Tag Archives: banksters


1 Jan 2022

While the Banksters are trying to eliminate the middle class, we are going to get an alternative people’s bank and exchange up and running before the end of 2022;

United People’s Front SA Banking, Finance & Treasury Committee – the power of banking restored to the people where it rightfully belongs; to build an alternative value-backed, full reserve, lawful money banking system completely opposite and separate to the Federal Reserve System; and, interfacing with alternative banks; and a BETS Exchange – barter, exchange, trade and savings co-ops;

Kindly invite any banking and IT experts you may know to join the UPF Banking Committee to achieve our aims; contact sajuralassembly@gmail.com for details;

All in all its just a… nother “BRIC” in the wall… And the world believes in “BRIC”? No, not “BRICS” , “BRIC”!

Thanks Bobby, you brightened up our day he he; South Africans are tough and resilient and are forced to find the humour in even the most challenging situations; the South African “whites” are way ahead of the northern Anglo-Saxons in that we have already experienced the overthrowing of a tyrannical regime while the Anglo-Saxon nations are only beginning to feel it now; “White” South Africans are a minority who have been under warning of genocide for at least 40 years that we know of:


Note that in the very first sentence, I stated clearly: “Dr. Gregory Stanton, Founding President of Genocide Watch, warned that early warnings of genocide are still deep in South African society, though genocide has not begun.”

We have even been placed us under reverse-racial-apartheid, calling it “Black Empowerment”; they should have just called it “White/Coloured/Indian/Other” DISEMPOWERMENT; Even against all odds we are already are very different to our Anglo-Saxon ancestors as we have all been “touched” by Mother Afrika!!! And most South Africans would agree that we would rather be enslaved under the tyranny of Black Ineptocrats than under an Anglo-Saxon military state, especially if we see what is busy going down right now in America, France, Britain, Germany right now!!!

South Africans, this one is for you:) 

London quote

Tax quote 1

President v voters houses

Long live King Zuma!!!



And the Cabal think they are in control of Afrika?

Etolls proudly sponsored by ANC

And no-one is paying either; out of millions only 1 500 registered; the Defiance Campaign!


FW_De_Klerk_speaks_with_a_forked_TongueFor 2 decades accusations against the FW de Klerk government have been flying about. Many people have been whispering about huge sums of money being paid over by Swiss bank accounts to NP politicians and government operators to hand over the SA government to the ANC. For 18 years nothing could be proven, till now: CITIBANK Gen. Erle Cocke ran Nugan Hand Bank’s Washington office. In April 2000, Cocke gave a deposition running to 67 pages concerning his knowledge and involvement in Project Hammer. Ten days later he died from Pancreatic cancer. His explosive deposition reveals him as a very significant and highly connected player in a world few of us are familiar with.

Cocke related in his statement how Citibank was used as halfway stop for dodgy financial dealings in ‘black gold’ through Project Hammer – some 30 accounts used. Asked where these accounts were located, Cocke responded saying – in almost one solid block at Citibank.



Project Hammer was a desperate undertaking by the USA gov. to rescue some of its major banks, who, by the end of the 1980’s, faced insolvency. These banks included Citibank, HSBC, Chase Manhatten and the Bank of New York.

The project was designed to cipher gold and diamonds as collateral as an emergency buoy for the ailing banks and to put the USA’s economy on track again.

It is at this stage that South Africa’s De Klerk government entered the fray – as major gold and diamond supplier, it was the easiest and cheapest way to rescue the USA banking sector. Only one small problem: South Africa was in political turmoil with the white rightwing challenging the NP government on all fronts.

The best smokescreen Citibank could think upon to move large amounts of money and gold bullion was:

Citibank Cartoon

Create political instability (between the NP gov. and the ANC). Then create a political vacuum where dodgy gold and diamond deals could be done without too many questions (maybe even an interim NP/ANC gov. where the minimum control would facilitate covert gold and diamond movements).

Project Hammer involved the trading of $13.6 trillion in debentures resulting in ‘fallout’ of about $1.1 trillion which was stashed I the Howard Hughes account in Credit Suisse. Obviously, in a project of this size, a lot of organizations had to be involved: The CIA, FBI, all the NSA agencies, Pentagon in the broadest sense of it and as such, the Treasury and Federal Reserve. Nobody got out of the act, and everybody wanted to get in on the act – for there was lots and lots of money to be made.



