Clik here to view.
Banks have to keep records for seven years from closure of the files. Borrowers not
informed the banks actually sit in the digitized archives. FOS know this to be the
case but in order to protect their banker paymasters, they pretended to the Senators:
"what can the Ombudsman do?" He gave evidence: "yes often the banks say specific
documents have mysteriously "gone missing." FOS say "what can we do....we
have no powers." Yet their are 8 copies of files according to police who examined
bank records in 2009. BFCSA know where they are. And, most of these copies have
been tampered with by internal bank staff on orders from the CEO as a matetr of
'training' and procedures which are represented as legal and normal. In fact, most
of those documents are still in the system. The bank just says: "we cannot find them"
and lie to the courts as to where these documents are. bankers also lie in court to say
LAF is 3 pages when they KNOW the LAF is 11 pages and of course the criminally
fudged figures are labelled "missing." Banks keep them "just in case" they are
required for further manipulation. Most lawyers do not know this. Only 20 client
lawyers have witnessed this skulduggery by bankers, first hand after I briefed them
2003 - 2015. Miraculously when challenged, those documents reappear!
We manage to get copies out. We know what goes on inside the bank, better
than individual staffers and middle executives. Staffers suspect nothing.
Its a clever PONZI structure coming from the TOP DOWN.
CBA and Westpac are two of THE WORST OFFENDERS for the missing document
caper. Critical documents interfere with their criminal "asset stealing" programs.
CBA customer to engage independent advocate over advice case
Linda Santacruz and Larissa Waterson
-Thursday, 19 January 2017 45 comments
Earlier this week, CBA denied claims that one of its bank staff members had provided bad personal advice to Raymond Kataryna, who passed away last year.
Mr Kataryna had sought compensation from CBA after he lost thousands of dollars as a result of putting a $500,000 cheque into a cash account, instead of his superannuation.
He had claimed he was recommended the asset allocation. But CBA denies this, saying Mr Kataryna himself had directed the move.
Now, Mr Kataryna’s estate is set to involve plaintiff firm Shine Lawyers to try and get back what was lost, said Melinda Houghton of Houghton Strategic Solutions – the family’s financial adviser.
“We lodged a claim with FOS in 2014 because Mr Kataryna had gone into his branch to see his financial adviser. He was told his financial adviser wasn’t available and he could talk to another one,” Ms Houghton told ifa.
“From there he was encouraged to put money into a bank account instead of the superannuation fund that his adviser had previously recommended. What that meant was that he lost a lot of money in capital gains tax and also in lost income from Centrelink.
“The bank is saying he didn’t see a financial planner on that day. [Mr Kataryna] was arguing he was told he was seeing a financial planner that day.”
Ms Houghton said Mr Kataryna’s attempts to resolve the issue via CBA’s Open Advice Review program were being blocked due to insufficient paperwork.
CBA said earlier this week that there is no record of personal advice in this case because personal advice was never provided.
Ms Houghton said she cannot see how this is possible.
“How does a bank, a financial planning arm of a bank, have absolutely no records of a client? None? And how do they use that as saying he didn’t receive advice when he clearly did?” she said.
“My concern is that this is just one client. They’ve recently stated that ‘over 80 per cent of the customers who have had advice assessed through the Open Advice Review program, we have provided reassurance that the advice they received was appropriate for their circumstances’.
“My question would be ‘how many of those just didn't have any records?’”