at the integrity of the justice system and so some form of custodial sentence is normally appropriate: Warby v R (2007) 171 A Crim R 575 at ; R v Burton  NSWCCA 128 at ; Asplund v R (Cth)  NSWCCA 237 at .
Section 323(b) provides a maximum penalty of seven years for intending to influence the conduct of a juror in any judicial proceedings.
Section 324 is an aggravated form of ss 321–323, punishable by a maximum of 14 years, where the offence is committed with the intent of procuring a conviction or acquittal for a “serious indictable offence”.
It is an error to sentence an offender, who pleads guilty to an offence under s 323(a), for the more aggravated offence under s 324. Section 324 “constitutes a distinct and greater offence which must be specifically alleged in the indictment”: Warby v R, above, at .
But, in assessing the objective seriousness of an offence under s 323(a), it is an error to have regard to the absence of a fact which, if it were present, would constitute a different and more serious offence, such as an offence of threatening or intimidating a juror under s 322(a): R v Burton, above, at .
Where an offence under s 323(a) is committed in the context of domestic violence by an offender who wants to dissuade criminally the victim from giving evidence, there is a need for a significant element of general deterrence: R v Burton at . A correct exercise of sentencing discretion required the court to have express regard to the need for general and specific deterrence and denunciation of domestic violence offences: R v Burton at , Hiron v R  NSWCCA 336 at , R v Hamid (2006) 164 A Crim R 179 at . Additionally, given that victims of domestic violence often — and contrary to their interests — forgive their attackers (at ), a court should cautiously approach a victim’s expressions of forgiveness and requests for a lenient sentence: at , .
In Asplund v R (Cth), there was an added element of seriousness to an offence under s 323(a) where the witness influenced by the offender was his 17-year-old son, as such offending had a traumatic effect on the witness and constituted a breach of trust: Asplund v R (Cth) at .
In sentencing for an offence under s 323(b), it is relevant to consider the nature of the intention to influence a juror. In the unusual case of R v Sultan  NSWCCA 461, the applicant approached the husband of a juror during his trial for a break and enter offence. He asked that the juror “listen to the evidence carefully”. Grove J (with Sully and Howie JJ agreeing) accepted that the applicant’s conduct was merely “an exhortation to perform the duty of the juror”: at . Grove J observed at :
The intention of the legislature in enacting s 323(b) was clearly to proscribe any act intended to influence a jury in any way whether benign or not. But it does not derogate from acknowledgement of that intention to assess the seriousness of an offence against the presence or absence of sinister connotation.
See also s 68A Jury Act 1977 below; R v Laws (2000) 50 NSWLR 96.
Section 326 — Reprisals against judges, witnesses, jurors etc
Section 326(1) provides a maximum penalty of 10 years for threatening or causing injury or detriment to a person on account of anything lawfully done as a witness, juror, judicial officer or other public justice official. A similar offence applies where an offender threatens, does or causes injury or detriment believing the person will or may be called as a witness or serve as a juror: s 326(2). It is immaterial whether the accused acted wholly or partly for a reason specified in ss 326(1) or (2): s 326(3).
An offence against s 326 is, by its very nature, serious; amounting to a direct attack upon the administration of justice: Linney v R  NSWCCA 251 at . In Linney v R, the applicant sent emails containing death threats aimed at a judge via the judge’s associate and the police. The court found no error in the sentencing judge’s assessment of the offence as above mid-range: Linney v R at . Although the offence is concerned not only with threatening but also doing or causing injury or detriment, the death threats made by the applicant were repeated, not spontaneous and made in circumstances where the recipient was given real cause to fear they could be carried out: Linney v R at , –.
In R v Jaques  NSWCCA 444, where the applicant made a threat to kill a magistrate, Dowd J (with Wood CJ at CL and Bell J agreeing) explained the gravamen of the offence at :
The offence of course is complete with the uttering of the words, and in the circumstances of the uttering of those words, the finding of guilty by the jury is not a finding of his intention to carry out the threat.
Dowd J continued at –:
His Honour is correct that there is a need for deterrence for this sort of offence. However, in the circumstances of an offence which was not made in the face of the court, which was done in an office where there were other people present, and although it appears it was uttered in anger, it was not such as to clearly indicate an intention to commit the offence that was threatened.
I consider that his Honour has erred in giving too much weight, in the circumstances of the utterance of these remarks, to the severity of what was uttered and has taken into account the applicant’s previous record, and in the circumstances, the penalty is manifestly excessive.
In R v Gaudry; MacDonald  NSWCCA 70 at , the sentencing judge erred by finding the s 326 offences committed by each respondent fell “toward the bottom of the range”. Each respondent threatened a person waiting in the foyer of a courthouse to give evidence. The threat involved reprisals against the person by persons with a reputation for violence. The making of the threat actually interfered with the course of justice by intimidating the person threatened to the effect that he did not give evidence that day: R v Gaudry; MacDonald at .
In Malicki v R  NSWCCA 162, however, the offence contrary to s 326(2) was held to be properly characterised as at the lower end on the basis that Malicki’s criminality was dwarfed by that of the co-offender Widmer: Malicki v R at .
Section 68A Jury Act 1977 — Soliciting information from or harassing jurors or former jurors
It is an offence under s 68A Jury Act 1977 to solicit information from, or harass, a juror or former juror for the purpose of obtaining information about the deliberations of a jury or how a juror, or the jury, formed any opinion or conclusion in relation to an issue arising in the trial (or coronial inquest).
In sentencing the radio presenter John Laws for an offence under s 68A, Wood CJ at CL noted that the increase in maximum penalty from a fine to imprisonment for seven years in 1997 “marks the seriousness with which the Legislature regards intrusion into the sanctity of the jury room”: R v Laws (2000) 50 NSWLR 96 at . Wood CJ at CL imposed a suspended sentence.
[20-170] Perjury, false statements etc: Pt 7 Div 4 Crimes Act 1900; ICAC Act 1988; Police Integrity Commission Act 1996; Crime Commission Act 2012
Part 7 Div 4 Crimes Act provides a range of offences for perjury and false statements. Section 87 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (ICAC Act) also provides that a person who, at a compulsory examination or public inquiry conducted by the Commission, gives evidence that is false or misleading in a material particular knowing it to be false or misleading, or not believing it to be true, is guilty of an indictable offence. The maximum penalty for the offence is 200 penalty units or imprisonment for 5 years, or both. Similarly, s 107(1) Police Integrity Commission Act 1996 and s 27(1) Crime Commission Act 2012 provides that a person who, at a hearing before the Commission, gives evidence that is, to the knowledge of the person, false or misleading in a material particular is guilty of an indictable offence. The maximum penalty for an offence under s 107 is the same as the maximum penalty for an offence under s 87 ICAC Act. The text in s 107, “(cf ICAC Act s 87)”, evinces a legislative intention that the sentencer should compare or confer with the false swearing offence created in s 87.
Seriousness of offences
Offences of perjury and false swearing undermine the very foundation of the justice system: R v Aristodemou (unrep, 30/6/94, NSWCCA).
The need for general deterrence is the prime consideration in sentencing for offences of this kind: R v Aristodemou; R v Bulliman (unrep, 25/2/93, NSWCCA).
Any person who commits perjury or false swearing in the course of judicial proceedings or in proceedings such as a Royal Commission or an Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) inquiry should do so in the clear understanding that if their offence is detected, they will go to gaol except in exceptional circumstances: R v Aristodemou; R v Chad (unrep, 13/5/97, NSWCCA); R v Chapman (unrep, 21/5/98, NSWCCA); R v Fish (2002) 131 A Crim R 172 at , ; R v Mahoney  NSWCCA 138 at –.
Motive as relevant factor
An offence of perjury or false swearing will be of lower objective seriousness where it was motivated by threats rather than the offender’s own purposes: R v Pile  NSWCCA 74 at . In that case, the applicant falsely resiled from statements implicating a co-offender in a robbery, but only after he was transferred from protective custody into a cell next to the co-offender.
In R v Fish, the first appellant was a police officer who denied in court that fellow police, including her husband, had assaulted prisoners. The husband had a history of domestic violence towards the appellant. Bell J (with Ipp AJA and Dunford J agreeing) allowed an appeal against sentence. Bell J stated at :
I am persuaded that it was relevant to the question of sentence to take into account the circumstance that the appellant’s offence took place in the context of an abusive marital relationship. This was not simply a matter of a police officer lying in court to protect fellow officers because of a misguided sense of loyalty. The appellant’s case in this respect possessed exceptional features. The reality of her situation was that had she given truthful evidence … she would not only have exposed her husband to liability for his criminal offences but almost certainly she would have been subject to serious physical violence at his hands. These matters raise considerations quite distinct from the need for courts to impose deterrent sentences in cases where police officers lie in order to protect their colleagues.
In R v Yilmaz (unrep, 4/3/91, NSWCCA) Smart J (with Gleeson CJ and Lee CJ at CL agreeing) considered that the applicant’s subjective case was sufficient to justify a non-custodial sentence. The applicant spoke poor English and did not fully understand the consequences of giving false evidence; the false evidence was to no avail; there was considerable delay in finalising the matter. Regarding delay as a mitigating circumstance, see also R v Fifita (unrep, 26/11/92, NSWCCA).
However, in R v Bulliman (unrep, 25/2/93, NSWCCA) Abadee J (with Gleeson CJ and Hunt CJ at CL agreeing) stated:
False evidence strikes at the whole basis of the administration of justice and indeed, it undermines the whole basis of it. Justice inevitably suffers, whatever be the motive for the making of false statements on oath and whatever be the circumstances in which the offence or offences are committed.
In R v Aristodemou (unrep, 30/6/94, NSWCCA) Badgery-Parker J stated:
I do not accept the proposition that the community would regard as in any way a mitigating circumstance that the motive for the applicant’s false swearing was not to conceal corruption on his own part but was to conceal the corrupt conduct of others. No doubt there is an acceptance on the part of those who commit crime that it is dishonourable to inform on others and that there is some nobility in declining to do so. It by no means follows that the same view is taken by right-thinking members of the community and for my part, I refuse to proceed on the assumption that that is so. It is no doubt true that in some circumstances the seriousness of a crime may be seen to be mitigated if it was committed for an honourable, albeit mistaken motive. It is in my view an attempt to press that submission too far if the conduct is such to defeat the purpose of legislation enacted in the public interest.