Another individual who has played a considerable role in Project Hammer, was Rolf van Rooyen, who operated a number of business entities including one called ‘Oceantech’ and another called ‘Eastech’ International Bank.

At one time Van Rooyen worked for SA Intelligence and is also believed to have been working for the CIA at the time Project Hammer was in process. Of significance is the fact that Gen. Cocke and Van Rooyen knew each other, although Cocke says he only spoke to him on the phone but never ‘shook hands with him’.

During a police interview in Germany in1995, Van Rooyen when questioned about Project Hammer responded: if you are referring to Operation Hamer, it is an extremely large, very delicate operation in co-operation with the authorities of various countries in which Oceantech is involved..

Working alongside Van Rooyen, was SA Intelligence operative Riaan Stander. Both Stander and Van Rooyen were board members of the “Eastcorp Syndicate” which boasted almost two dozen other companies in its stable. Included were Intercol Pty, Ltd, Cavo Shipping – which conducted intelligence gathering missions for governments, and Bridge S.A. The latter was registered in Monrovia, Liberia.

According to Peter Goslar, once a close friend of Riaan Stander, other board members of Bridge S.A., were Colonel Tim Spicer and Mick Ranger of ‘Sandline’ fame.

In a letter written to a Washington law firm involved in a lawsuit involving Project Hammer, Goslar fingers Bridge S.A. – and hence Van Rooyen and Riaan Stander, as ‘part of the Executive Outcomes operation. Eastech International Bank, was underwritten by a Mexican firm Ro-Mar Pharmaceuticals, a firm claiming to control over $100 billion in gold. Van Rooyen and Stander entered Eastech into an agreement to purchase 5000 metric tons of gold at a discount of 4% from the Second London Fix. This gold was held in the free zone area beneath Zurich’s Kloten Airport. Interestingly, the contract, which ran to 6 pages, bears the official stamp of the Swiss Police, authorizing and validating the transaction.

By 1995, Eastech International Bank had begun to hit the radar screen of regulatory authorities around the world that viewed it with suspicion, but by then it seems probable that much of Project Hammer’s SA objectives had been fulfilled. Fearing the worse, Rolf Van Rooyen left S.A. and traveled to Germany. According to his one-time friend, Peter Goslar, this is where he still lives albeit protected by former members of the East Germany’s Stasi spy-network.

Rudolph Ignatius van Rooyen – born in Kroonstad on 29 April 1959  ID no. 590429 5021 085; Last known address: Rheinstern Hotel 1610, Rheinstern, Dusseldorf, Germany. Alias – Rolf Rondine.

Director – Eastech International Bank, established in China and underwritten by a Mexican Firm. Contact person – Miss Lin Ying, China.

Riaan Stander

Security director of Eastech

Steve Potnak – managing director of Eastech Bank

Steve Pansegrow – military intelligence officer supplying Eastech with intelligence reports. He also supplied highly confidential information to C1, in the names of Eugene de Kock and Pieter Botha. Pansegrow’s wife was a receptionist for Van Rooyen and Stander.

Irma Els – operator helping in Ifafa – Eastcorp.

Fanie Smith – operator who signed validation certificates for Eastcorp.

– Letter of credit no. 9022101 signed by Fanie Smith and honoured by the bank and with a revenue stamp of the Greek gov.

– Certificate of deposit of $5 million, stamped by the Greek Gov, signed by Fanie Smith.

– Certificate of deposit of $25 million, stamped by the Greek Gov, signed by Fanie Smith.

– Directors of Eastcorp and Intercol as at the registrar of companies: Roelf van Rooyen, Riaan Stander, Douglas Randall. Intercol: Eugene de Kock, Gen. Tai Minnaar, Pieter Botha. Policemen and members of military intelligence served on both Eastcorp and Intercol.

– Dr. HP Bauer – involved with operator “Rosie”, Dr. HJ Schuster – agent of FAS in the US, Julian Rosie – director of FAS in South Africa.

– Riaan Stander liased directly with intel. Officers from C1 (SA Police), namely Eugene de Kock, Chappies Kloppers, Pieter Botha and Willie Nortje. They asked help from Eastech to infiltrate rightwing groups in Pietersburg and for help in the movement of large quantities of weapons.

