Category Archives: Securitization

5 out of 5 Securitisation audits suggest the banks have been, well, less than honest

Posted 09 August 2015 Written by Ciaran Ryan

Category Securitisation


5 out of 5 securitisation audits so far concluded suggest the banks have been less than honest with their customers. In all five cases, the audits suggest the mortgage loans have ended up in Asia.

Securitisation audits have only been available in South Africa for a few months, but what they are revealing is fascinating. Five out of five audits so far conducted by Virtual Velocity, the company that is offering this service, appear to show that all of the mortgage loans examined have travelled across the ocean to Asia, sometimes being sold multiple times. That’s a hit rate of 100%. Based on the banks’ own published figures for securitisation, one would have expected one or two out of five to have been securitised – but all five? Upwards of 100 audits are now underway, involving loans issued by all of South Africa’s major banks. “What these audits suggest is that the biggest heist in South African history was pulled off under our noses,” says Ash Davenport (pictured below), who was the first South African to request a securitisation audit on his mortgage loan, after he took out a R3 million loan with Standard Bank and put up his Eastern Cape ostrich farm as security.


Davenport’s loan now appears to be owned by a bank in Taiwan. The latest audit involving a property in the Western Cape, also bonded to Standard Bank, appears to show a similar pattern. An affidavit supplied by Michael Carrigan, the US-based securitisation auditor acting for Virtual Velocity, says the loan – like Davenport’s – now appears to reside in Taipei, the capital of Taiwan. The affidavit goes on to say: “China Development Industrial Bank may have at least partially offset the risks and losses of investor certificate holder ownership through the use of credit default swaps (that acts similarly to insurance whereby shortfalls in targeted cash flows are reimbursed subject to contractual provisions by the swap provider).” In other words, any default by the original borrowers is covered by the China Development Bank. This was despite the banks claiming to the borrowers and the courts that they had not securitised the loans. Carrigan further explains what happens when a mortgage is separated from the promissory note (which is the loan agreement where the purchaser agrees to repay the bank): “By statute, assignment of the mortgage carries with it the assignment of the debt. . . Indeed, in the event that a mortgage loan somehow separates interests of the note and the Mortgage, with the Mortgage lying with some independent entity, the mortgage may become unenforceable. The practical effect of splitting the Mortgage from the promissory note is to make it impossible for the holder of the note to foreclose, unless the holder of the Mortgage is the agent of the holder of the note. Without the agency relationship, the person holding only the trust will never experience default because only the holder of the note is entitled to payment of the underlying obligation. The mortgage loan becomes ineffectual when the note holder did not also hold the Mortgage.” Davenport says the discovery that all five audits so far concluded show securitisation appears to be happening on a far wider scale than was previously imaged is a major breakthrough. “We need to step up the pressure on the banks and get justice for the tens of thousands of South Africans whose homes and possessions have been illegally taken from them,” he says. Anyone who has had their house or car taken away from them by the banks and has tried to argue the securitisation defence in front of the courts have got precisely nowhere for the simple reason that the courts and the banks demand that the victim provide proof. This is impossible to do where the bank has hidden the evidence. “Now we can provide the proof,” says Davenport. Davenport and Virtual Velocity are now launching a crowd funding campaign to broaden the sample size of the audits and provide securitisation audits for those who cannot afford them. With this information to hand, the plan is to bring a massive class action suit against the banks within the next few months. Davenport says the legal team is now in place and will only take on cases that have a better than 50% chance of winning. “We are not here to waste time with weak cases. We intend to win and bring justice for the tens of thousands of South Africans who have been dispossessed and lied to by the banks,” says Davenport. Those who participate financially in the crowd funding campaign will receive 50% of the proceeds (after costs) of any settlement with the banks arising from the coming court case. The remaining 50% will go to the successful litigants whose mortgage bonds have been proven to have been securitised through the audit process. “We want thousands of people to back this campaign for justice. Our legal team believe we have a good chance of winning, so those who back us stand to get something back, and it could be substantial, but they could also get nothing. We want people to support this campaign out of a sense of social justice, not financial return,” says Davenport.

