stone
Madmaxista
- Desde
- 5 Dic 2011
- Mensajes
- 6.031
- Reputación
- 6.001
Un artículo para divulgar ...
depositantes: la verdad duele, no teneis vuestro dinero (si está en depósitos o cuentas corrientes) y aquí viene lo bueno, el banco tampoco. Lo único que sostiene esto es que confiais en que podreis sacarlo, y, mientras todos confien, no lo sacan, y, todos siguen creyendo tenerlo.
Es brillante, desde luego. Por eso los banqueros son tan ricos y poderosos.
Por eso dan tanto el ****** con eso de la confianza...
El artículo viene a decir eso, que se traspasa la propiedad, pero, además, incorpora una novedad:
El autor explica cómo a raiz del traspaso de propiedad, la relación es de simple deudor y acreedor, es decir, no hay una obligación del banco de administrar ese dinero conforme a ningún mandato ni prinicipio de prudencia, Solo hay un derecho de restitución. Una deuda. Es decir, el banquero puede quemar su dinero -y no tuyo, ya que le has traspasado la propiedad- y solo podrías reclamar hasta lo que haya y hasta que te topes con el escudo protector del patrimonio de los accionistas: la responsabilidad limitada de las sociedades de capital.
Sinceramente, es doloroso, saber que hasta el más pobre está financiando a los bancos ... y si es en cuenta corriente, además gratis.
No Bank Deposits Will Be Spared from Confiscation | Global Research
depositantes: la verdad duele, no teneis vuestro dinero (si está en depósitos o cuentas corrientes) y aquí viene lo bueno, el banco tampoco. Lo único que sostiene esto es que confiais en que podreis sacarlo, y, mientras todos confien, no lo sacan, y, todos siguen creyendo tenerlo.
Es brillante, desde luego. Por eso los banqueros son tan ricos y poderosos.
Por eso dan tanto el ****** con eso de la confianza...
El artículo viene a decir eso, que se traspasa la propiedad, pero, además, incorpora una novedad:
El autor explica cómo a raiz del traspaso de propiedad, la relación es de simple deudor y acreedor, es decir, no hay una obligación del banco de administrar ese dinero conforme a ningún mandato ni prinicipio de prudencia, Solo hay un derecho de restitución. Una deuda. Es decir, el banquero puede quemar su dinero -y no tuyo, ya que le has traspasado la propiedad- y solo podrías reclamar hasta lo que haya y hasta que te topes con el escudo protector del patrimonio de los accionistas: la responsabilidad limitada de las sociedades de capital.
Sinceramente, es doloroso, saber que hasta el más pobre está financiando a los bancos ... y si es en cuenta corriente, además gratis.
Desafío a cualquiera a demostrar que estoy equivocado en que la confiscación de los depósitos bancarios no es un robo
Depositantes del Banco en el Reino Unido y EE.UU. pueden pensar que sus depósitos bancarios no serán confiscados al ser asegurados y ningún gobierno se atrevería a embarcarse en una acción tan drástica para rescatar a los bancos insolventes.
Antes de explicar por qué la confiscación de los depósitos bancarios en el Reino Unido y EE.UU. es una certeza y absolutamente legal, necesito todos los lectores de este artículo para hacer lo siguiente:
Pregunte a sus policías locales, alguaciles, abogados, jueces las siguientes preguntas:
1) Si pongo mi dinero a un abogado como una participación del titular y usa el dinero sin mi consentimiento, ha cometido un crimne el abogado cometido un crimen?
2) Si guardo una fanega de trigo o algodón en un almacén y el dueño del almacén vendí mi trigo / algodón sin mi consentimiento o la autoridad, ha cometido un crimen el dueño de almacén un crimen?
3) Si pongo el dinero con mi agente (de valores o materias primas) y el agente utiliza mi dinero para otros fines y o contrarias a mis instrucciones, ha cometido un crimen el corredor?
Estoy seguro de que la respuesta a estas preguntas es: sí!
Sin embargo, a los efectos de este artículo, me gustaría destacar en primer lugar la situación del depósito / almacenamiento de trigo con el dueño de un almacén en relación con el depósito de dinero / almacenamiento con un banquero.
En primer lugar, te darás cuenta de que todo el trigo es el mismo, es decir el trigo en un bushel no es diferente de la de trigo en otro bushel. Lo mismo sucede con el algodón, que es indistinguible. El depósito de un bushel de trigo con el dueño de almacén en la ley constituye un comodato. La propiedad de la fanega de trigo permanece con ustedes y no hay tras*misión de la propiedad en absoluto al dueño del almacén.