In R v Mahoney  NSWCCA 138 at , the respondent argued that his perjury was less serious because it involved “a pathetic attempt” to mount a defence to an “overwhelming case”. Shaw J concluded that such a characterisation did not fundamentally detract from the seriousness of the offence.
Similarly, in R v Bulliman (unrep, 25/2/93, NSWCCA), Abadee J (with Gleeson CJ and Hunt CJ at CL agreeing) stated that offenders convicted of perjury “ought to be severely punished and this is irrespective of whatever be the outcome of the proceedings in which the false evidence was given”.
[20-180] Other corruption and bribery offences: Pt 4A Crimes Act 1900; s 200 Police Act 1990; common law bribery
Part 4A Crimes Act 1900
Part 4A provides offences for corruptly receiving commissions or rewards, and other corrupt conduct.
In Retsos v R  NSWCCA 85 at , Sully J (with Simpson and Howie JJ agreeing) said that: “Any offence of, or ancillary to, corrupt conduct on the part of any public official should be denounced plainly and punished condignly”.
In R v Potter  NSWCCA 26, the applicant pleaded guilty to five counts of corruptly receiving a benefit under s 249B(1)(a) as the Chief Steward of the Greyhound Racing Control Board. The sentencing judge properly took into account the historical background that the applicant had engaged in corrupt conduct for at least seven years, although he had been convicted of only five offences. It was permissible to use the applicant’s course of conduct to demonstrate the seriousness of those offences: at . The offences were at the top of the range, based on his official position, the motive of financial gain, the duration of his corrupt conduct, and the number of innocent people affected: at .
Section 200 Police Act 1990 — common law bribery offences
Further offences of bribery and corruption are provided in s 200 Police Act 1990. Under s 200(1), it is an offence for a member of the NSW Police Force to receive or solicit a bribe (pecuniary or otherwise). Under s 200(2), it is an offence for a person to give, offer or promise a bribe to, or make any collusive agreement with, a police officer.
An offence against s 200 is an indictable offence punishable by 200 penalty units, or 7 years imprisonment, or both: s 200(4).
There are also residual common law offences of bribery, conspiracy to bribe a public officer, and conspiracy to receive or solicit a bribe.
In R v Pangallo (1991) 56 A Crim R 441 at 443, Lee J stated that:
In my view, the crime of bribery is always to be regarded as one which strikes at the very heart of the justice system and it must be severely punished whenever it is detected.
In R v O’Mally  NSWCCA 166 at –, Grove J (with Stein AJA and Howie J agreeing) endorsed the following comments in R v Nomchong (unrep, 10/4/1997, NSWCCA): “The police are in a position of authority and trust in the community and the public depends on them to uphold the rule of law. The crime of bribery by a police officer is one that strikes at the very heart of the justice system”. Grove J added, “Those remarks are pertinent to the present offence and not just to an offence higher in the scale of criminality such as was the circumstance in that particular instance.”
In R v Duong (1999) 109 A Crim R 60, Wood CJ at CL (with Foster AJ agreeing) said at :
The offence of bribery or of offering a bribe to police in the course of the execution of their duties is a most serious offence … Save in the most exceptional circumstances it will call for a significant term of imprisonment to be imposed cumulatively or at least substantially cumulatively upon the sentence for the primary offence in respect of the detection or prosecution of which the bribe was offered.
In R v MacLeod  NSWCCA 108 at , the CCA reiterated the serious nature of offences of the kind under s 200, threatening as they do the integrity of the administration of justice and potentially posing danger to police sources of information and jeopardising important investigations.
The failure of an attempted bribery may not be a mitigating factor: R v Duong at . The fact that an attempted bribery was made is more significant than in other attempts to commit substantive offences: R v Duong at ; R v Taouk (1992) 65 A Crim R 387. The likely outcome of an attempted bribery, if it had been successful, may be an aggravating factor. In R v Duong, Wood CJ at CL explained at :
Here we have an offence which, had the attempt succeeded, two results would have followed: first, two police would have been corrupted; second, no less than $8,000,000 worth of heroin would have found its way on to the streets of Sydney with the horrific social consequences which would flow from that release.
These matters, and particularly the second of them, in my view place this attempt to bribe police squarely within the category of the worst type of case.
[20-190] Common law offence of misconduct in public office
The common law offence of misconduct in public office provides that it is an offence for a public official, in the course of or connected to his or her public offence, to wilfully misconduct himself or herself by act or omission without reasonable excuse or justification, where such misconduct is serious and meriting criminal punishment having regard to the responsibilities of the office and the officeholder, the importance of the public objects which they serve and the nature and extent of the departure from those objects: R v Quach (2010) 27 VR 310 at ; Obeid v R  NSWCCA 309 at ; Shum Kwok Sher v HKSAR (2002) 5 HKCFAR 381 per Sir Anthony Mason NPJ.
The offence extends to politicians, such as a member of the NSW Legislative Council: Obeid v R (2015) 91 NSWLR 226 at –. Members of Parliament are entrusted with certain powers and discretions on behalf of the community, and they must be free to exercise those powers and discretions in the public interest, unfettered by considerations of personal gain or profit: Horne v Barber (1920) 27 CLR 494 per Rich J. The system of government expects, and depends on, individual Ministers to do the right thing: R v Macdonald  NSWSC 638 at .
As a common law offence, the penalty for misconduct in public office is at large. In such instances it is the practice of the court to adopt an analogous or corresponding statutory offence, where available, as a reference point for the imposition of penalty: Blackstock v R  NSWCCA 172 at ; citing R v Hokin (1922) 22 SR (NSW) 280. However, the courts have emphasised that the statutory analogue is a point of reference only; it does not establish a kind of de facto maximum: Blackstock v R at ; Jansen v R  NSWCCA 301 at .
The penalty for an offence of being an accessory before the fact to misconduct in public office is also at large, as an accessory before the fact is liable to the same punishment as the principal offender: s 346 Crimes Act 1900. The same approach of sentencing having regard to a statutory reference point, as set out in R v Hokin, may be applied: Jaturawong v R  NSWCCA 168 at . The misconduct in Jaturawong v R involved the offender corruptly receiving payments whilst acting as the manager of a registry of the RTA. Both the offender and the Crown accepted that the relevant reference point was Pt 4A Crimes Act which provides for offences of corruptly receiving commissions and other corrupt practices which carried a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment: Jaturawong v R at .
Assessing objective seriousness
8.6.1 - Interference with persons having duties to discharge in a court of justice
Interference with witnesses
It is a contempt of court to intimidate witnesses in a manner likely to deter them from giving evidence or to influence them in their giving of evidence (Farahbakht v Midas Australia Pty Ltd  NSWSC 1322, ).
It need not be established that the witness was actually deterred or influenced (Re B(JA) (an infant)  2 All ER 168).
Interfering with witnesses is a criminal contempt. The Court will not allow witnesses to be intimidated in any way, either before the trial, pending trial or after trial (Moore v Clerk of Assize, Bristol  1 WLR 1669; Farahbakht v Midas Australia Pty Ltd  NSWSC 1322, ).
It is also a contempt to punish a witness for having testified notwithstanding that the trial has concluded (Attorney-General v Butterworth; In the matter of Goldman  3 NSWR 325). See ‘Reprisals’ below for more information.
For the conduct to constitute contempt, it must be established that the alleged contemnor had some appreciation that the person to whom the conduct in question is directed was a witness or potential witness (Gregory v Philip Morris Ltd (1987) 74 ALR 300).
The following conduct may constitute contempt by interfering with a witness:
to assault, threaten or abuse a witness or potential witness (European Asian Bank AG v Wentworth  5 NSWLR 445);
to prevent a witness from receiving a subpoena (Lane v Registrar of Supreme Court of New South Wales (1981) 148 CLR 245);
to attempt to induce a witness to confess that she had committed perjury at a trial while an appeal is pending (Jones v Jones (1898) 19 LR (NSW) 43);
to threaten a witness with a perjury charge if the witness gives evidence as intended (R v McLachlan  2 VR 55);
to seek to influence a witness against a party by disparagement of that party, or to otherwise prejudge the case (Welby v Still (1892) 8 TLR 202);
to arrest a witness on the way to or while attending the court to give evidence, or otherwise prevent a witness duly summoned from attending court (Hall (1776) 2 Black W 1110; 96 ER 655);
to bribe or attempt to bribe a witness (Lewis v James (1887) 3 TLR 527);
to remove a person from office because of evidence given (Attorney-General v Butterworth  1 QB 696); and
for a landlord to give a tenant notice to quit because the tenant had given evidence against him or her (Chapman v Honig  2 QB 502).
There are two views as to what constitutes the requisite intent for interfering with a witness (Attorney-General v Butterworth  1 QB 696):
The first view is that the alleged contemnor must have intended to deter a witness from giving evidence, or have intended to influence a witness to give evidence in a manner that they would not otherwise have given.
In R v Taylor  3 VR 657, Gobbo J held that he was not satisfied that the alleged contemnor had “the necessary intention to interfere with the course of justice (). His Honour considered but did not decide whether a more lenient standard of being reckless as to the likely consequences of one’s actions would suffice.
The second view is that the alleged contemnor need not have had an intention to interfere with the course of justice, so long as their conduct was inherently likely to interfere.
Recent cases in Victoria (R v McLachlan  2 VR 55) and New South Wales (Farahbakht v Midas Pty Ltd  NSWSC 1322, ) have adopted this second view.
Interference with jurors
An attempt to interfere with a juror is a serious contempt (In re Dunn  VLR 493; Owen  3 All ER 239; Goult (1982) 76 Cr App R 140; Giscombe (1983) 79 Cr App R 79).
The Juries Act 2000 (Vic) s 89 also preserves the crime of embracery.
Interference with a juror may occur while a juror is discharging his or her duty, whilst he or she is travelling to and from the court, and even after the case has been completed and the juror has returned home (Ex parte Pater (1864) 5 B&S 299; 122 ER 842; In re Johnson (1887) 20 QBD 68; Martin (1848) 5 Cox CC 356; Lovelady (1981) 5 A Crim R 197).