For more information contact: Email:

Ash Davenport:

Web: http://www.The Phone | FaceTime |  +27110835567

Ostrich farmer from Eastern Cape shows court his mortgage loan is now in Taiwan

An ostrich farmer from Grahamstown has thrown the local court into a spin by apparently proving that his mortgage loan with Standard Bank has been on-sold to an investor in Taiwan. This is the first time a securitisation audit has been presented in a SA court. On the basis of the evidence presented, the farmer says Standard Bank has no right to be in court.

Ash Davenport, a 63 year-old ostrich farmer from outside Grahamstown in the Eastern Cape, may be about to make history in his effort to stave off attempts by Standard Bank to take possession of his 3,260ha farm over a R3 million loan he took out seven years ago.

Last week he threw the Grahamstown High Court into a spin when his attorney, Bev Carruthers of Port Elizabeth, plonked a securitisation audit in front of the judge. The securitisation audit suggests that his mortgage loan has been on-sold to a Taiwanese bank and is no longer owned by Standard Bank. That being the case, Standard Bank has no right to be in court. More than that, the audit suggests the bank has securitised (or on-sold) his bond for R5 million, not the R3 million he supposedly signed for.

The court reserved judgment as to whether to allow the audit to be presented as new evidence in a case that has been dragging on for close to seven years.

“I intend to fight this all the way,” says Davenport. “These banks have been getting away with this nonsense for too long. I had to pay R17,000 for the audit but it was worth it, since it provides proof that the bank has in fact been securitising mortgage loans and then coming after property owners when they have no right to.”

Securitisation audits are a new development in South Africa, but are common in the US. They effectively carry the same weight as a financial opinion by a company’s auditor, though the banks are trying to dismiss them as hearsay.

Standard Bank attempted to discredit the audit by Michael Carrigan, a certified mortgage securitisation auditor in the US, who managed to track the chain of title for Davenport’s mortgage bond all the way to Taiwan. The bank referred to Carrigan’s evidence as “speculative at best” and claimed he did not have a grasp of South African law. It then reiterated that his loan had not been securitised.

Carrigan also provided a second audit for another Grahamstown resident, Jay Brown (not his real name), apparently proving that his Standard Bank mortgage loan had ended up with a bank in Thailand. Brown is also defending his property against repossession by the bank.

Bear in mind that the bank in both cases has denied – as all the major banks have done in thousands of other similar cases – that it had not securitised these mortgage bonds. Brown went one step further, by settling his debt to the bank by way of a promissory note of his own – similar to a cheque or bank note – which he claimed is legally permissible in terms of the Bills of Exchange Act.

This is a rather interesting defence first developed in SA by the late John Joubert, who insisted that individuals should issue their own promissory notes in settlement of debts, just as the banks concoct money out of thin air on their computer terminals. Standard Bank has refused to accept Brown’s promissory note.

Davenport has taken a more traditional route, arguing his case based on whatever evidence he can get his hands on. He asked Standard Bank to produce a “wet ink” copy of his mortgage bond and what was produced looked a little strange. The lines, the type face and the signatures did not line up with another copy he had. To all intents and purposes, it looked as if the documents were manufactured after the event, according to Davenport. Like someone had literally cut and pasted sections from one document, pasted them onto another, and then made a photocopy. This made him even more suspicious, even more certain that his mortgage bond had been securitised and the bank was hiding something.

So how did Davenport end up in this position?

The first thing to understand is that he is an eastern Cape farmer with a sharp tongue who doesn’t take kindly to bankers in suits coming to take away a farm that he and his family have been working since 1956. At one time he was the Eastern Cape’s most prominent ostrich farmer. He was exporting his ostrich meat to Europe and making a decent living. In 2004, the Avian flu scare hit SA. A government vet (Davenport calls him a “prick”) was sent down from Pretoria to inspect his birds, and with a wave of his pencil decided they should all be slaughtered.

“What these pricks don’t understand is that the ostriches develop antibodies to the Avian flu virus. Once they have had Avian flu and survived, they are immune against the disease. They will never get it again. So what the vet was picking up was the antibodies, and on this basis he decided my entire flock should be slaughtered.”

Davenport’s trouble all started when a government vet ordered his entire flock of ostriches to be slaughtered, even though the birds were healthy and had no signs of Avian flu. His business destroyed, he was forced to approach the bank for a loan

Overnight, Davenport’s business was destroyed. He was forced to approach Standard Bank and ask for a R3 million overdraft facility. The bank agreed, provided he put up the farm as security.  But this R3 million was getting him nowhere. He swallowed his pride and approached the bank a second time asking for additional credit facilities that would allow him to rebuild his business.