Y como hemos dicho, si el propietario vende la fanega de trigo sin su consentimiento ha cometido un delito, así como la comisión de un ilícito civil (responsabilidad extracontractual) de conversión - convertir su propiedad para su propio uso y puede ser demandado.
Permítanme usar otra analogía. Si un cajero en un supermercado quita 100 dólares desde el viernes para tener una travesura hasta el sábado, ha cometido el robo, a pesar de que puede sustituir a los 100 dólares el lunes sin el conocimiento del propietario / gerente del supermercado. Los $ 100, que el cajero robó el viernes también son indistinguibles de los $ 100 que puso de nuevo en la caja para el Lunes. En ambas situaciones - el trigo en el almacén y el billete de dólar $ 100 en la caja, que han sido sustraídos ilegalmente constituirían un delito.
Mantenga este principio en su mente.
Ahora vamos a proceder con el dinero que usted ha depositado en su banco.
Estoy seguro de que la mayoría de ustedes tienen poco o ningún conocimiento sobre la banca, la banca de reserva fraccional específicamente.
Desde que eras un niño, sus padres han animado a ahorrar algo de dinero para inculcar en vosotros la buena costumbre de la administración del dinero.
Y cuando usted creció y se casó, que a su vez inculcado la misma disciplina en sus hijos. Su fe en la integridad del banco es casi absoluta. Su dinero en el banco ganaría un ingreso por intereses.
Y cuando se quiere recuperar su dinero, todo lo que tenía que hacer es retirar el dinero junto con los intereses acumulados. Ni por un momento le pareció que había tras*ferido la propiedad de su dinero al banco. Su creencia se basa en la misma manera como el dueño de la fanega de trigo almacenado en el almacén.
Sin embargo, esta creencia es y siempre ha sido una mentira. Se les hizo creer esta mentira, porque de los anuncios conocedores de los bancos y las garantías del gobierno de que su dinero está seguro y está protegido por el seguro de depósito.
Sin embargo, el seguro no cubre todo el dinero que has depositado en el banco, pero en cantidad limitada por ejemplo, $ 250.000 en los EE.UU. por la Corporación Federal de Seguros de Depósitos (FDIC), Alemania € 100.000, Reino Unido 85.000 EUR, etc
Pero, a diferencia del propietario de la fanega de trigo que se haya depositado el trigo con el dueño de almacén, la propiedad de los fondos que usted ha depositado en el banco se tras*fiere al banco y todo lo que tiene es el derecho a exigir su devolución. Y, si el banco no paga su dinero (por ejemplo, $ 100), su único recurso es demandar al banco y si el banco es insolvente no consigues nada.
Usted puede recuperar parte de su dinero si el depósito está cubierto por un seguro que se hace referencia anteriormente, pero en una cantidad fija. Pero, hay un problema aquí. La mayoría de los planes de seguro ya sea respaldada por el gobierno o no, no tienen fondos suficientes para cubrir todos los depósitos en el sistema bancario.
Así, en el peor de los casos - un colapso sistémico, no hay manera para que usted pueda obtener su dinero de vuelta.
De hecho, y como se ilustra en el fiasco bancario Chipre, las autoridades fueron a la medida de confiscación de sus depósitos para pagar a los acreedores de los bancos. Cuando eso sucedió, los ciudadanos comunes y analistas financieros a gritar que esa confiscación era un robo. Pero, ¿no?
Sorpresa, sorpresa!
Esto vendrá como una sorpresa para todos ustedes para saber que tal robo de luz es perfectamente legal y esto ha sido así durante cientos de años.
Me explico.
La razón es que a diferencia del propietario de la fanega de trigo cuya titularidad del trigo nunca fue tras*ferido a la propietaria del almacén cuando el mismo fue depositado, en el momento en que depositó su dinero en el banco, la propiedad se tras*fiere al banco.
Su estado es el de un acreedor para el banco y el banco su DEUDOR. Se considera que usted ha "prestado" el dinero al banco para que el banco aplique a su negocio bancario (incluso para jugar en el casino más grande en el mundo - el casino global de derivados).
Te has convertido en un acreedor, un acreedor no garantizado. Por lo tanto, por la ley, en caso de insolvencia de un banco, como un acreedor no garantizado parado último de la cola de los acreedores para ser pagados de los fondos y los activos o que el banco tiene que pagar a sus acreedores.