The following are examples of where an interference with jurors has been found to be a contempt of court:
The distribution of pamphlets outside the court to jurors or potential jurors seeking to influence their opinion on matters arising in the case before them (Registrar, Court of Appeal v Collins  1 NSWLR 682; Fraser (1984) 15 A Crim R 58; Prothonotary v Collins  2 NSWLR 549).
An employer dismissing or threatening to dismiss an employee because he or she has received or responds to a jury summons, or to instruct him or her not to respond to a jury summons: Lovelady; Drinkwater 4/6/1991 Sup Ct Vic; R v Rogerson (1992) 174 CLR 268.
Writing a letter (the contents of which were untrue) seeking to have an employee excused from jury duty (In the matter of Newton 24/7/1989 Sup Ct Vic).
Interference with judges
Where a person’s conduct has the tendency to intimidate or improperly influence the decision of a judge, that person will be in contempt of court (R v Vasiliou  VSC 216, -).
June 2014 is interesting: that's when the FOS Review by D'Argerville and the David Murray FSI and VLSBC's Tina Stagliano knew the SEC mob buster Mary Jo White was investigating.
Confidential documents reveal Commonwealth Bank stressed to the anti-money-laundering regulator it was making a “significant investment” in its compliance systems and reporting breaches “in a timely manner”, just months before it was hit with legal action alleging huge reporting failures.
Austrac filed a 600-page legal suit in the Federal Court in August last year, alleged the bank breached anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism financing legislation more than 50,000 times. The bank has denied it had any knowledge of the charges levelled against it until the statement of claim was filed in court and subsequently became public.
But documents obtained by The Australian under Freedom of Information laws reveal a back-and-forth between the bank and Austrac in the months leading up to the legal action, with the regulator concerned with how the company complied with anti-money-laundering laws. The heavily redacted documents were obtained following a five-month battle with CBA, which had opposed their release.
The documents reveal Austrac in mid-June and mid-October 2016 had given CBA notices that required the bank to hand over detailed information relating to the bank’s compliance systems and processes.
A letter sent by CBA general manager of financial crime operations Matthew Keaney to Austrac on April 13 last year reveals CBA’s response to a third request for information from Austrac just a month earlier.
In that letter, Austrac had asked for “further information” relating to two undisclosed issues raised in the bank’s prior responses to Austrac’s 2016 legal notices.
“Before responding to the specific questions in your letter, we reiterate our firm commitment to meeting our obligations under the (anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism financing) Act,” Mr Keaney said, according to the letter obtained by The Australian. “We recognise the role we play in combating financial crime, and the importance of that to our customers and the communities we serve. We will continue to make significant investment in our AML/CTF systems, people and processes, including to ensure that critical intelligence is detected and reported to Austrac in a timely manner.”
Austrac in August last year alleged CBA failed to send the regulator tens of thousands of legally required transaction reports, many of which related to deposits made through the bank’s smart ATMs. Last month, Austrac dramatically broadened the allegations to include further instances where organised crime groups and convicted terrorists allegedly washed money through CBA’s intelligent ATMs.
Austrac has alleged CBA is still breaching the law.
A CBA spokesman said the bank co-operated “fully” with Austrac. “This includes continuous liaison and collaboration with the regulator, including the provision of information to Austrac on an informal basis and in those instances when Austrac uses its information gathering powers,” he said.
According to Austrac principal legal officer Jennifer Ermert, CBA objected to the release of the letter because it disclosed confidential information about the bank’s transaction monitoring systems and processes.
The letter also disclosed “the review that the CBA is conducting” in relation to transaction monitoring and “the specific measures and upgrades that the CBA has implemented, or will be implementing” to its systems and processes,” Ms Ermert said.
The CBA letter is cited in Austrac’s statement of claim against the bank as evidence the lender did not comply with its transaction monitoring program between October 2012 and September 2016. There, Austrac claims the bank did not properly monitor nearly 800,000 accounts “for varying periods”. It is also alleged the bank knew of the compliance failure with the accounts in June 2014, but “did not resolve the systems error” on all accounts until late September 2016.
In its Federal Court defence, CBA has claimed “the error was corrected, and the affected accounts were subject to automated transaction monitoring by, at the latest, October 12, 2015”.
Chairman Catherine Livingstone has said while CBA discovered the failed transaction reports in about August 2015, after Austrac queried the lender for a number of missing transactions, the bank was unaware of the impending legal action until the 600-page statement of claim was filed in the Federal Court in August 2017.
Former Austrac acting chief executive Peter Clark last year told a parliamentary hearing the regulator had “quite a lot of contact with CBA” before filing its lawsuit in court.
Law firm Maurice Blackburn has already launched a class action against the bank alleging breaches of continuous disclosure over CBA’s compliance with anti-money-laundering legislation.
Elder Financial Exploitation, Neglect and Abuse Victim
Violating Institution : Bendigo Bank
Suspects : Bank Manager Christine Frankham & Susan Bogaard Paid Care Giver
Suspected Accomplice: Peter Hadley Wood (Solicitor/Attorney)
Yolanda was the first Elder Financial Exploitation, Neglect and Guardianship Abuse Victim reported to NASGA from Sydney Australia in late 2013, she was also a Victim of Australia's Institutionalized Elder and Disabled Financial Exploitation and Cover-Up's within Australia's Banking and Financial Services Industry.. !!
Yolanda is the mother of Mareea Watts and Tony Hutton (NASGA and Banking Abuse Advocate), both the Bendigo Bank and Bank Manager Christine Frankham have now been placed on NASGA's "Wanted List" and all information received by NASGA from Banking Abuse Whistleblowers in relation to either Australian or American Banks will be kept Strictly Confidential .. !!
Case History :-
Bendigo Bank Manager Christine Frankham and Susan Bogaard a Paid Carer of Yolanda Hutton were under New South Wales (NSW) Police Investigation from August 2011, during this time Bank Manager Frankham was suspended for 18 months from Bendigo Bank pending the Police Investigation.
Bendigo Bank Manager Frankham and her friend Susan Bogaard had been appointed Guardians and Financial Managers of Yolanda Hutton (who in June 2007 was diagnosed with Advanced Dementia), until they relinquished their role prior to a Guardianship Hearing on 26/7/2011, due to intensive Investigation by the Australian Media .. !!
Following a story screened by Channel 7 News over 3 nights, the matter was referred to the Assistant Police Commissioner Nick Kaldas (the story was screened on 8/8/2011 - 22/8/2011 - 23/8/2011).
After the first night’s screening another family contacted Channel 7 in Sydney, advising them that their Aunt (Joan Douglas) had been befriended and allegedly targeted by Bendigo Manager Frankham in a similar way to Yolanda Hutton, when Frankham was manager of the Commonwealth Bank at Brookvale NSW... !!
Yolanda Hutton also had an account at the same branch of the Commonwealth Bank, at the same time and both where customers of Bank Manager Christine Frankham...!!
Christine Frankham left Commonwealth Bank in July 2002 and joined the Bendigo Bank at Dee Why as the Branch Manager, Yolanda Hutton accounts immediately followed Manager Frankham to the Bendigo Bank... !!
A Current Affair (Channel 9, in Sydney) also screened a half hour special on 11/11/2011 that started with the story of a Sydney Taxi Driver. who was allegedly Targeting and Defrauding Vulnerable Elderly People, it then led into the Yolanda Hutton's Story and her involvement with Bank Manager Christine Frankham....!!
There were also articles in the Daily Telegraph by John Rolfe (News Director of the Daily Telegraph) on 8/8/2011 & 10/11/2011 relating to Christine Frankham, without Yolanda's name being mentioned for legal reasons, as Yolanda was a Protected Person (being a Ward or Protected Person the Daily Telegraph was unable to publish her name) .... !!
Different rules apply to Australian TV Media, who exposed Bendigo Bank Manager Christine Frankham, also published the name and details of the alleged victim Yolanda Hutton (with the Families Approval)... !!
The Family gained documentary evidence in the diaries of Just Better Care, found in Yolanda's home when Police forced access on 21/05/2011...!!
Just Better Care called at Yoland's home every day for about 3/4 of an hour to prepare her a meal, the diaries showed evidence of the horrendous alleged Neglect and Abuse of Yolanda, by her then Guardians Bendigo Bank Manager Christine Frankham and Frankham's friend Susan Bogaard... !!
Yolanda was in a Deplorable State on the 21/5/2011 when Police Gained Forced Entry to her home, as allegedly Bendigo Bank Manager Frankham and Susan Bogaard, had the locks changed for the third time at Yolanda's expense, to deny Yolanda's Family access... !!
Yolanda had been on the timber floor for up to 20 hours, wearing only a thin nightie, when Police entered the home. It had also been a very cold night, Yolanda was hypothermia, tachycardia, had a urinary tract infection, with impacted feces and severe scalding in her Genital Area... !!
Yolanda was taken to Mona Vale Hospital by Ambulance, Mona Vale Hospital Emergency Admission and Clinical Notes where also given to Police.
The Just Better Care Diary when transcribed consists of 120 pages, the diary continually mentions the poor state of Mrs. Hutton health, which allegedly Bank Manager Christine Frankham and Paid Care Giver Bogaard disregarded...!!
The most appalling evidence (apart from the alleged neglect and abuse) that was found, appears to be that Bank Manager Christine Frankham and Paid Care Giver Bogaard’s, efforts in arranging Yolanda to sign 4 consecutive wills in 4 years (8/9/06--13/10/06--30/4/08--3/4/09).... !!
In each of these wills Manager Christine Frankham was the Executor, with both Frankham and Bogaard’s percentages of Yolanda's Estate increasing, until the final will in 2009 arranged by the alleged perpetrators (before Yolanda was freed from this nightmare, making her last and final will) .. !!
In the last will of this "Undue Influence" saga both Manager Frankham and her friend Paid Care Giver Bogaard, were to inherit the entire estate of approximately $1.5 Million Dollars, with an additional clause inserted, that if anything happened to either of them, then their share would have gone to "Their Children". They only allowed $20,000 to be given to one of Yolanda's Granddaughters Jacki Riley. Jacki was 1 of the 8 Grandchildren of Mrs. Yolanda Hutton... !!
Interestingly the Wills were prepared by Northern Beaches Solicitor Peter Hedley Wood from Wood Marshall Williams at Brookvale, who for some unknown reason MUST work under the supervision of another Attorney.... !!