This is when the bank started to get alarmed. When Davenport drew down his facility to R2,6 million to pay his monthly wages and running costs, the bank suddenly froze all his accounts.
Then came the summons for repayment of the loan. Davenport knew nothing about the law, so he sent the summons on to a lawyer friend who did nothing with it. Then the bank got a default judgment against him.

Trouble arrives in the form of a summons

Now he was in trouble. The bank was about to put his farm up on auction for R4 million, when Davenport reckons it is worth R60 million. His mechanic put him in touch with a DIY lawyer who somehow managed to stop the sale at auction.

The bank came back with a second summons. This time he decided he should probably get a proper lawyer, which was when he met Bev Carruthers in Port Elizabeth, who had two days to prepare for his case in the Grahamstown High Court. Carruthers stood before the judge saying she had only just been briefed, and asked for a postponement – which she got.

At the time she knew nothing about securitisation, but Davenport had been reading the material on the New Economic Rights Alliance website and was convinced that his mortgage bond – which the bank alleges had been pledged as security against his R3 million overdraft – had been securitised. The problem with this defence is that the banks, supported by the courts, demand that the borrower provide proof of this. Of course this is impossible. This is analogous to a thief who has made off with your wallet. You catch him after he has disposed of the wallet and he then demands that you provide proof of the whereabouts of the wallet to prove his guilt. Insane, sure, but the courts are buying this.

Then Davenport and Carruthers were introduced to Virtual Velocity, a company that had just started offering securitisation audits in SA. This involves interrogating multiple databases in SA and overseas to track the movement of mortgage loans and the associated mortgage “notes”.

The US-based auditor, Carrigan, is considered a world expert in securitisation, and has testified in close to 3,000 cases in US courts. In both the Davenport and Brown audits, he presented screen shots from the Bloomberg database showing where the “notes” got divorced from the “loans” and where they both ended up.

In his affidavit for Davenport, he testified that the loan ended up with a Special Purpose Vehicle known as Standard Bank of South Africa/ Taipei CBO, Series 2006-1. This is an entirely different legal entity to Standard Bank itself.

The audit shows that Davenport’s mortgage loan has probably ended up in Taiwan

The audit report shows how the securities certificates were divorced from the mortgage loan and ended up in the hands of the investors. The mortgage documents remained with Standard Bank, the securities certificates ended up with the investors and the “borrower funds” ended up with the Land Bank of Taiwan. Carrigan claims in his affidavit, once the Mortgage loan and “note” are divorced from each other, the purported creditor loses all legal right to approach the borrower, and is in fact committing fraud.

The audit – as is the case with any audit, financial or otherwise – is not definitive, but it casts sufficient doubt on Standard Bank’s assertions that the mortgage has not been securitised.

Should Davenport win this round, his matter will go to trial and then the bank will be asked to explain why his loan appears on the Bloomberg database as being owned by a bank in Taiwan. And why Brown’s mortgage loan appears in Thailand.

This, alongside the recent discovery by Adv Douglas Shaw that banks are able to hide their securitisation activities by not reflecting the new owner’s name at the Deeds office, makes for a very interesting battle looming for the banks.

It only takes one case to win, like Davenport’s, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Then come the class action suits.

What Carrigan’s affidavit says

This is a bit technical, but worth repeating here for those following the securitisation argument. Notice how the courts in the US do not recognise any creditor who cannot produce the note alongside the mortgage. And how banks doing this are actually “double dipping” – taking payment twice – which is a fraud. Judges in SA need to start paying attention to this and haul bank executives into court to get to the bottom of this securitisation hall of mirrors.

Carrigan’s affidavit for Ash Davenport says: “The written agreement that created the Standard Bank of South Africa/ Taipei CBO, Series 2006-1 is a ‘Pooling and Servicing Agreement’ (PSA), and is a matter of public record, available on the website of the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). The Trust is also described in a ‘Prospectus Supplement,’ also available on the SEC website. The Trust by its terms set a “closing date” of on or about TBD (To Be Decided). The promissory note in this case became trust property in compliance with the requirement set forth in the PSA. The Trust agreement is filed under oath with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The acquisition of the assets of the subject Trust and the PSA are governed under the law.