– MAS 57/08/92 – Pretoria North Case ref, investigation officer – Lt. Col. AE Botha conducted an investigation into the irregularities, but it was never made public or brought to court.

In October 1998, a German intelligence operator forwarded a document marked “Top Secret” to Gerhard Laubsher of the S.A. National Intelligence Agency, marked MZ/HRB/10-10/98 ser. Noj/IBI citing the disappearance of $223 104 000 008 from the South African economy through ‘black gold’ dealings.

In the report the following 47 persons were named:

FW de Klerk, Hernus Kriel, Chris Stals, Japie Jacobs, Org Marais, Anton Rupert, Johan Rupert, James Cross, Christo Wiese (SARB), Christo Wiese (Boland Bank), Dr. Swanepoel, Dr. Groenewald, Mr. Potgieter, Alwyn Lombard, Jan Lombard, Barend du Plessis, Commisionar Blaauw (western cape), Simon Nothnagel, Simon and Peter Nassau, Giel Nieuwoudt, Ben Zuma, Anton Welch, George Hill, BB de Klerk, Chris Nissan, Kobus Kirsten,Van Deventer, Boet Claasen, Big John Smith, Willem Korden/Kordan, Daniel Julius, Jan Koch, John and Faize Adams, Peter Blake, Nick Fourie, Magistrate Liebenberg, Casiem and Shahida Brey, Peter Mopp, Riaan Engelbrecht, Peter Goslar, Detective Justin Swart, Charles/Lester Newton, Robert Ferguson and Wynand Louw:


The report quotes:

4.7 The RSA has in excess 3000 tons of gold in storage. We can identify that Cloten in Switzerland, Luxembourg and London are used extensively for stored gold.

4.8 The RSA has a small refinery in Switzerland and deals with an other small refinery in Luxembourg (owned by Italian members) to refine gold, remove the markings on the gold.

4.9 The RSA selling 550 tons of gold every year and approximately 50 tons of gold is stolen every year.

4.12 Some of this money is then recycled back in RSA.

4.13 Some examples: The recent announced merger of Goldfields and Gencor. The purchase of BOE, NBS, OK Bazaars etc. by Christo Wiese. Old Mutual Bibby Group. Gencor’s Billiton Group. Rembrands Richmond Group. Anglo Americans Miners Group.

6.3 High yield investments goes generally through Volkskas Bank, Nedbank, Boland and Standard-Chartered Bank RSA, all with approval from the SARB.

6.4 Arnold van Eck, offshore in – Imposses des Michandes, Veyreier du Luc, 74000 Anmecy-France, Bis Avenue D’Albigny, 74000 Anmecy-Le Veux, Adriaan (Riaan) Stander, Switzerland, 17 Rue de Levi, Crans Montana.

6.5 Van Ecks Associates, Clientel, Co. Directors are all well known military intelligence officers and political figures. Large sums of funds to almost $1.6 billion were handled and controlled by the Van Eck Syndicate on instructions of these politicians and intelligence officers – There are in RSA R37 million in farms unaccounted for. $40 million are being held in secret accounts in Van Ecks name. An unauthorized amount of $6 million was paid to Mrs. Van Eck. There are in RSA various assets of enormous value, belonging to Afri-Air, a total of at least R700 million. Overseas funding in $ 400 million, is also unaccounted for. A further amount of $ 7000 million unaccounted, controlled by Van Eck.

After scrutinizing some of Riaan Stander’s bank accounts, the following was found:

Adriaan Barend Stander; Selbornelaan 14; Lyttelton Manor, Pta.

Account name: Intercol Consultants (Pty) Ltd.

Volkskas bank – 0609-142-596, Verwoerdburg branch.

Account name: Intercol Consultants

Nedbank; Arcadia, Pretoria branch

Eastcorp South Africa

Bankcorp London

Swiftref – TBOAGB2L; 90 Long Acre; London SC2E 9SF

Account name

Eastcorp main account – 01-38496030-4

El Rosario Trust account – (Eastcorp HQ) – 01-38497030-0

Anti Crisi (Eastcorp Technical Division) 01-38498030-5

Eastech International Bank SA; Boland bank; Swiftref: BOLBZAJC

Pretoria branch; Account name: Estech International Bank – 136 873 6001

Relevant bank official – Mr. L. Coetzee – Gen Man.