It's also interesting to point out that Christine Frankham had been allegedly involved in a similar situation before, with another Elderly Women named Joan Douglas who died in 2004... !!
As we stated before in July 2002 Bank Manager Frankham left Commonwealth Bank, allegedly "Head Hunted" by the Bendigo Bank, where she became the Manager of it's Dee Why Branch... !!
Allegedly on 26/4/2000 Christine Frankham arranged to take Joan Douglas to prepare a new will with David Tuckerman (solicitor) from Rees Tuckerman in Brookvale, whereby Manager Frankham became a beneficiary receiving $30,000 and Bank Manager Frankham was also included in the line of beneficiaries for Joan’s house at Beacon Hill... !!
In February 2001 Frankham allegedly asked Joan for a loan of $10,000 and this money was allegedly transferred to Frankham on 19/2/2001... !!
Allegedly Joan then had great difficulty in the loan being repaid and as Joan’s demands became more public, the loan was eventually repaid on 30/4/2001, allegedly $10,000 was withdrawn by Manager Frankham from Yolanda's Visa Credit Card account at Commonwealth Bank in Brookvale, where Frankham was previously a Manager (the card had a limit of $10,000 & had never been used before)... !!
Joan Douglas died on 18/12/2004, but Christine Frankham was unaware that Joan had made another will, where in Bendigo Bank Manager Frankham was no longer a beneficiary... !!
Allegedly when Bendigo Bank Manager Frankham discovered that she would no longer beneficiary, she then confronted Joan’s Nephew Frank Henry and major beneficiary, demanding $40,000. On 26/1/2005 allegedly Bank Manager Frankham arrived at the Nephew’s house at night in an "Aggressive Manner" demanding $40,000 or she would contest the will, at that point Frank Henry told her she was trespassing, asked her to leave and closed the door in her face..!!
Trying a gentler approach on 28/2/2005 Frank Henry alleges he received a letter from Frankham, in a "Bendigo Bank Envelope" again demanding $40,000, Joan’s Nephew Frank Henry ignored Bendigo Bank Managers Christine Frankham’s Demands... !!
Documents to support the above relating to the Joan Douglas allegations, where also given to the NSW Police. .. !!
Full Profile and Source:
NASGA: Yolanda "Linda" Hutton
Posted by NASGA Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest [Privacy Badger has replaced this Google+ button.]
Labels: Bank, Caregiving, Christine Frankham, International, Social Media, Wanted
Why isn't this ****** Christine Frankham in jail? I don't get it.
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:31:00 AM
Charlie, that is a question that a lot of people are now starting to ask, initially it was though that it was because of Australia's lack of Elder and Disabled Abuse Laws and that the Late Mrs' Hutton was deemed to be an unreliable witness because of her disability (they don't have the same Elder Abuse Laws as the United States)..!!.
But now it's starting to look more like a Cover Up because of the Massive Fraud and Critical Conflicts of Interests, that has been perpetrated within Australia's Banking Industry, every day the Main Stream Media has another Financial Scandal that is being exposed, with the Elderly, Disabled, Pensioners, Retirees and Seniors have been targeted because they are "Asset Rich and Income Poor" (ARIP)..!!
The Australian Banks and Trustees have been doing everything from Predatory Lending to People with Alzheimer's, right though to covering for their staff with Direct Acts of Fraud and Theft Against Clients, including anything you can think of between that...!!
If this case had of been correctly investigated and prosecuted, it could have exposed what is now coming out and would have been more than an embarrassment for the Bendigo Bank, it could have possibly brought down all Banks sooner and even saved people lives..!!!
The suicide rate has gone though the roof, with it also taking a heavy tool on Australia's Farmers, it really looks like "Institutional Homicide by Depraved Indifference" as we would call in the USA and a waste land left in the Banks Wake.. !!
Australia has been rocked by ongoing Financial Scandals involving its Banking and Financial Services Industry over the past 12 months, with two Senate Inquiries having now been held... the latest (ending in late 2014) looked into a Financial Planners Scandal involving the Commonwealth and Macquarie Bank's, with the Senators recommending a Royal Commission be held.
Subsequent to that Senate Inquiry other Australian Banks have been implicated in the the Financial Planners Scandal, also other Unethical and Possibly Illegal Banking Practices that has devastated Tens of Thousands of Australia's Retirees, Seniors, Pensioners, Elderly Disabled Persons and Farmers..!!
These Banks include the National Australia Bank (NAB), Westpac, ANZ Bank, St. George, Rural Bank, Robobank and Bank of Queensland (BOQ) just to name a few and it is not just limited to banks, as the entire Financial Services Industry is now being questioned, including Australia's Insurance Companies, Public and Private Trustees (that control Billion of Wards Monies).. !!
To date the Australian Government seems to be turning a blind eye to the Critical Situation at hand, with rampant Elder and Disabled Abuse running out of control, neither Prime Minister Tony Abbott or Treasurer Joe Hockey appear to be willing to show the Leadership required to confront the issue and end the abuse. .!!
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 12:37:00 PM
Wow, Australia really is a penal colony,
complete with accents like real pirates!
Have you seen the Commonwealth Bank of Australia bribe scandal, the Spy on Senators scandal, the Bendigo bought Cyprus Bank scandal, the Whistleblower scandal.
Maybe the DoJ should charge everyone of them who's on the NY Stock Exchange.
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 3:07:00 PM
What a horrible, horrible story. When the words gets around about what Bendigo Bank has done and allowed to be done to Yolanda Hutton, I would hope their current customers close their accounts in protest.
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 3:11:00 PM
This is clear undue influence in my book. Bendigo Bank must have alot of influence?
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:01:00 PM
I never really trusted banks, but for a bank manager to go this far is just pitiful. The fact that the bank didn't do anything about it should be not only an embarrassment to the bank, but it should have led to an indictment. Keep the heat turned up Bendigo Banksters!
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:29:00 PM
What kind of bank lets someone like this within a 100 miles of an elderly person and even lets her keep her job after after this debacle..??
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:54:00 PM
Robyn Lane said...
Far too much time has passed, this woman should be in jail! No justice for the people only for the bankers!
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:56:00 PM
Robyn Lane said...
This woman should be in Jail, no justice for the people only the bankers!
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:58:00 PM
Praying for this family and praying that the bank is held accountable.
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 6:50:00 PM
The Bendigo Adelaide Bank is Australian or American? It has a branch in crime capital Cypus called Delphi Banque or something. Are they tied up to the greece debt default? A mattress sound safer.
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 6:54:00 PM
I'm taking my money out of the Bendigo Bank, absolutely socking behavior.
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 7:24:00 PM
I find it totally amazing that a bank could put someone in charge of a human, that is a horrable abuse of control, and is a huge conflict of interest!! Why is Bendigo bank getting away with this??!! Hopefully, bendigo bank takes a huge look at these people, and find them guilty of robbing a woman who could not do for herself. AMAZINGLY Sick!!!! Good luck to the family....
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 8:06:00 PM
World Elder Abuse Awareness Day is on June 15th, it would be good timing for the Bendigo Bank to do the right thing about this finally... WOULDN'T IT
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 8:37:00 PM
Australia is a sick joke.
Did you know they're head watchdog is a top banana on Wall Street at the same time?
Australia should report their bank watchdog to the dog catcher, I think.
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 8:55:00 PM
I read the company might consider contemplating the possibility of chasing the top brass banks. Phew, that'll scare them.
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 8:59:00 PM
Excellent expose, Nasga!!! keep the pressure on.
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 9:01:00 PM
This boils my blood. If Frankham did this, she should be charged and taken off the streets so she doesn't do this to anybody else.
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 9:08:00 PM
Sylvia Rudek said...
The facts of this case are so blatant for example:
Allegedly on 26/4/2000 Christine Frankham arranged to take Joan Douglas to prepare a new will with David Tuckerman (solicitor) from Rees Tuckerman in Brookvale, whereby Manager Frankham became a beneficiary receiving $30,000 and Bank Manager Frankham was also included in the line of beneficiaries for Joan’s house at Beacon Hill... !!
The word: BENEFICIARY has red flags waving and then follow the $ yet no action on the part of the predatory tactics of the bankers continue without interference.
Enabling the banks to be free of consequences of financial exploitation to continue with their tactics while no one knows the true number of victims. Free to continue with no deterrent to stop.
The walls of protection are thick and deep.
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 9:12:00 PM
The bendigo bank destroyed my parents lives, may they all burn in hell.
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 9:24:00 PM
No wonder their mascot is a PIG, they employe them and I will never do business with them again either...
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 9:34:00 PM
Margret B. said...
The banks here in Australia are completely out of control, every time you turn on the T.V on or read the papers, they have been caught out again and Tony Abbott does nothing.
It just breaks my heart to hear what has happened to this elderly women and her family, may she rest in peace and I pray that justice is finally done.
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 9:55:00 PM
What has Australia come to, the Banks are now running the place and they are running this country right into the ground with their unquenchable lust for profit over ethics. The elderly are now treated like dirt and our farmers are killing themselves because of the banks, anyone that watched that show Banking Bad on Four Corners could see that the Government is just doing the bankers bidding. This story just takes the cake, God help us all when we get old, is all I can say.
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 10:47:00 PM
Old Dave said...
Doesn't surprise me at all about the Bendigo Bank, half of their franchises fail and the community is left holding the baby, typical bankers really and they don't care what mess they leave behind because the government always bails them out.
Well I think its long overdue to re-regulate the banks, nobody trusts them and you would be a fool if you did at this point, as for Tony Abbott he's no leader and he has no vision.
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:13:00 PM
How many more people must suffer before the Government takes action against this sort of thing happening, its been happening way to often and nobody seems to be able to stop it.
Isn't this a country of law anymore and why is the Goverment not doing anything about it..?
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:21:00 PM
The Bendigo Adelaide Bank must be hurting from this exposure. Have you seen the youtube clips from their top national news stories? Shocking!
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:49:00 PM
Fix this scandal now I say.
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:52:00 PM
We went to Queensland Civil and Administration Tribunal regarding my father and how his third wife was subjecting him to mental anguish, physical neglect and financial abuse.
The Public Trustee was asked to look into dodgy bank transfers, etc, and did nothing. Bank manager was also complicit.