“In view of the foregoing, any Assignment of Mortgage executed after the Trust’s Closing Date would be a void act for the reason that it violated the express terms of the Trust instrument.

“In Carpenter v. Longan 16 Wall. 271,83 U.S. 271, 274, 21 L.Ed. 313 (1872), the U.S. Supreme Court stated ‘The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.’”

“By statute, assignment of the mortgage carries with it the assignment of the debt. Indeed, in the event that a mortgage loan somehow separates interests of the note and the Mortgage, with the Mortgage lying with some independent entity, the mortgage may become unenforceable. The practical effect of splitting the Mortgage from the promissory note is to make it impossible for the holder of the note to foreclose, unless the holder of the Mortgage is the agent of the holder of the note. Without the agency relationship, the person holding only the trust will never experience default because only the holder of the note is entitled to payment of the underlying obligation. The mortgage loan becomes ineffectual when the note holder did not also hold the Mortgage.”

“Generally, if the Mortgage and the Note are not together with the same entity, there can be no legal enforcement of the Note. The Mortgage enforces the Note and provides the capability for the lender to foreclose on the property. Thus, if the Mortgage and the Note are separated, foreclosure legally cannot occur. The Note cannot be enforced by the Mortgage if each contains a different mortgagee/beneficiary; and, if the Mortgage is not itself a legally enforceable instrument, there can be no valid foreclosure on the homeowners’ property.”

“No Entity can be a creditor if they do not hold/own the asset in question (i.e. the NOTE and/or the property); a Mortgage Pass Through Trust (i.e. R.E.M.I.C., as defined in Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter M, Part II §§ 850-862) cannot hold assets, for if they do, their tax exempt status is violated and the Trust itself is void ab initio. This is an indication that either the Trust has either voided its intended Tax Free Status, or the asset is not in fact owned by it.

“In the event that the loan was sold, pooled and turned into a security, such event would indicate that the alleged holder can no longer claim that it is a real party of interest, as the original lender has been paid in full.

“Further said, once the Note was converted into a stock, or stock equivalent, that event would indicate that the Note is no longer a Note. If both the Note and the stock, or stock equivalent, exist at the same time, that is known as double dipping. Double dipping is a form of securities fraud.

“Once a loan has been securitized, which the aforementioned loan may have been done many times, that event would indicate that the loan forever loses its security component (i.e., the Mortgage), and the right to foreclose through the Mortgage is forever lost.”


The tide is turning against the banks – Part 1

South Africa’s courts have traditionally weighed in on the side of the banks when it comes to home repossession, even though the loans have been securitised and are now under new ownership. When asked to produce the original mortgage documents signed by the borrower, the banks often claim they have been “lost in a fire.” But the tide is turning against the banks, says consumer lawyer, Robyn Zimmerman. In this two-part interview, she explains how the courts have applied different standards of evidence when it comes to banks, while consumers get the short end of the stick. The good news is that courts are gaining a better understanding of consumer law, all of which is leading up to a titanic class action suit against the banks. Pull up a chair and grab the soda, folks, this is getting interesting. 

Robyn Zimmerman is a Cape Town-based consumer lawyer who recently came to national prominence after appearing on two SABC documentaries on “Securitisation” (the process whereby bank loans are bundled together and on-sold to third parties, and then traded on the stock exchange for profit). She represents several clients whose homes and properties have been repossessed by the banks in highly controversial circumstances.  One of her clients is Zulfa Samsodien, who successfully defended her property from bank repossession in a Cape High Court case against First National Bank (FNB) in 2008, on the grounds that FNB had securitised the home loan and had therefore had no legal standing to bring action in this case. The Samsodiens were subsequently sequestrated – again under highly controversial circumstances – and Robyn is advising in an appeal against the sequestration order. The legal ramifications of securitisation and other questionable bank practices hold huge import for all South Africans. We asked Robyn to share some of her insights in this two-part interview.

Acts: Robyn, thanks for talking to us. Please tell us a bit about yourself and how you got into consumer law. 

My background is in litigation and conveyancing, previously for the banks, as a director at two medium-sized legal practices. I subsequently left the “dark side” and established a practice which fights for the financial well being of any family unit, with my partner and husband.  We are both certified to practice in both the lower and higher courts. We litigate extensively and our areas of expertise naturally became focussed and specialised in consumer law and consumer credit law as a result of our extensive litigation against the banks encompassing over 1,800 cases in the last four years.