Eastech International Bank – Tacoma, Washington.

Moving money between accounts is easy, especially when it is done with the lessing of the major banks and government, but moving gold and weapons around the globe is not so easy.

Enter one of the key players, shipping tycoon Tony Giordiadis, from Greece. Giordiadis had very close ties with Richard Carter (now corporate manager of BMW), the spokesperson for the SA President FW de Klerk.

On May 11 and 12, 1990, De Klerk paid an official visit to Greece. Here he met with Pres. Caramanlis and Prime Minister Mitsosakies. De Klerk also met Tony Gordiakis at this time. Of Greek origin, but London based, Georgiadis shipped oil to SA in contravention of sanctions and developed close relations with members of the NP gov. to distribute money freely, Georgiadis opened a bank account in Liberia for Mallar Incorporated (it was also through this account that bribes to the tune of $22 million wer paid to ANC officials during the Arms Deal).

Geordiadis’s father-in-law Lanaras once served as director of the shipping firm Alandis.

The conspirators were faced by another huge obstacle – the loyal members of the Defence Force, Military Intelligence, National Intelligence Agency and the South Africa Police, who would immediately put a stop to the transactions, should they find out.


De Klerk fired all loyal officers to that his collaborators could move freely.

On December 19, 1992, FW de Klerk fired 23 senior army officers, including navy officers, who could pose a threat to his plans.

So great was the speed with which De Klerk acted that even the army’s public relations office was not informed of the press conference. In addition, many of the officers disciplined, were on holiday and were unaware of their suspension.

The axed officers included: Major-General Chris Thirion, Deputy Chief of Staff, Intelligence, who had a reputation of being one of the more progressive of the younger generation of generals, Major-General Hennie Rouw, Chief of Army Intelligence, Brigadier Ferdie Van Wyk, Director of Army Communications, who master-minded Project Echoes, Brigadier Tolletjies Botha, Director – Directorate of Covert Collection, which was raided in November by investigators of the Goldstone Commission, including UN personnel, Brigadier Oos van der Merwe, Director of Army Intelligence, Commander Jack Widdowson of the Navy.

He named only three other officers, Colonel At Nel, Colonel Chris Prinsloo and Commandant Stephen Snyders, who were all put on compulsory leave.

FW de klerk

This followed the purge of 19 police generals in August as part of a drive to bring the police in line with the negotiation process.

The further Indemnity Act pushed through parliament in August, needed to help ease officers out. The November raid on Military Intelligence’s Directorate of Covert Collection in November, by Goldstone investigators which provided the pretext for setting up the probe headed by Gen. Pierre Steyn.

A top-level meeting between senior Umkhonto We Sizwe and SADF officials in early August, brokered by the National Intelligence Service, which generally carries out the will of the cabinet. December’s ‘rationalisation’ measures which include the retrenchment of 6000 middle ranking officers followed.

In just 5 months, De Klerk had opened the door wide, for his own operators to continue the sell-out.

“I have never before seen a government destroy its own power base, such as this one is doing” – said former chief of Military Intelligence, Gen. Tienie Groenewald, while the country is steadily moving towards complete chaos, the government has effectively neutralized the SADF’s intelligence capacities by removing the eyes, ears and nose of the defense forces.


The Greek shipping tycoon could now go about his business unhindered. Georgiadis was of course also implicated in the swindle with the sinking of the greek ship , Salem, off the African coast earlier in what was decribed by Loydds of Great Britian as the biggest maritime swindle ever. “Salem – Lloyd’s pursues what may be the biggest maritime swindle ever – At 10:50am Greenwich time on Jan. 17, crewmen aboard the tanker British Trident, sighted a ship in distress off the coast of Senegal in Northwest Africa. The Salem, a 214 000 ton supertanker, registered in Liberia, was listing and dead in the water. By radio contact with the tanker, Trident learned that a series of mysterious explosions was responsible for the disaster. Indeed, a cloud of orange smoke billowed from the tanker’s deck. By 11:30 the disabled ship’s greek-born captain, Dimitrios Georgoulis, and his 22 crewmen, most of them Tunisians, had….”

Side note: It was at this time that the whole Project Hammer was put at risk by FW de Klerk’s impulsiveness. German operators learned that De Klerk was having an affair with Georgiadis’s wife, Elita (Lanaras’s daughter).