Poor Dad - he died in hospital from broken bones from a fall - with no blood family allowed to visit.
All we can hope for is Karma.
Thursday, June 04, 2015 1:07:00 AM
I was reading the Age this morning and ASIC are looking at putting the Bank Executives in Goal, the sooner the better I think !
Thursday, June 04, 2015 3:12:00 AM
Fantastic even more Human Rights Violations, Tony Abbott and his Government couldn't do a worse job even if they tried, its a National Disgrace.
What is it that Alan Jones said on the radio "One Farmer is Killing himself every 4 Days" because of these banks, now our old folks are being abused and the Federal Government does NOTHING..!!
Anybody would thinking that we had a Rightwing American Republican Government and not an Australian, but wait most of the Banks are Foreign Owned, so maybe we do ... ?
As to the Bendigo Bank, may they suffer the Great Aussie Curse: May your Chickens turn into Emus and Kick your Dunny Door Down...!!
Thursday, June 04, 2015 4:12:00 AM
If the banks got fined of up to 20 million every time, they or one of their staff ripped off an elderly or disabled customer, this would all stop tomorrow.
Thursday, June 04, 2015 4:52:00 AM
Its this culture of corruption that has now infected everywhere within society today, organizations like the bendigo bank spend to much time asking themselves can they do something or get away with it and not enough time asking themselves should they do it in the first place. Some time in goal might give these bankers the time they need to reflect on what they have done, but then most of them are sociopaths and will never change.
Thursday, June 04, 2015 5:50:00 AM
GREED, GEED AND MORE GREED, IS THERE ANYTHING THESE BANKS WON'T DO FOR A BUCK..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thursday, June 04, 2015 5:59:00 AM
The ozzie bank regulators are as useless as tits on a hefferbull.
If she's American, the Embassy help the family?
Don't they have an SEC down under the knowledgable exporter of securitization to Europe, Greg Medcraft?
Send in the Cavalry!!
Thursday, June 04, 2015 7:14:00 AM
Bankvictims.com.au blogger said...
Rugby great Senator Glen Lazarus can tackle elder abuse with a thud.
Thursday, June 04, 2015 7:17:00 AM
What Dirty Rotten Scoundrels Frankham and the Bendigo Bank are, I'm not surprised that she and everyone else is not rotting away in jail, it's almost like these bankers are bullet proof.
ASIC did manage to charge Westpac's David St Pierre with fraud after years and many were elderly or vulnerable people, but this has been going on for decades and everybody knows that there is a lot more that have never been brought to justice.
The lawyers are just as bad as the banks, channel 9's John Martin became the victim of solicitor Bernard Kevin O'Donnell, he was at least "Struck Off" for his antics and they haven't put him in jail yet.
But at least he was struck off, where as the banker Frankam got to keep her job and I don't see any justice in that, but banks are a law unto their own.
Tony Abbott won't do anything, but if it was his mother that was abused it would be another thing entirely, he would be wanting Frankham in jail that very same day and the Bendigo Bank would be paying him compensation before the bank closed for business.
Half of the LNP Goverment are ex- investment bankers or have close ties to banks and even the Treasurer Joe Hockey's wife is some hot shot at Deutsche Bank, talk about a conflict of interest.
There are so many people that should be in jail in Australia for white collar crimes, that its become a joke, I don't have any allegiance to any political party and I know two things.
I won't be doing my banking with Bendigo Bank and I won't be voting for Tony Abbott the next time we have an election, I am disgusted with the both of them at this point..!!
Thursday, June 04, 2015 10:02:00 AM
Typical that we find out about this from a yank website and though social media, the banks have been covering up all of this for the last 15 to 20 years at least. The Bendigo Banks CEO Mike Hirst was in the papers, telling everyone they had no right to copies of their loan applications and now many thousands of seniors can't prove the predatory lending fraud that they have become victims of like my husband and I.
What happened to this family is more than horrendous, the banks are taking peoples homes and farms all right, but to steal somebodies mother like that is the an act lower than a snakes belly. The Bendigo Bank will continue to lie, that is what the banks do now here in Australia and the Federal Government is useless, they should have announced a Royal Commission into the Banks last year.
However the people in our government are more interested in lining their own pocket at our expense and the political donations that they get from the banks, mining companies and big business.
Thursday, June 04, 2015 10:29:00 AM
The Bendigo is nothing but a bunch of lying corrupt mongrel dogs, I remember seeing this on television and always wondered what had happened, like everyone else that have been ripped off by a bank nothing has happened, with the pain and agony continuing.
Thanks for letting Oz know what the latest is NASGA, it's organizations like yours that keeps us informed and of things that neither the banks, nor our own government wants us to know.
Sorry that you in American have been drawn in on Australia's dirty little secrets, this is absolutely not the best light for our country to be seen in, but it all needs to be exposed and thank you.
Thursday, June 04, 2015 10:52:00 AM
I though that our banks here in the United States where bad until I read this, we have nothing on the banks Down Under, they are more than just ruthless.... They win the Son of a B*tch Prize of the Century, hands down...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:17:00 AM
You can never trust the bureaucrats at the NSW Trustees and Guardians, the same thing happened to my late father over 10 years ago, with an account/financial planner that befriended him and he ended up my fathers estate. The politicians were useless and did nothing but just talk, with the cops saying they didn't have the powers needed to investigate it properly, I felt sorry for the cop that had our case, he tried his best. These weasels know that there is protection orders around what we call "Protected Persons' in Australia (I think you call them Wards in the USA) and even the cops can't get to the bottom of things and all these sleaze bags do is shut up and say nothing. it appears like everywhere else in the world elderly, disabled and guardianship abuse is taken seriously, except in Australia and I have been reading the posts on Boomers Against Elder Abuse about high profile case like Peter Falk, Glen Campbell and Casey Kasem. What Peter Falk's daughter Catherine and her Catherine Falk Organization is doing is amazing, to get State Laws changed and stop the isolation. that predators use to perpetrate their financial exploration and theft of estates. I hope you keep the pressure up on the Bendigo Bank NASGA, the more international pressure the better, the Ozzie Pollies won't listen to us, but they are scared of how their International Reputations look upon the World Stage.
Thursday, June 04, 2015 12:02:00 PM
My friend from Australia emailed this link, telling me how bad thing are in the banks down there. WOW she was right, this is bad, really BAD.. !!
Thursday, June 04, 2015 12:14:00 PM
When are people going to wake up to these criminals, this is what they do ever time. They get some half baked ambulance chasing crooked lawyer, to tell them what the loopholes are and how not get caught by the police, then they isolate a ward and start ripping them off blind. The families are then cut out of the picture and they proceed to wealth rape the individual for every penny they can, it happening every day and the banks are the worse, both here in the good old USA and in Australia too.
Thursday, June 04, 2015 12:35:00 PM
Beautiful between Parasitical Guardians and Corrupted Bank Management, what chance do old people have..??
The saying "Live Hard, Die Young and Leave a Good Looking Corpse" looks darn good after reading this story... !!
Thursday, June 04, 2015 1:11:00 PM
Deb C. said...
Sickening, put them all in jail and throw away the key.. How dare anyone outside of a family interfere like, this especially a Bank Manager whose in a position of trust and its not like she hadn't done something like it at the Commonwealth Bank before.. !
Thursday, June 04, 2015 2:53:00 PM
Steven Lawson said...
Soulless corporate people who put profit above all. I am now a man with no country. This land is foreign to me now. Hard working people are relentlessly crushed whilst those in authority give themselves pay rises and believe the little people will continue to endure this system of feudal rule. Sociopaths the lot of them
Thursday, June 04, 2015 2:55:00 PM
I just woke up this morning to read an article by Adele Ferguson in the Sydney Morning Herald, that a 3rd Senate Inquiry was announced into the banks headed by by Senator David Fawcett.
With a wide-ranging terms of reference that will target loan defaults, and whether the banks deliberately engineered some of them to sell people up.
Then someone posted this to my Facebook Timeline overnight, and now I think we need a 4th Senate Inquiry into how the banks have treated elderly and disabled customers after reading this little charmer.
Tony Abbott has to do something soon about the banks, day by day more and more is being exposed about them, how on Gods wide Earth did this manager ever get away with this and why the dickens didn't Bendigo just sack her and put things right with the family is beyond me.
The Bendigo must have had something else to hide, just like every other bank does, Tony Abbott had better call a Royal Commission soon or lose the next election..!!
Thursday, June 04, 2015 3:32:00 PM
Talk About Abusing A Position Of Trust...!!!!!
Thursday, June 04, 2015 4:16:00 PM
The abuse in Australia is swept under the carpet too often.
The politicians know its rife, just look at mainstream stories like the Channel 7 and Channel 9 news on Mrs Yolanda Hutton or newspapers like this on.
Bendigo Bank won't be on the Bankers Association Xmas Card List the way this is going down.
Never forgive, never forget!
Thursday, June 04, 2015 8:05:00 PM
Whoa!!! Saw this on Bankreformnow and bendigobanker and bankvictims.
Reopen the Aussie Alcatraz in Port Arthur!
Saturday, June 06, 2015 7:49:00 PM
Thieving maggots like this should be thrown into the darkest prison, in solitary confinement and isolation, the punishment should suit the crime.
Saturday, June 06, 2015 11:33:00 PM
Big hugs from Down Under for spreading BankReformnows' and nasga's expose of the rampant bankersterism down there. Al Capone must be green with envy!
Looks like the Australian Senators woke up to predatory lending to asset rich income poor oldies who think banks are still run by honest men in cardigans and bow ties. Their politicians can't be that blind deaf and dumb, can they? Can't they ask their wives what they really do all day at the bank?
Please help the Bendigo Bank warm the cockles of their heart (if they have one)with a few truckloads of brimstone.
Sunday, June 07, 2015 12:07:00 AM
The Bendigo Bank can't let this go on, surely.
Sunday, June 07, 2015 12:09:00 AM
Supportive Residents & Carers Action Group Inc in Australia said...
Thanks to people like Marcia, BendigoBanksters, BankReformNow, and Catherine Falk Foundation, the Australan Senators are firing up the grillers down there. Look at this from the leading Australian newspaper.
BENDIGO and Adelaide Bank will be ordered to appear before a Senate committee to explain its behavior towards thousands of investors who put $1.8 billion into the failed Great Southern managed investment scheme.
