Menu
Cuzz Media

Cuzz Media

Cuzz Media is part of t...

NAB VICTIM

NAB VICTIM

In late 2008 we became vi...

Banking In Australia Today

Banking In Australia Today

Visit Banking in Austra...

Donate Please

Donate Please

We need your support. ...

Prev Next

A problem of Corporate Prosecution

A problem of Corporate Prosecution

To the citizens of Australia And Bank Victims in particular. This letter is both a complaint against the conduct of the National Australia Bank in their handling of the “Basstech” matters (continuing) and a statement of principle.

Paul Buckman

P.O. Box 120

Tinamba Vic. 3859

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

2nd of August 2019.

To the citizens of Australia And Bank Victims in particular

Phone: 0417 451 406

Dear Sir,

A problem of Corporate Prosecution

This letter is both a complaint against the conduct of the National Australia Bank in their handling of the “Basstech” matters (continuing) and a statement of principle. We have a dilemma in Australia that drives to the core of trust, confidence, and notions of the professional standards employed by all those employed within the Law Enforcement jurisdictions.

This includes Investigative and Regulatory arms, and the Legal and Court Systems. Most importantly, it impinges upon the integrity and the sanctity of the Law itself.

The root of this dilemma is that we have two persons in “equal” standing before the law. In this (the Basstech) event, both are involved in precisely the same transactions yet the treatment of each stands diametrically opposed.

Involved jointly in the same financial transactions are:

A.    Person “A”, the human. He was a chartered accountant and managed the finance group within a rapidly expanding small business, he was the architect of the theft of his employers’ funds. This was achieved by procuring a cheque book from his employer’s bank, forging signatures on those cheques, making them payable as either “Cash” or deposited into his own bank accounts, then “Investing” those moneys’ at the TAB. He was investigated by Det Senior Constable Sharp of Victoria Police, Bairnsdale CIU in 1999, and convicted. No issue can be held to this day with the quality of that investigation. 

B.    Person “B”; alias the National Australia Bank; the corporate person in equal standing before the law as is person “A”, acted in the following way. They:

i. Detected forged signatures on many occasions on cheques made to “Cash” for amounts ranging from $200.00 to $10,173.00. That is, the NAB was actively involved in the knowing facilitation of the criminal act of theft and fraud both during and after the fact. 

ii. Cleared those amounts from their customer’s bank account without question, in-spite of settled law which states clearly that a banker cannot remove money from a customer’s account without the customer’s direct and explicit mandate. 

iii. The NAB then went on to charge management “fee for service” for the privilege of the bank managing and facilitating the theft of that customer’s funds. 

iv. The NAB then assigned those debits to an overdraft facility and charged default interest rates on those moneys. It is therefore guilty of obtaining financial advantage by deception, and false accounting. 

Amongst other reasonable and more extensive charges.

Person “A” was convicted and sentenced to two years and nine months imprisonment for his part in this fraud. Person “B”, on the other hand, was deemed to be an inanimate object and consequently “cannot act” – they were deemed to be just a pile of bricks on the street corner – consequence, nil. Yet they do act every second of each day: read the State Supreme Court lists, see bank correspondence or the statement of account that you receive, witness the banks’ interaction with you at the ATM. That interaction and correspondence comes from the “Bank”, not from your teller or bank manager – it is from the Bank itself. Person “B”, like Person “A” acts in the real world, and is formally an equal and exact entity before the law.

If “A” and “B” stand equally before the law and actively participate in the same transactions, then, how is it that “A” can be sentenced to two years and nine months imprisonment, whilst “B” is permitted to retain “his” illegally gained financial advantage and pursue his victims to financial ruin. Explain that inequality, if you will, given that both scenarios cannot logically coexist in the same logical or legal space.

Should the imprisonment of “A” be correct in law, then so should the imprisonment of “B” be equally appropriate on evidentiary, equitable, factual and legal terms. On the other hand, if the consequence upon “B” is correct then “A” surely has an exemplary right to a retrial upon the grounds of equity alone. “A” should have the same rights as “B”, and have his sentence quashed and be awarded compensation for illegal State detention.

If the actual lived consequences upon “B” (1999 to 2019) are to be accepted then the law is of no relevance. The right becomes not one of conscience but rather of might. The thugs rule. “B” fears no one, not even the Hayne Banking Royal Commission, as evidenced by the total distain shown toward it by all Corporations and Regulatory Authorities called to justify their conduct and to explain their position.

Now, August 2019, the Hayne Royal Commission may as well as not been held – we are now back to business as usual.

This is more than a mere complaint about past criminal practice because this system must change if the system is to survive. Fraud must be prosecuted against both the person and the corporation in equal measure.

For an in-depth discussion of the problems as they are at present, together with a suggested solution, can be found in a paper titled “Fraud by the National Australia Bank and The Theft of customer funds” DOI: 10.25955/5ca6b77c9cbc1 to be found at https://federation.figshare.com/articles/Fraud_By_the_National_Australia_Bank_a%20nd_The_Theft_of_customer_funds/7956224 Author: Paul Alan Buckman.

I respectfully request an appointment with you and your senior officers to discuss this issue, its ramifications and its resolution. I can arrange to be in Melbourne any day from Wednesday to Sunday; as you see fit.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter

 Paul Buckman

P.O. Box 120

Tinamba Vic. 3859

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

2nd of August 2019.

Phone: 0417 451 406

Last modified onFriday, 09 August 2019 22:20

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter all the required information, indicated by an asterisk (*). HTML code is not allowed.

back to top

News

Major Topics

Helpful Resources

Socialize

About Us