A memorandum was sent to the CIA, who decided to put a lid on the affair, until after the completion of Project Hammer.

Knowledge of the affair would not only open a can of worms, but it was not clear what Georgiadis’s reaction to the affair would be. It this only became public after another two years.

There would be a twist – Marike de Klerk.. When FW de Klerk divorced Marike to marry Elita, a clause was written into the divorce agreement that De Klerk would be able to censor any books or article Marike might decide to write – which indeed he did when he prevented the publication of a chapter titled Grotgesprek (cave conversation) in the autobiography titled “‘n Plek waar die son weer skyn.” ( a place where the sun shines again)

But Marike de Klerk was not done yet. Then, sadly, on 2 Dec. 2001, she was brutally murdered in her Dolphin Beach complex, Bloubergstrand apartment, hours after sending an undisclosed fax to Holland.

Curiously – the European Union paid R30 000 into the account of the murder accused – Mboniswa, channeled by the Foundation for Human Rights, for DNA tests. Mboniswa stood trail in the Western Cape High Court and was found guilty of the murder, without taking the stand in his own defense.

What was the follow wat the orchestrated and directed ‘political reform’ as was dictated to by foreigners of this country.

The reform was steered by international banks/financiers as well as foreign intelligence agencies.

The subsequent buy-out of South African politicians and role players, culminated in the demise of a country….

un-named source

South Africa – Bank busted over securitisation lies

Jack Darier of Parkhurst in Joburg asked his bank whether his loan had been securitised. No way, said the bank. It was the answer Darier was expecting. Meantime he had the proof that the opposite was true. It was a truth test, he says, and the bank failed.

Source: http://news.acts.co.za/blog/2015/11/busted-joburg-man-catches-standard-bank-out-over-securitisation-denial

Sometimes the banks just can’t get it right. Here’s a case where Standard Bank’s legal department flatly denied a customer’s mortgage loan had been securitised, while another department in the same bank sent proof that the loan had in fact been sold to an entirely different legal entity.

Busted. That’s what happens when the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.

What makes this case even more interesting is that the customer, Jack Darier of Parkhurst in Johannesburg, does not have a judgment against his name, nor is his house under threat of being repossessed. He just wanted to know if his home loan had been securitised – in other words, on-sold by the bank to a new owner. That means the bank no longer has legal standing to bring action against the customer in the event of default. You can see below how the banks get around this – it’s a simple cession, they argue successfully in our brain dead courts.

So let’s ignore the blather of the R50,000-a-day silks who show up daily in our courts as they repossess upwards of 10,000 homes each year (and for which the SA Communist Party is now calling for an official investigation), and go straight to the law books: Regulation 35 of the Banks Act covers the sale of a loan to a third party by way of securitisation. A debt on-sold to a “Special Purpose Vehicle” is considered a sale (not a cession) under which the full entitlement, rights and obligations are conveyed to the purchaser. Regulation 35 furthermore blocks the public from gaining access to securitisation transactions, which are deemed to be “off balance sheet”.

The reason banks securitise is to move assets off balance sheet and so free up capital for further lending. The provisioning requirements of the Basel accords, which govern banking internationally, means banks have to set aside capital according to the type and risk of loans it makes. So if it can move these off balance sheet by way of securitisation, it’s a case of rinse and repeat – issue a bunch of new mortgage loans, bundle them together, and sell them off to investors. Great business if you can get it. If the mortgage lender defaults, there are various insurance policies and credit default swaps (CDSs) that make up the shortfall. A zero-sum game for the banks. But not if you are the home owner. If the home owner defaults, the bank will get judgment, sell the house at auction for a fraction of its value, and then pursue the hapless defaulter for the shortfall.

In law, that’s called undue enrichment. Or selling the same asset twice.

A securitisation is therefore not a cession, but a shift in ownership of the underlying asset. The problem is no defaulting home owner can afford the R50,000-a-day silk to argue this convincingly in court. So the charade goes on. Section 72 read with Section 1 of the Banks Act precludes a bank from participating in any business wherein it may unduly influence and/or place at risk its providential requirements or burden its liquidity requirements. So an SPV cannot be a division or associated entity of the bank. The SPV must be an independent juristic entity.