Acts: The SABC documentaries on the subject of “securitisation” have elevated the national debate on this issue to unprecedented levels. There seems to be a growing awareness around the world on the subject of securitisation, with banks being forced by courts in the US to pay out huge sums of money to borrowers whose homes had been fraudulently or illegally repossessed. Can you explain briefly what securitisation is, and how does it affect a home owner?

There are two types of securitisation:

  1. Traditional securitisation – which is fairly easy to prove – in which the bank sells its debt to a company that trades with that debt on (stock) exchanges.  The bank loses its ownership in the debt in this instance and depending upon whether the purchaser of this debt complies with consumer (and other) law, the debt may be reduced to the capital amount, or be written off in particular circumstances. It’s extremely easy for us to determine and prove whether a mortgage loan has been securitised in this way. But it is difficult for us to prove securitisation of other loans as these cessions are not registered at the Deeds Registry.
  2. Synthetic securitisation was developed, in my opinion, due to the problems encountered with traditional securitisation, and is extremely hard to prove. Although we know the banks still securitises their debt, they now do so synthetically in which they trade in the derivatives of the loan (interest and cost of credit) and not the loan itself. Depending upon which vehicles the banks employ and whether these vehicles comply with the consumer legislation in conjunction with the bank, the consequences are similar.

It is, however extremely difficult for us to determine and prove synthetic securitisation. We recommend that the Consumer Commission investigate both issues and deliver an outcome therein.

Since the above trade is concealed and hidden from the consumer for what we assume is the financial gain of the banks, and since it is my belief that consumers are harmed by this conduct, the Commission has jurisdiction to investigate and decide upon this issues.

The problem that exists with the Commission, aside from suffering under huge administrative issues, is that where the bank employs attorneys and counsel (that are) educated, experienced and equipped to deal with these matters, the consumers are not allowed legal representation, nor is any representative or attorney allowed to receive remuneration for the endeavours with the Commission.  The scales of justice are against the consumer the moment they file a complaint. I find the Commission’s conduct in their adjudication unconstitutional and lacking in just administrative action.

Acts: Can we pick up on the subject of fires. Several banks have sought and obtained judgment against defaulting home owners, yet when asked to produce evidence of the original mortgage note signed by the borrower, they have claimed they were destroyed in a fire, or otherwise lost.  What advice do you have for someone facing repossession by one of the banks, when the bank is unable to show the original mortgage note?

In theory, I love the laws of our country, its jurisprudence and the systems we employ to render justice. My problem with the judiciary – although I see a trend in judgments that this is slowly changing – is their passion to assert the rule of law when it comes to the banks, and their dispassion to assert it when it comes to consumers. I have often sat in the High Court to hear a judge bark at an unrepresented consumer: “Do you owe the money?”, with the advocate for the bank confirming and asserting its debt. At the same time the consumers do not know what defences are available to them and surely do not know the information to which they are entitled.  With banks’ counsel and attorneys convincing the courts that the only issue is whether the consumer owes the money, we have very bad consumer common law currently in existence. There is little or no account for the rule of law in our country.

I have not seen one original document in my time litigating against the banks.  But should the consumer file a copy of their opposing affidavits or pleas at court, they would need to explain why the original is not before the court. This is correct and so should it be required for the bank to adequately explain the loss of the original. Truthfully, transparently and openly.  The problem with the fire is that all the evidence related thereto is once again concealed by the bank.  Security documents are generally barcoded so they can be tracked. Upon conducting inventory of the lost facilities (due to fire) in 2009 and now again 2013, the banks were obliged to contact their registering attorneys, to supply them with a full copy of their security documents containing the signatures. To my knowledge the bank has not done so. Security documents are also stored in fire-proof cabinets, therefore an explanation of how they then become destroyed must also be tendered.

However at the end of the day, should the judge feel that the defences that you raise, or that your disputes are without merit, they will decide – departing from the rule of law – against you. Where I would agree to such a departure upon exception, the higher courts have employed this departure to such an extent that there is little or no rule of law in consumer credit litigation. This opens the entire system open to abuse, by credit providers who constantly push parameters to make litigation easier for themselves.

On this issue we have been deeply disappointed by the judicial system.