Labor senator Sam Dastyari said he would summon executives of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank to front the committee into forestry managed investment schemes within the next week, after accusing the bank of “negligence or complicity”.
The decision follows reports in The Australian on Tuesday that thousands of small investors stand to lose homes or be bankrupted under a settlement between some investors, former directors, liquidators and the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank set to go before the Victorian Supreme Court on October 28, with almost $400 million still owed.
Senator Dastyari, who is chair of the Senate Committee into forestry managed investment schemes, said he had been inundated with complaints about Bendigo and Adelaide Bank and its debt demands on investors.
In many cases they were being asked to pay three or four times their initial investment in Great Southern because of interest and exit fees.
“Unfortunately what we have seen in Great Southern is not an isolated incident, but it is increasingly part of a pattern ... I think it’s time the behavior of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank was called into question,” Senator Dastyari told The Australian.
Senator Dastyari said he believed the behavior by the bank was “unconscionable”, especially given the scheme was facilitated by financial adviser practices and corporate structures now deemed illegal.
“I believe we also have to be asking a higher test; that is, how is it acceptable that we are allowing a handful of banks to profit from behavior that we now deem illegal?” Senator Dastyari said.
He added that he thought the banks either knew the state of Great Southern — described by investors as a Ponzi scheme — before becoming involved, or they were not exercising due caution for shareholders.
“The question has to be this: either the banks were not aware what was going on in places like Great Southern … or they were completely aware of what was going on when they became involved,” he said.
“Frankly, both of those outcomes result in questionable banking behavior.
“On the face of it, it would appear it is negligence or complicity.”
Notices would be sent to Bendigo and Adelaide Bank next week informing them of the need to appear, with the committee hearings to take place as soon as practically possible, given the urgency of many debtors’ situations.
So far the committee has been focusing on the collapse of forestry managed investment scheme Timbercorp. However, after being overwhelmed with investors’ stories the committee will now turn its sights on Great Southern and the role the bank played.
Liberal senator Bill Heffernan also called for a full parliamentary inquiry into the issue, similar to the recent inquiry into the behavior of Commonwealth Bank financial planners.
Outrageous!!!!!!! An international embarrassment! Are they deliberately trying to be achieve true Banana Republic status at the UN?
Bank Reform Now
NEWSFLASH / Elder Abuse Alert - Bendigo Bank and Bank Manager Christine Frankham have just been placed on the "Wanted List" of the USA based National Association to STOP Guardian Abuse (NASGA). If you only read one bank abuse story in detail today please make it this one (link below). Bankers, lawyers, accountants are known to steal the funds of elderly and disabled people. Why is Bank Reform Now excited that NASGA is taking the Bendigo Bank Scandal seriously? Because our own government is doing nothing to stop bankers and other professionals from engaging in these types of heinous crimes. How many years can the government pretend there is no problem? How long does the Hutton family have to wait before the bank and banker pay for their unconscionable conduct?
Folks in the next few days BRN is going to post a powerful interim measure to help families that have been ripped off like the Hutton family - but we need your help.
Contact PM Tony Abbott and Bendigo Bank CEO Mike Hirst and let them know how angry you are that Bendigo Bank has abused the public's trust. Full restitution and compensation must be paid to the Hutton family. Spread the word now and support our proposals for reform coming up over the next few days.
By the way folks - apparently Christine Frankham is also on another list - the ASIC watch list. It is quite likely that watching will soon give way to action. Who will act first - the government or #BendigoBank? Watch this space folks.
Sunday, June 07, 2015 12:46:00 AM
Pistol & Boo said...
What happened to the lucky country?
Sunday, June 07, 2015 8:23:00 AM
Once upon a time banks and bank managers where trusted people and institutions within our society, those days have log pasted and never likely to return, never again will any of us be able to take the trustworthiness of our banks for granted.
Listening to the wisdom of those that know what they are talking about, the downward spiral of control fraud started when President Richard Nixon effectively took America and the rest of the world off the Gold Standard and the final nail in the in the coffin of honesty, was when President Bill Clinton signed away the last of the Glass Steagall Act and Deregulated Derivative Trading in 1999.
They do say that when America sneezes, the rest of the world Catches a Cold, this time the world has caught is more than a cold, its more like a Cancer, a cancer that is eating away at the very fabric of local communities and society in general within Australia.
We've all been reading the newspapers and watching the television stories about the ongoing corrupt culture within our banks here in OZ, only now is the magnitude and ramifications being realized by all of us.
I personally have no questions in my mind that ASIC and the AFP should have been notified immediately about what happened to this poor women, however we are now learning that ASIC was or is, either Ineffective or possibly Corrupted itself. We have also discovered Financial Ombudsman Service is actually under the control of the banks, no wonder they have proven to be useless and always acting in the banks best interest.
This story even predates Jeff Morris blowing the whistle on the Commonwealth Bank back in 2008, that led to the Senate Inquiry into the Commonwealth Bank that ended in late 2014, so we have to ask how has this all just been covered up for so long and why haven't the Politicians acted upon it all long before now.
The Banks Senior Management now have the creditability of Child Molesters running Kindergartens in Australia and the present Government doesn't fair much better I might add. Its a good thing that Australia has much longer statures of imitation than the United States, so if the Goverment and Opposition are serious about chasing the banks and making banking safer, they can and this case would be a Good Start...!!
Sunday, June 07, 2015 10:37:00 AM
What sort of sick twisted mongrels are these people at the Bendigo Bank, most banks are happy just stealing peoples money, they allowed a manger to steal a human being and devastate her family..!!
Guess "Which Bank" has no ethics, morals or principles, it's the Bendigo Bank.. !!
Sunday, June 07, 2015 10:58:00 AM
We've been fighting Sandhurst Trustees, Sandhurst is part of the Bendigo and Adeliade Bank over the collapse of the now failed property lender Wickham Securities (Sandhurst was their Trustees), most of us are elderly and have been completely whipped out because of them.
Don't trust a word that either Sandhurst or the Bendigo says, they will lie to their back teeth, just like every other bank in Australia, thanks for getting stuck into the Bendigo and Adeliade, they deserve everything they get Nasga,.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sunday, June 07, 2015 11:17:00 AM
Here's another one with a $100 Million Dollars with the Rural Bank, it looks like the POLICE are AWOL from this one also.. The story say "The Bendigo Bank subsidiary Rural Bank and three of its senior executives have denied accusations they were complicit in an elaborate fraud allegedly used to steal a database worth as much as $100 million".
The Bendigo Bank and all of it's evil off shoots have been running these scams under the radar for years, bring on a Royal Commission and lets clean it all up, once and for all.
Sunday, June 07, 2015 12:01:00 PM
WTF: The folks down under don't need a royal commission, as they call it, to clean these messes up, they need SEAL TEAM SIX to do the job.
Any body got a problem lending them a Seal Team or Two
Sunday, June 07, 2015 12:17:00 PM
They don't deserve to hold a banking license.!
Sunday, June 07, 2015 3:25:00 PM
This is totally appalling and completely unacceptable, why hasn't the government done something about this long before now.. ?
Sunday, June 07, 2015 5:05:00 PM
Elder abuse is the most under reported crime in Australia today and even when the media gets a hold of it, nothing is ever done about it. Financial Exploitation is the most prevalent, with it degenerating into isolation and neglect. I have read the comments and press releases made by the Australian Bankers Association about the banks role it stamping it out, they just look like the usual lip service given by bankers.
How dare the Australian Bankers Association stand there with a straight face every June 15th, telling us all how great they are about Elder Abuse, when this has happened and nothing is done about it. They're as bad as the people that perpetrate the crime, with their hubris and hypocrisy knowing no bounds.
Sunday, June 07, 2015 5:34:00 PM
Come on Abbott, for the love of God, do something about these banks.
Sunday, June 07, 2015 5:48:00 PM
Bank Reform Now said...
We have just put up a proposal - we call it the Frankham Bill. It asks the government to set up a bank funded compensation scheme to help victims of predatory bank practices. The first group to be funded should include cases like that of Yolanda Hutton. More details here - www.facebook.com/bankreformnow/photos/pb...9481/?type=1&theater
Sunday, June 07, 2015 5:59:00 PM
The banks have been targeting older people because they already have their mortgages paid off and they think that because their old, they are ripe for the picking.
They see nothing but dollar signs in their eyes, banks always have and always will, watch what happens with this one. When they eventually give her up, they will just call her a Rouge Manager or a Lone Wolf, when the problem is more wide spread in the bank.
Sunday, June 07, 2015 6:10:00 PM
I'd rather put my money under my mattress, than trust this bank.
Sunday, June 07, 2015 6:22:00 PM
The banks can't be accused of discrimination because they do this to everyone down there.
Sunday, June 07, 2015 8:06:00 PM
In the race to the bottom, the Bedigo Bank has won by a Kentucky Mile.
Monday, June 08, 2015 12:38:00 AM
What kind of scumbags do such a thing, the bank will never live this down.
Monday, June 08, 2015 6:18:00 AM
They must be atheists at the bendigo bank, not believing they will one day meet their maker and judgment day.
Monday, June 08, 2015 6:46:00 AM
We now appear to have a lawless financial system, just stacked ready for the next global financial crisis, with the most vulnerable in society right in the firing line.
Monday, June 08, 2015 8:25:00 AM
Claire and John said...
We live in the UK and we've got some good friends in Australia, that have been sending us the news links of what has been going on down there. The control fraud is unbelievable and the government is doing nothing. This is one of the most tragic stories that I have seen, other than the suicide's of so many farmers, its as bad with the Australian Banks as it is with the UK Banks.
Monday, June 08, 2015 8:47:00 AM
Hasn't this bank done their level best, to destroy their own reputation.
When you think about it, who would trust any bank these days ?
Monday, June 08, 2015 10:41:00 AM
Tiger Fan said...
Wednesday, June 10, 2015 1:10:00 AM
Its a sick twisted joke how the elderly have been treated by the banks and the government in Australia, we are getting more like a 3rd World Country by the day, lagging behind and throwing our seniors under the bus.
We have had corruption here since the first days on the original colony, even the police where know as the rum corp and its not looking any better in the present day.