But let’s get back to Darier’s to-and-fro discussion with Standard Bank. When he found out his mortgage loan had been securitised – despite the bank’s bare denial – he went along to visit the commercial crimes unit in Johannesburg. There he laid a charge of fraud against the bank.

Despite having presented evidence of the securitisation along with his correspondence and affidavit and receiving a case number, no further action was taken by the police investigation unit.
Darier’s interest in the matter all started when his father ran into difficulty with the bank some years ago. He fired off a bunch of questions to Standard Bank asking whether his mortgage bond had been securitised.

No it had not, said the bank (you can see the correspondence below). But then another division from the same bank sent him a Certificate of Balance showing the mortgage loan was now owned by Blue Granite. This is a securitisation vehicle used by Standard Bank into which it has placed thousands of its loans.

Bear this in mind when reading what followed.

In mid-July this year Darier sent off a standard set of questions that New Economic Rights Alliance (New Era) advises clients to put to their banks.

Here’s the response from Joop Dekker, executive in charge of complaints resolution at Standard Bank, sent on 24 July 2015:

Good day Mr Darier,

We refer to your note below and would like to reply as follows:

Regarding the questions you have posed below we are of the view that your questions are inappropriate.

The bank does engage in the process of securitization and there is nothing untoward or illegal about this.

It seems that you are being misled by New Era and we note that your question is identical to those that New Era have been inviting people to ask.

The bank has been involved in litigation with this entity and we attach hereto a copy of the latest judgement herein. We draw your attention to paragraphs 24 and 25 where the honourable Judge Baqwa described the NEW Era’s action as vexatious. You will also note that legal cost had been awarded against the New Era directors in person.

Lastly we confirm that any failure on the bank’s side to specifically reply to your question below cannot be construed as an admission to the correctness thereof.

We therefore trust that the above clarifies the matter from the bank’s side.


Joop Dekker

To which Darier replied on 25 July 2015:

Hi Joop. I have seen by your position at the bank that you are merely doing your job in deflecting any negative PR. As such I harbour no ill feelings or intentions towards you.

However, my response is as follows:

1.       I am not surprised the bank finds these question “inappropriate” because they do not want their customers and the public to have an insight into their dubious banking practices. Just because they deem it inappropriate does not infer that there are inappropriate questions to ask.

2.       It seems to me that your bank and most likely all the banks underestimate the intelligence of the public and they are trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes. Your executives are a bastion of CA’s and financial professionals who seem to think they are far more intelligent than everyone else and no-one will be the wiser. This may the case in other instances but I can assure you this is not the case now.

3.       With regards to the legality of securitisation: you are 100% correct. The process of securitisation (ie. selling promissory notes/loan agreements to third parties for purposes of using as investment vehicles to invest in stocks) is legal. However, there is no mention of the fact that after ceding the loan agreement to a party without notification to the debtor the banks’ rights to repossess houses are null and void. The bank is thus merely acting as the agent for the third party in retrieving monies owed. I see on the website there is but 2 or 3 lines (mentioning) securitisation but there has been a convenient omission of any information which would allude the fact that the bank has no more rights for repossession.

4.       I have been influenced by New Era, however I do not deem them as misleading me. The fact you have not been willing to answer my questions is testament to the fact that the bank does not want to draw attention to the matter or reveal the shady practices. If the bank wasn’t doing anything wrong they wouldn’t find the questions “inappropriate”. New Era indicated that the bank would not divulge any details on this matter.

5.       Securitisation has been banned in the US for the reasons that is shady and it has resulted in a plethora of illegal foreclosures (No. There have been calls for the outlawing of securitisation in the US, but it is not banned – Ed).

6.       I assume that because the manner in which securitisation works, it can be utilised in any form of loan/credit agreement (home loans, car finance, credit cards, etc). It would fantastic if the banks and third parties undertook profit shares with the debtor as they are using money which has not been paid to them yet to create profits. They are essentially utilising the hard work and income of their customers to generate massive profits for themselves

7.       I am well aware of what vexatious litigation and proceeding are. I examined the document and it was considered vexatious due to the manner in which the litigation was undertaken. It actually has nothing to do with the legitimacy of accusations or the matter on hand and the legality of the bank repossessing houses when it has no right to.