Unfortunately, it is extremely unlikely that you will be heard if you do not have an experienced attorney to guide you.  Sometimes consumers need to accept when they do not have a case.  Sometimes they need to be encouraged to persevere where they do.  Some consumers are equipped enough to make the correct decision.  Most are not.

Litigation in the high court can be accessible, if your attorneys are experienced and certified to deal with the matter without the need for counsel.  It is the additional expense of counsel that consumers can often not afford. So I would ask consumers to request from the law societies a list of the attorneys so equipped to deal with matters to ensure that legal costs are kept to a minimum.

Acts: If the bank is unable to produce the original “wet ink” mortgage note signed by the borrower when the mortgage loan was taken out, does this constitute grounds to ask the court to throw out the case? 

The Bank would then need to authenticate the documents it seeks to use in its case. Where there is a good faith and/or factual dispute, the matter will continue to trial for evidence related thereto.

Acts: It seems judges are all too willing to believe the banks when they say the original documents have gone missing. You have made the point that a bank cannot calculate the final balance owed by the defaulting borrower without this original mortgage note. Why is this? Surely an electronic copy will do?

The agreement entered into between the parties is of importance. The mortgage bond merely embodies the security for the indebtedness derived from the loan agreement. The original of both is required in terms of the rule of law. Copies of both may be accepted, dependent upon whether there is a dispute of fact pertaining to the contents of the copy or the signatures, the matter may be referred for oral evidence or trial.

This would critically depend upon how your defence is constructed and what your defence is, and what avenues of consumer law you are seeking to employ, etc.  In the construction of your defence you must be careful not to inadvertently admit to something which will prove the case against you. The Plaintiff or bank bears the onus of proving their case, so be careful not to acknowledge or admit anything which relieves them of this onus.

To be continued in Part 2.

Lodge a complaint with the Consumer Commission

You can lodge a complaint with the Consumer Commission at: or

Related stories:
Is this the biggest fraud in history?
Judgment opens up a world of trouble for the banks
New Economic Rights Alliance brings heat to the banks

JPM to Shutter Litigation Group for Consumer Debt Collection


OCT 17, 2013

JPMorgan Chase (JPM) plans to disband a group tasked with suing consumers to collect delinquent debts, according to former employees and others who were told about the change. The move comes two years after the bank ceased filing collections suits amid scrutiny of the accuracy of its records and court filings.

Last week, the bank informed employees in its collection-litigation services division that it plans to shut the unit and reassign them to other parts of the company, said former employees and others told of the changes. The San Antonio-based division is responsible for coordinating litigation against delinquent borrowers, maintaining records and managing law firms hired to pursue the bank’s claims, the sources say.

The group’s roughly 100 employees could be reassigned or let go as a result of the shutdown, the sources say. A JPMorgan spokesman would not confirm the closing or the size of the group.

JPMorgan halted lawsuits to recover consumer debt in 2011, after legal challenges and whistle-blower allegations cast doubt on the accuracy of records related to accounts the company had sold to third-party collections firms. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency last month issued a consent order requiring JPMorgan Chase to reform its collections department and put in place new internal controls related to its attempts to collect on delinquent accounts via lawsuits and debt sales.

Last week’s shutdown of the collection-litigation services group raises the question of whether the bank is bracing for legal challenges in the wake of last month’s OCC settlement.

A JPMorgan Chase spokesman said the bank has “no plans to restart” debt-collection suits but was unable to confirm whether the bank has decided to disband the collection litigation services group permanently. He said the company has reassigned some employees from collections litigation to work on fulfilling the requirements of the OCC’s consent order, and that employees at the San Antonio facility are regularly shifted between departments.

JPMorgan Chairman and Chief Executive Jamie Dimon said he intends to make compliance a priority and to exit noncore businesses that carry excessive risk. The company lost $380 million in the third quarter, taking a $7.2 billion charge related to legal costs and bringing its litigation reserves at the end of September to $23 billion.

JPMorgan has come under fire from federal and state regulators for shoddy documentation within its consumer-loan collections group. An American Banker series last year outlined the allegations against the bank, including charges that it cut corners with documentation used internally and filed “robo-signed” documents in court that had not been the subject of legally required scrutiny. In last month’s consent order, the OCC accused JPMorgan of suing customers based on faulty documents and understaffing its collections-litigation group.