Nobody should be shocked by what has happened here, the entire structure is set up for disasters like this one, with a history of ongoing cover ups that have been taking place since the get go.
When you deregulate any service industry this is inevitable, human nature takes over and the rot sets in, then when it is discovered and exposed, they all close ranks to protect one an other.
Self reporting or self regulation by institutions like banks was a preposterous idea, ask yourself a question, would you report yourself to the police if you had committed a crime.. of course you wouldn't and neither would a bank.. !!
The John Howard LNP Government virtually gave the banks a license to steal and they have taken full advantage of that, with the present Liberal National Party Government and Tony Abbott allowing the banks to get away with blue murder.
Unless the banks are re-regulated and severe penalties put in place for the Management and Board of Directors of the Banks, you can only expect a lot more cases like this one and things to get a lot worse,
As to Elder Abuse in Australia, that has also been a dirty little secrete that has been swept under the rug, now with the internet it is becoming impossible to cover over and only a fool would think that the Government and Bureaucrats can hide that the issue any longer.
Wednesday, June 10, 2015 7:23:00 AM
Good now with the internet, there seems nowhere to run and nowhere to hide anymore.
Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:40:00 PM
Russ Hinze's Ghost said...
Their Central Reserve Bank of Australia and Legal Practices Board & Commission are up to their neck in iternational bribery cases, say the Uniting Church Submission to Sam Dastyari's Bribery Investigation.
They don't have laws from the Lincoln Era! They don't have laws from the days of Bonny and Clyde and the Keystone Kops.
Someone should Chase the crooks' subsidary bank in Bendigo Melbourne Victoria.
Saturday, September 05, 2015 1:30:00 AM
Baxter Coleman said...
Shame Shame Shame on them!
Monday, October 19, 2015 5:13:00 PM
Mr Egregious said...
They're bad down there.
They passed an egregious ethics law that will allow their ethics police to question lawyers for foreign political figures and foreign government lawyers. "Excuse me but we need to know about your foreign government files"????. Can you believe that? They're buffoons. Corrupt, stupid and evil.
Saturday, October 24, 2015 11:29:00 PM
Did you see what the Australian Financial Review said - this American Express Case in Australia went to New York, and ended up back at their Reserve Bank Murray Inquiry.
The internet blames that Finance Ombudsman Scheme Ltd because its a rigged Arbitration game, as Robert Reich's Alliance for Justice says.
Holy Raviolli! An Australian LIBOR trader is off on Conair One too. The Collins Street Bankers must be worried.
Monday, October 26, 2015 11:57:00 PM
That Law Ethics Board is run by Miners Frackers Oil and Banks, AND it is the only people that can investigate if it's lawyers are ethical!
Look at this!!!!
I'm not surprised to hear that the Aussie Bankers want this legal board to run the whole nation's legal ethics racket.
What say you Members of the Grand Jury??? Oh wait, they don't have those either.
From: J Pearce, ED, LIV
I refer to an email received by the LIV on Thursday 24th December 2015 with the subject, “Ethics complaint by Howard Bowles”.
The LIV does is a member’s organization and does not handle complaints against practising solicitors. Whereas the ED of the LIV provides ethics advice to members facing current ethical dilemmas, the appropriate forum to lodge a complaint against a practising solicitor is the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner.
John Pearce | Legal Ethics Solicitor
Law Institute of Victoria, 470 Bourke St, Melbourne Vic 3000, Australia
Tuesday, January 05, 2016 12:25:00 AM
To J Pearce
I heard from a Member of Parliament they went to the SEC instead of to Caesar about Caesar.
I also heard that all the Independent Senators with Nick Xenophone (spelling) and Glenn want RICO laws and task forces to go through the protection racket apparently. There's a few candidates running in the Australian elections on anti corruption platforms that the Legal Services Board wanted to know about. Why would a legal ethics body want to know what the Independent MPs were looking into, btw??? Hmmm.
Monday, January 18, 2016 2:54:00 AM
Monday, January 25, 2016 1:27:00 AM
I think they're toast.
What are the odds that the Ravelo collusion and drug case doesn't overturn other global settlements too?
Frankly I'm not surprised if the whole FOS-ASIC-Legal Board- CBA Spy Scandal-Pell and Everything cases are in the SEC Reports. The Legal Board are up to their eyeballs in it. Do they waive Privilege if they blab to Witnesses for the SEC Office of Sean McKessy? Just asking. Oh, and how do those US SEC Rewards for Tip Offs work, and is the legal board backed by the assets of the State of Victoria?
Monday, January 25, 2016 10:09:00 PM
Speaking of Cardinel Pell, Police leaked a story about 10 altar boys that Cardinell Pell allegedly knew too well. I wonder if its about those strange boxes the police found on a farm? Bigwig Mick Michael McGarvie was best mates with Pell and golly was he upset when police arrived unexpectedly to change the locks. But will the new younger MPs cover things up? Anti-ped Bill Heffernan is retiring, so is the ex lawyer Kelvin Thomson. Phil Ruddock was onto the banks, but he's now suddenly decided to take up a posting too good to refuse. The "Republicans" are losing 1 a week due to scandals like bugged? Rolexes from chinese billionaires. How stupid are they? The place is a disaster. The real Socialists in the ALP Party are as bad. Queen Elizabeth should fire them all!
Saturday, February 20, 2016 9:15:00 PM
Thanks BankReformNow for the link to Nasga. This is shocking and I think the USDOJ are looking into things down there. As Four Corners Nick McKenizie wrote (Foriegn Bribery Submission 40 something) Kara Brockmeyer wants to see some elite discrete specialty units in Australia. The crims are running the law, the whole shebang!
With reference to the evidence at Federal Parliament by the Commonwealth Bank's lawyer David Cohen, the Board' staff threatened members of a family of retired US Police and other potential witnesses. The witnesses reported the LSB's own concerns with banking lawyers to the FBI & SEC before the Bank's IT Manager Jon Waldron was arrested, and Cohen told Senator Fawcett that the Bank didn't see Police until after the FBI & NSW Police arrested Jon Waldon. The question I have is why did the LSB threaten people like BankReformNows' witness Elliot Sgargetta and Glen Jones, but protected Trevor McTaggart' crew. Why did it threaten to deregister lawyers for witnesses? Why did McGarvie lie to the accountant for The Hon Robert Clark? Why did all their tales to witnesses come to pass later, and why did they cover up? The $10m computer contract and its $2m bribe will cost Computer Science Corporation $100,000,000 says court filings by their lawyer Peter Walsh at Potter Anderson Corroon Lawyers. The lawyers for Mastercard, Hausfeld' want to sue the Legal Board as well. In conclusion, the cover up by the legal services board looks huge.
Thanks for the update!
Thursday, April 14, 2016 3:02:00 AM
Simply as an update, will the Auditors at computer science corp (CSC) sue the Guardians of Unethical Bank Ethics?
1. You will recall that Elliot was on ABC TV in 2014 and he lobbied for a Royal Commission. The Australian Labor Party says it WILL have a Royal Commission into banking. www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-08/bill-shor...g-misconduct/7311006. The Independent MPs and Greens also want one. This will be a huge issue in the Elections in Australia.
2. The Jon Waldron I.T Bribery Case was quizzed in Parliament. The Legal Services Whistleblowers were right
– the Commbank’s CEO and the General Counsel knew about the bribe
- Somehow the Whistleblowers inside the Legal Services Board knew to tell Elliot to report, and he reported it before the CEO went to Police. (Hopefully that helps the whistleblowers prove that they are entitled to a reward if the SEC ever fines the Bank) www.theaustralian.com.au/business/financ...bda6d84f877c296f6d89
Thursday, April 14, 2016 3:23:00 AM
Thanks BankReformNow and NASGA for exposing this horrific example of bad banking.
Thursday, April 14, 2016 4:00:00 AM
Howard Whistlebolles said...
According to Theyfly.com, the run a shady operation:
In the VLSB' hunt for witnesses in an anti-pedophile group, the Victorian Legal Services Board's tips came true, and their own customers went to the FBI as recommended by their insiders. Fiona Barnett.
"VCAT, the Victorian Bar, and the Legal Practices Tribunal – The Sting
One of the most effective ways to disempower a whistleblower is to annihilate his legal team and supporters through threat and intimidation. This has been continual since the seriousness of potential exposure loomed in 1995 and 1996 due to the startling evidence at the time. One solicitor chose to quit the profession and the fathers current legal team has been at the end of the hammer of the Network ever since they took on the task in 1996. That is Gabriel Kuek of Access Law and David Perkins senior counsel who has represented the father over the many years that this matter has remained unresolved.
Since taking on the case both have been the target of various state government run agencies who have the ability to use intimidation and manipulation of the law to get their required result and that is to destroy them so that the father has no ability legally to defend himself. David Perkins is presently facing disciplinary proceeding where it is reported the Legal Practices Tribunal may disbar him. The whole matter rests on these trumped up contempt charges for telling the Tribunal member that because of what he did in perverting justice was inexcusable.
The VCAT Act says that you cannot insult a member as it could place you in contempt of court. Tribunal member Davis could not bear the truth of Mr. Perkins statements in October 2000 and probably together with former bully Kellam J (who was VCAT president at the time) issued proceedings against Perkins to charge him with contempt. The contempt proceedings in VCAT December 2000 were a farce in that nothing was inquired of the Tribunals behaviour to have warranted such a submission made before a judicial officer. Insults aside; it was true! But it gave the network a golden opportunity to wield their evil intent against Perkins to try to finally eradicate him as he cost the government millions of dollars in penalty court payments for discovering their corrupt and bullying ways, and now representing a father who has the potential of exposing the networks corruption in a satanic/paedophile cover-up, he needed to be attended to finally. Perkins was never into ‘clubbing’ with the legal fraternity so on the outer o
Howard Bowles intentions to "violate the economic espionage act" were reported by whistleblowers to the SEC's Sean McKessy before McGarvie used Soviet style Gas Lighting and False Pretences to, say his customers at Parliament's Inquiry, pervert the course of justice, cover up his board giving info to crims on prosecution investigation into criminal smugglers of reserve bank of Australia information. This is Stiglitz's opinion at the US Supreme Court. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/16/16-145...JohnM.ConnorEtAl.pdf. President Trump's executive order suggests that corrupt foreign officials should be extradited for offences like those that harmed US retailers, US consumers and US corporations so do you think the whole Victorian State Government Legal Servces Board should be removed?