8.       New Era have successfully won cases against the bank and you and I both know this (They certainly educated the public, and in doing so frustrated the banks in their attempts to repossess homes, but New ERA does not fight cases for individuals – Ed).

The response does not clarify the matter at all. That being said we can drop the matter on the premise that I assume that my home loan has been securitised and that I am aware the bank has no right to repossess it.

I will be engaging with New Era and volunteering my time and services for free.

Jack Darier

On 28 July, Joop Dekker of Standard Bank provided the following reply:

Good day Jack

We confirm that Home loan account number 364814497 has, according to the bank’s records, not been securitized.

Furthermore we will have to agree to disagree on our respective views regarding New ERA’s position, which entity has taken on the banking industry (including the SA Reserve Bank) during the past few years via the Courts, and has had no success whatsoever.

Hypothetically if your homeloan had been securitized, and due to arrears on the account the bank foreclosed on the loan, the homeloan would merely be ceded back to the bank (by the special purpose vehicle) and the bank’s normal legal and collections process would subsequently been followed.


Joop Dekker

So what we have here is a serious dispute of fact: Dekker’s denial of securitisation, and Darier’s inadvertent receipt of proof suggesting otherwise. Based on standards of evidence, it looks like Darier has made his point. The bank’s position is that even if the loan is securitised, it can simply re-cede it back from the SPV and continue with the normal collections process. In theory this is fine, except that per our reading of the law as per the above, you cannot reverse an outright sale with a simple cession.

But Darier was just getting started. He then fired off a letter to the Northern Provinces Law Society, asking what it was doing to investigate lawyers implicated in drafting dodgy securitisation agreements.

Good day. I would like to request a meeting with senior counsel at the Northern Law Society in order to discuss multiple instances of banking fraud committed by local banks and their legal teams which are acting on their behalf. Their attorneys and debt collectors are raising judgments in court and making demands for monies owed on credit agreements for which the bank has no locus standi as they ceded the credit agreements through securitisation structures. (And thus ceded the underlying assets as the whole credit agreements along with assets are sold off their books).

Proof of many instances  of this shady practice are available AND local attorneys and law societies can no longer claim they do not know what securitisation is and overlook the matter.

The attorneys have presented papers to the court which are untruthful and indicate the bank still has locus standi on properties lodged as surety when in fact they don’t. These attorneys are well aware of this and are essentially lying to judges and are actively committing fraud and being complicit to the fraudulent practice.

I would like to discuss this with the law society to understand their views and positions on this as I am sure the securitisation matter has arisen before and the fact that attorneys are still being given free reign to present fraudulent papers to the courts is tantamount to one of the following 2 scenarios: a) either the law society is completely oblivious to this matter and more study and education of the subject in-house is required,  or b) the law society has knowledge of this unlawful practice but is allowing it to continue as it represents a great value of business for the local legal system and practitioners (ie. You are complicit to the fraud and deception in court)

I am not working with New Era and I think it would be in the best interests of the law society to meet with me to discuss further as there may be calls for disbarring of many lawyers who are implicated in this scheme.

Also, another matter I am going to be addressing is how certain firms are structuring the securitisation contracts and legal framework on the JSE in a manner which they are aware is not legal as they knowingly create shell investment schemes. They are structuring in a manner which directly contravenes numerous banking and credit act subsections/clauses and they are structuring in a manner such that properties are not transferred at the deeds office to the entity to whom credit agreements and the physical assets have been ceded to. The sole purpose being so that if a customer defaults the bank can approach the courts and pretend to be legal creditor. They are knowingly advising banks to create shell investment schemes.

Surely the local law societies are aware of this practice or they need to start introducing formal education and study into these matters.

Jack Darier

The Law Society has requested a meeting with Darier over the matter. We’ll keep you posted.