JPMorgan said in a statement that the issues affected less than 1% of its customers, that it is working to reform its practices and has withdrawn the affected suits. It stopped selling most consumer debt to third-party collectors earlier this year.

JPMorgan’s settlement with the OCC appears to resolve the debt-collection issue on the federal level, but the bank may still be open to legal claims from state regulators.

California, which sued JPMorgan in May, is the only state to file claims against the bank so far over its debt-collection practices, but a group of 13 states, led by Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, has launched an independent investigation into possible violations. Massachusetts has also launched its own investigation.

The California complaint, filed by state Attorney General Kamala Harris, accuses the bank of using widespread robo-signing in its collections efforts. Harris estimates that the bank’s attorneys filed more than 100,000 collections suits between January 2008 and April 2011, including more than 450 on a single day in 2010.

 Five Regulatory Changes Coming to the Mortgage Market
« 1 of 6 »
  • A Final Mortgage Disclosure Form Will Likely Be Delayed
  • Regulators Want Lenders to Turn Themselves In
  • Bankers Will Face A Different QM Definition from FHA
  • CFPB Weighing New Guidance on Bankrupt Borrowers

Confusion and panic. Those are the words most often used by lenders when faced with the onslaught of mortgage regulations and other rules going into effect in three months. Regulators have sought to defuse concerns partly by attending industry conferences, but they have also made it clear that several other big changes are on their way. Following is a guide to what’s ahead.



THE RESERVE BANK = A License to Steal Money from Citizens?

How money is created from nothing for dummies

ReserveBankcover new (4)

I have written a book titled:
= A License to Steal Money from Citizens?”

This book exposes how the nefarious activities of the Reserve Bank affect the wealth of ALL of us. It may be a book that may interest you.

Also, if you are willing to assist, I would appreciate it greatly if you would kindly “FORWARD” to your friends this email to inform them about this book.

Please bear with patience if you receive multiple emails as this can happen if you are on several people’s lists who may be forwarding this important information about the Reserve Bank.

Peace and warm regards.

Ahmed Motiar
To know more about this book, go to:


Few people are aware that the Reserve Bank is a “private corporation” which enriches its private shareholders at the expense of the majority of a country’s citizens.

This book is written in simple lay man’s terms. It is an . . .

Updated segment from my book
which was short-listed for the R50,000 Penguin Book Award


• Discover the “fraud” game played by the Reserve Bank.
• Discover how “Securitization” affects YOUR mortgage.
• Discover how the Reserve Bank creates money out of thin air
and make debt- slaves out of most of us.
• Discover how the Reserve Bank depletes YOUR money.
• Discover how the Reserve Bank creates inflations and depressions.
• Discover Organizations working to change the status quo.

“If the people only understood the rank INJUSTICE of our money and the banking system, there would be a revolution before morning.”
– Andrew Jackson: President of the United States


If you were being defrauded by a clever scam and your financial worth was being depleted, how would you feel if you DID NOT KNOW that this is done to your wealth?

Well, that is exactly what is being done!

YOU can only end the fraud by EMPOWERING YOURSELF about how this fraud is conducted. You can do this either

• through lengthy research of your own, OR,
• through the above book on the RESERVE BANK which shows you in simple lay
man’s terms how your wealth is depleted.

To know more about this book, go to:



On 9/5/2013 at 2:33 PM, “Michiel” <> wrote:

Dear Mr. Urry

I hope that this e-mail finds you well?

I have not heard from you again and I hope that you know that in Law silence is seen as admission of guilt. There is a tremendous awakening happening at the moment as to how the banks generate money for themselves off the back of peoples signatures.

There are a few more programmes coming on Special Assignment and lots and lots of radio talk shows on the issue of securitisation.

There is also an awareness campaign being launched to every police station in the country as to the possible fraud and racketeering happening at the moment. Do thus not be surprised one day when the cops come knocking at your door to ask you a few simple questions regarding your involvement in this possible scam against humanity.

I am sure you have a guilt free conscience and sleep well at night thinking that you are climbing the rung of success in the banking industry. I want you to know that when the paw paw hits the fan one of these days that you are going to be the fall guy.

If I have my facts correctly the Banks and Corporate governments were foreclosed on last December and each and every employee is acting on their own.

I think you really need to start doing your own research and wake yourself up. The 7 pm news at night is NOT the reality that is playing itself out on this planet at the moment. (Big Smile)

You can keep supporting the dark (Because you are ONLY doing your job) or you can join the light and stop this insanity and suffering on the planet.