OK are you stuck with how to do your submission to the Royal Commission into Banking Misconduct?
Here is a summary from Leon Ashby
The Royal commission will give people who have been treated unfairly by a bank or its agents an opportunity to put the facts of their case to the commission.
I encourage people to look at the terms of reference, and then consider making a submission
The approach that I believe would assist the commission best would be.
• A dot point summary (a few pages only) of where the banks and its agents etc have done things wrong either legally or morally or contrary to their code of conduct.
• A copy of documents supporting the wrong doing. (easily referenced so the commission can see which documents support each point in the summary)
• The names of people and their positions who you believe the commission should require come in an answer questions
• A list of the questions the commission should ask them
· Any recommendations you have to make the banking system work better (e.g. a tribunal system to deal with past cases at no cost to the customer)
In my view, this approach makes the Royal Commissions job easier, so it can see which cases appear to need investigation.
Also is attached info on a seminar in Townsville on Feb 1st & 2nd to assist anyone wanting to put a submission into the Banking Royal commission
Leon Ashby| Operations Manager Canberra
Senator Fraser Anning for Queensland
S 1 32 Parliament House Canberra 2600
Here also is the Terms of Reference for the Royal Commission so that you can address this appropriately:
If you are having trouble some of us may be able to help you... send your question through via the page and members will assist where they can!
Terms of Reference
On 14 December 2017, the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, His Excellency General the Honourable Sir Peter Cosgrove AK MC (Retd), appointed former High Court Judge, the Honourable Kenneth Madison Hayne AC QC, to inquire into and report on misconduct in the banking, superannuation an...
Thank you for contacting the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Royal Commission. The Royal Commission is in the early stages of being established and may not be in a position to reply to your email until early 2018. Further information about the Royal Commission, and methods through which members of the public can provide material to the Royal Commission, will be made available on the website financialservices.royalcommission.gov.au/
If you have received this transmission in error please
notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete all
copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent
to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver
of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect
of information in the e-mail or attachments.
19/12/2017 (16 days ago)
PO Box 444
(209) 603 8733
Sent from ProtonMail, Swiss-based encrypted email.
Subject: FBI & SEC Prosecution of the Commonwealth Bank I.T Division;
Local Time: 19 December 2017 7:03 PM
UTC Time: 19 December 2017 08:03
Dear Royal Commission
I am Dennis Sgargetta, a public accountant practising in Preston Victoria.
My clientele included US, New Zealand and Australian residents in the SEC Office of the Whistleblower Program who were asked in 2015 by the FBI to meet them in Los Angeles to provide additional information following the arrests by the FBI of Commonwealth Bank executives in the bank’s IT department and the I.T expert Mr Pulier as per the enclosed SEC Prosecution Material two years later. According to the FBI Asst Director in Charge of the Los Angeles IC unit, Deirdre Fick, and the US Government Prosecutor Ms Eileen Decker, the crimes committed by the Commonwealth Bank IT division threatened the integrity of the US financial system and defrauded the US defence contractor Computer Science Corporation of $98 million.
I understand that your Royal Commission can investigate breaches of professional standards and ethics and I also understand that your Royal Commission can compare overseas results against the methods used in Australia.
During the covert operations that are noted in the prosecution charges, the purported guardian of legal ethics in Victoria under the chairmanship of Apra’s Ms Fiona Bennett threatened to imprison Elliott Sgargetta while Gadens lawyers and the Commonwealth Bank’s Auckland Savings Bank went to foreclose on properties in Australia and New Zealand unless Elliott Sgargetta convinced his US relatives called Waldron to sign up to a hush deed worth an estimated $1m. Elliot and his relatives, like the Commonwealth Bank’s Jon Waldron, were customers of the same CBA subsidiary Auckland Savings Bank in to which the Clinton’s IT expert Mr Pulier transmitted international bribery funds. Elliott Sgargetta was threatened by Ms Bennett's delegate Mr Howard Bowles even though Mr Bowles and his office knew the FBI and SEC were involved. Ms Pakula's file Com-2015-038 has cc correspondence with the FBI and Mr Michael McGarvie's staff were terrified that they would be implicated in unethical misconduct in public office for carrying out plans to lean on witnesses and spy on the Whistleblower Reports at the SEC. Ms Bennett’s legal services board and commission was aware that the FBI’s Special Agent Ryan Adams was to meet Mr Sgargetta’s Waldrons at the Los Angeles Branch of the FBI. Ms Bennett’s legal services board and commission were also aware that the SEC’s Mr Jim Daly and Mr Jack McCreery also wanted additional information, and I noticed that the SEC seeks forfeiture from CBA IT executives Keith Hunter and CBA IT executive Jon Waldron and the Clinton’s Mr Eric Pulier. I think it is appalling that a Victorian government board under the chairmanship of a Director of Apra would lean on Elliott Sgargetta and threaten to imprison him given that Dr Peter Branson asked the SEC and Parliamentary Joint Committee to investigate the Victorian legal services board and commission for witness tampering and hindering investigations by global law-enforcement on the CBA’s IT division.
As you will be aware, the IT division is also at the centre of the Austrac counterterrorism and money-laundering laws, and the IC division of the FBI handles weapons of mass destruction, counterterrorism cybercrime, paedophile rings and the extradition under President Trump’s executive order dated February 2017 of foreign crime characters for offences that impact on the USA, as the fraud on Computer Science Corporation did according to the FBI’s Deirdre Fick and US prosecuting attorney general Eileen Decker.
I believe the legal services board and commission is personally liable if it leaks information maliciously and I believe that it passes information to unsavoury people even when it is aware that the FBI and SEC carried out a sting which was on the news when the FBI arrested Keith Hunter and Jon Waldron. As I read the Prosecution documents, the US Federal Agents believe that corrupt characters were chosen to work in the CBA IT Department in an elaborate plan to defraud CSC (a division of Hewlett Packard), and according to Whistleblower Marcus Nicholson, Ian Narev himself was aware of the international bribery from 2013 however Mr Narev chose to risk being found out by the Secret Service.
The Victorian ombudsman was also aware in advance of the whistle blown intention to lean on potential prosecution witnesses for the FBI and SEC, and the Victorian ombudsman was aware that those plans were subsequently carried out.
As I believe it is unethical for a Victorian government board to carry out intentions to pervert the course of international justice, I think the Victorian government's 'ethics' board should be thoroughly investigated by a Royal commission.
I also think the Victorian government board and its complicit officials should fully compensate all victims for whistleblowing on its own plans to pervert the course of justice and engage in conduct that might be abuse of a public office. If it wants to funnel information to criminals and their lawyers and cover upinternational crimes, it should not do so during covert operations like those carried out by the FBI which arrested people as high as the IT expert to the Clinton Global Initiative, President Bill Clinton, Al Gore and the defence contractor computer science Corporation.
I would also like compensation from the Victorian legal services board in the amount of $10 million.
In summary, I believe the LSBC is an unethical part of a protection racket that passes information to third parties, and lent on people as Gadens threatened foreclosure on persons who refused to sign a hush deed that would hinder them from seeing the FBI and SEC.
US SEC Office of the Whistleblower Program
The representatives of SEC Witness/Whistleblowers at Parliamentary Inquiries were right about the Yates Memo wth the US' thinking and judgement that McGarvie's Board 'disagreed' with. Does the VLSB often disagree with William Baer and Sally Yates? Good Lord, even President Trumps' Executive Orders and National Security Stragetgy says foreigners should be extradited, just as is happening to the I.T Executives under David Cohen and Ian Narev's watch. What sort of foreign government board of Australian banking and accounting experts thinks differently to US Attorneys Generals, the SEC IRS FBI DEA and the White House?
Will Associate Professor Dr Peter Doherty end up on a platter?
September 4, 2017 / 10:48 AM
Heads roll at Australia's CBA amid money-laundering scandal
Paulina Duran, Byron Kaye
4 Min Read
SYDNEY (Reuters) - Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA.AX), the country’s biggest lender, announced a major board shake-up on Monday as it scrambles to shore up investor support following allegations it oversaw thousands of breaches of anti-money laundering rules.
FILE PHOTO: The logo of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) is displayed outside a branch in Sydney, Australia, March 21, 2016. REUTERS/David Gray
But the ouster of a third of the bank’s non-executive board, including the first two directors to leave since the allegations were made public on Aug. 3, failed to impress shareholders as CBA stock touched 10-month intraday lows on the news.
The board overhaul came as CBA faced the first day of court hearings into the allegations, and while it did not deny that illicit transfers had taken place, it said it would contest its level of responsibility.
CBA has been under mounting pressure to respond more aggressively to the crisis, which has damaged its already tarnished reputation and exposed it to billions of dollars in potential fines.
Directors and audit committee members Launa Inman and Harrison Young would step down on Nov. 16, while a third director, Andrew Mohl, would leave in a year, CBA said in a statement, without giving a reason for the departures.
CBA announced on Aug. 14 that Chief Executive Officer Ian Narev would leave by mid-2018, although it said his departure was not related to the money-laundering scandal. Narev has blamed a coding error for most of the alleged breaches.
Robert Whitfield, a former head of institutional banking at CBA rival Westpac Banking Corp (WBC.AX), would be appointed to the board, CBA said on Monday, without naming any other new appointees.
Whitfield could be in the running to replace Narev, said Omkar Joshi of Regal Funds Management, a CBA shareholder.
“It is unlikely now that you can really have an internal candidate for that role - rightly or wrongly internal candidates have been tainted with that same brush,” he said.
CBA shares touched 10-month intraday lows before closing down 1.42 percent at A$74.41, while the broader market was down 0.39 percent. The shares have dropped 12 percent since the scandal erupted last month wiping roughly A$17 billion ($13.55 billion) off its market value.
Financial crime fighting agency AUSTRAC alleges CBA oversaw tens of thousands of illicit transfers amounting to A$624.7 million from 2012 to 2015, including some by known criminal gangs.
Commonwealth Bank of Australia80.39
CBA.AXAustralia Stock Exchange
CBA’s lawyers told the Federal Court on Monday the bank would not “in large part” contest the main facts of the legal action, but said they planned to file a defense.