The people of Southern Africa are beginning to smell the fear…


ABSA - not today

They are officially on the run and we will corner them before an International Tribunal; Thankfully, we do not have the level of psychopaths running around the northern hemisphere;

As we say in Afrikaans, here we give them a “SNOT KLAP” literally translated as “SNOT SLAP” meaning: “I will slap you until the mucous orbits around your head” or “I will stick my finger in your eye and dial your face to zero… my china”;

For further explanations you will have to come visit us and experience our lingo for yourself; we are course like salt;

All this is figurative of course, and a BANK is ONLY a legal fiction: it does not exist…

as they say using their larney words: “Corpus Delict”; no body: If anyone has ANY complaints about the herein logos, the first question we will be asking is:
“Please produce the body?”… 

Here is a heads up from our FB friends regarding another ABSAsnot klap”:

from facebook: John to ‎Banking – SECURITIZATION – 2012

ABSA - winner in fraud

Cautiously Optimistic

(shame : “cautiously optimistic” even though they have already won… the fear, the trauma, the atrocities… we ALL are gonna need counselling after this…)

Sanlam Home Loans (Pty) Ltd Maybe some more good news – There was a successful defense against a summons for summary judgement for an alleged mortgage default – THE BANK – our friends ABSA (of libor and Docufile “fire” fame) – WITHDREW – TWICE – and it is quite possible they cannot rise from the ashes this time. The Plaintiffs were: ABSA HOME LOANS 101 (PTY) LTD First Plaintiff ABSA HOME LOANS GUARANTEE COMPANY (PTY) LTD Second Plaintiff Formerly: Sanlam Home Loans (Pty) Ltd Anybody destitute with a SANLAM MORTRGAGE BOND now ABSA – THE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE for possible / alleged mortgage default defense!!! Mark: Please steer me to these defence docs. Marie: Thankfully, this may be it. To help us all. Marie: Haha, may I have the info to keep fighting these jackasses. Lol. Jan: epic, ABSA HOME LOANS GUARANTEE COMPANY (PTY) LTD and ABSA HOME LOANS 101 (PTY) LTD, i had no idea that ABSA had pulled off a similar stunt like Standard Bank & SA Home Loans (Sanlam Home Loans, SA Home Loans, mmmh), using the very same structure, i.e. numerous trustees (101, 102, 103, etc) like the ever Changing Tides (Pty) ltd and the ominous SA Home Loans Guarantee Trust; at least they got more open and simply merged the 2 (on paper, since SHL has always been nothing but ABSA/Barkleys…), what brought me to this: http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACT/2010/22.html

which is absolutely remarkable just reading the first few lines, when the courts & ‘judges’ didn’t even know how to spell securitization, when most of us had no idea what is in 2012, here the competition tribunal seems to be all knowing : The primary acquiring firm is ABSA Bank Limited (“Absa”), a company duly registered in terms of the company laws of South Africa. Absa is a subsidiary of Absa Group Limited (“Absa Group”), a public company listed on the Johannesburg Securities Exchange. Absa Group is ultimately controlled by Barclays Plc, a public company listed on the London Stock Exchange, the Tokyo Stock Exchange, and the New York Stock Exchange. The primary target firm is Sanlam Home Loans (Pty) Ltd (“SHL”), a company registered in terms of the company laws of South Africa. Pre-merger SHL is jointly controlled by Absa (with a 50% shareholding) and Sanlam Life Insurance Limited (“Sanlam”) (with a 50% shareholding). Absa Group and Sanlam each controls in excess of 40 subsidiaries. The SHL business model involves the securitisation of home loans originated through the business as a means to secure medium- to long term funding and minimise the cost of funding. The merging parties submitted that as part of a securitisation structure, SHL owns 100% of the issued preference shares in Sanlam Home Loans 101 (Pty) Ltd (“SHL 101”) and Sanlam Home Loans 103 (“SHL 103”). The ordinary share capital of these two entities is held by two trusts, which operate for the benefit of two separate special purpose vehicles. This structure ensures that SHL 101 and SHL 103 are bankruptcy/insolvency remote. The merging parties further submitted that the financials of SHL 101 and SHL 103 are consolidated with those of SHL for accounting purposes since SHL is deemed to control SHL 101 and SHL 103. p.s.; i did ask john for the files

ABSA - dismissed

We have now set down 2 of the major banksters on the land of Southern Africa;

The others are busy getting their notices;

Sincerely, ex causa onerosa, all rights reserved

administrator – uza

I Want to Know More?


A Case that Beat the RSA Banks:


All templates to the case are at: https://giftoftruth.wordpress.com/legal-defence/

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

Source: http://news.acts.co.za/blog/2015/08/5-out-of-5-securitisation-audits-suggest-the-banks-have-been-well-less-than-honest

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: support@TheSynergyTrust.com

Ash Davenport: ash@TheSynergyTrust.com

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