I wish you well with your beautiful career in an industry that operates in honesty, openness, integrity, trust, good governance, harmony, win-win, peace, love and truth. I am sure that you are doing the best you can for your children and when they look into your eyes at night before they go to bed they see a dad that they know will always be open and honest them. I hope they do not one day ask you………….. How could you let this happen??

Remember, there is a saying that goes………………. IT IS A GREATER COMPLIMENT TO BE TRUSTED THAN TO BE LOVED.

As always in pure truth.


Michiel of the family van Niekerk (Unlimited)

Without prejudice – Non Assumpsit – All rights reserved

P O Box 50150 Randjesfontein Midrand 1683 South Africa

Cell: 083 264 7944

Fax: 086 656 3233


“By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe”

From: Michiel []
Sent: 06 August 2013 08:25
To: ‘Urry, S. (Steven)’


Thank you for the reply. Please can you let me know the amount of shares that NEDBANK LTD. Has in each of these companies individually.

Thank you and in pure truth


Michiel of the family van Niekerk (Unlimited)

Without prejudice – Non Assumpsit – All rights reserved

P O Box 50150 Randjesfontein Midrand 1683 South Africa

Cell: 083 264 7944

Fax: 086 656 3233


Some people are so poor, all they have is money.

From: Urry, S. (Steven) []
Sent: 02 August 2013 15:16



Nedbank Securitisation programmes per your NCR schedule as provided are

  • the Greenhouse Funding programme, a premium mortgage securitisation programme, rated by Fitch Ratings, and
  • the Octane ABS  Vehicle-and-Asset backed programme.

For more information on Nedbank and its securitisation programmes, kindly refer to the Nedbank Ltd annual report, available via web download at

For any account specific information regarding Nedbank’s securitisation programmes, kindly provide the respective account details including your SA-ID number, Account name and type description, and the respective account numbers.

Yours sincerely

Steven UrrySenior Securitisation Manager | Retail Finance – Home Loans | Nedbank Limited

Second Floor  Block 1, Nedbank Park, 6 Press Avenue, Selby, Crown Mines 2092, South Africa

PO Box 1144  Johannesburg  2000  South Africa

t +27 (0)11 495 9023  @


SAVE TREES, SAVE PAPER – THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT Nedbank is proud to be Africa’s first carbon-neutral bank and official conservation partner of the WWF-SA.

From: Michiel []
Sent: 31 July 2013 09:59 AM
To: Buckley, E. (Emma)
Cc: De Waal, L. (Louanne); Bates, G. (Gayle); Dirksen, L. (Lynly); Hardie, D. (Doug); Eckard, Y. (Yolandi); Nedbank Carlswald Centre – Branch Manager; ‘Schalk van Niekerk’;; ‘Braam van Wyk’; ‘Anthony van der Riet’; Nico van der Riet
Subject: RE: Confirmation Please?

My dear bankers

Having been a client of yours since 1984 and yourselves enjoying the fruits of my labour and having made money for yourselves out of my CQV trust and the selling off of every document I have ever signed via one of your SPV’s I herewith want to share with you something I found floating rampantly around the internet. This is stuff we are discovering on the internet and I want you to tell me if it is true or not?

I see that you have now even got a Securitisation Department? (Big Smile) In future I can thus sign all my documents that I create value for yourselves with my signature with a blue pen and have a stamp made and stamp each page so it says MAY NOT BE SECURITISED – PENALTY FRAUD. I will autograph it and NOT sign it. Hope that is ok with yourselves. I will then KNOW that you ACTUALLY borrow me REAL money.

If I do not hear from Steven Urry, I will thus with this notice say that it is a done deal.


Steven, seeing that you are an “expert” on securitisation,  can you please let me know if any one of the companies listed with the NCR belongs to Nedbank and or if so, if Nedbank has minority or majority shares in any one of these companies. Please see attachment.

I hope to hear from you soon.

As always in universal love and pure truth


Michiel of the family van Niekerk (Unlimited)

Without prejudice – Non Assumpsit – All rights reserved

P O Box 50150 Randjesfontein Midrand 1683 South Africa

Cell: 083 264 7944

Fax: 086 656 3233


Some people are so poor, all they have is money.