Los acreedores garantizados son siempre primero en la fila para pagar. Es sólo después de que los acreedores garantizados se han pagado y todavía hay algunos fondos restantes (por lo general, no mucho, más a menudo nada de nada!) Que los acreedores no garantizados son pagados y los importes prorrateados entre todos los acreedores no garantizados.
Esta es la verdad, toda la verdad y nada más que la verdad.
La ley ha existido durante cientos de años y fue establecido en Inglaterra por la Cámara de los Lores en el caso Foley v Hill en 1848.
Cuando un cliente deposita dinero en el banco, la relación que se plantea es una de acreedor y deudor, con el banquero responsable de pagar el dinero depositado cuando es exigido por el cliente. Vez que el dinero se ha prestado a la banca, pertenece a la banca y él es libre de usar el dinero para su propio propósito.
Ahora voy a citar la parte pertinente de la sentencia de la Cámara de los Lores dictadas por el Señor Cottenham, el Lord Canciller. Dijo así:
"El dinero que paga en un banco, cesa por completo al ser el dinero del principal ... es entonces el dinero del banquero, que está obligado a devolver el equivalente mediante el pago de una suma similar a la que depositó en él cuando se le pide que .
El dinero pagado al banquero, es dinero conocida por el director para ser colocado allí con el propósito de estar bajo el control de la banca, es entonces el dinero de la banca, sino que se sabe que tratar con él como su propia cuenta, sino que hace lo que beneficio de ella que puede, que se benefician se conserva a sí mismo, ...
El dinero colocado en la custodia del banquero es, a todas los efectos y propósitos, el dinero del banquero, para hacer con él lo que le plazca, sino que pueda ser culpable de abuso de confianza en el empleo del mismo,
Sosteniendo que la relación entre un banco y su cliente es la deudores y acreedores y no de tutela, Lord Brougham dijo:
"Este comercio de un banquero es recibir dinero, y lo utilizan como si fuera la suya, convirtiendo deudor a la persona que haya prestado o depositado en su poder el dinero para usarlo como propio, y para el cual el dinero que es responsable como un deudor. No pudiendo en absoluto confundir la situación de un banquero con la de un administrador, ni con la conclusión de que el banquero es un deudor con carácter fiduciario".
En otras palabras, los banqueros no pueden ser procesados por abuso de confianza, ya que no tiene ningún deber fiduciario para con los depositantes / cliente, ya que se considera que el uso de su propio dinero para especular, etc No hay absolutamente ninguna responsabilidad penal.
La pregunta del billón de dólares es: ¿Por qué nadie en el Departamento de Justicia u otras agencias gubernamentales se menciona este principio legal?
Sí, Eric Holder, el Fiscal General de los EE.UU. tiene razón cuando dice que los banqueros no pueden ser procesados por las pérdidas sufridas por el banco. Esto se debe a un banquero no puede ser procesado por la pérdida de su "propio dinero", según lo declarado por la Cámara de los Lores. Esto se debe a que mientras el dinero está depositado en el banco, el dinero pertenece a la banca.
La razón por la que si un banquero es procesado se derrumbaría todo el sistema bancario es una gran mentira.
El Fiscal General de EE.UU. no pudo y no quiso afirmar el principio legal, ya que podría causar una corrida en los bancos cuando las personas descubren que sus fondos no están seguros con los banqueros, ya que pueden utilizar en el derecho de los dineros depositados como propio, incluso para especular.
Lo preocupante es que su derecho a ser reembolsado surge sólo cuando se exige el pago.
Así, cuando el Banco de Inglaterra, la FED y el BIS publicó las directrices que se convirtió en el modelo para la Cyprus "bail-in" (que fue aprobado por la Cumbre del G-20 de Cannes en 2011), no era más que una forma tortuosa de indicando la situación jurídica sin despertar la ira de la gente, ya que sabía muy bien que si la verdad estaba fuera, no habría una revolución y de la sangre en las calles. Por ello no es sorprendente que los banqueros centrales del mundo salieron a este documento sin sentido:
"El objetivo de un régimen de resolución efectiva es hacer posible la resolución de instituciones financieras sin interrupción sistémica severa y sin exponer a los contribuyentes a pérdidas, mientras que la protección de las funciones vitales de la economía a través de mecanismos que permitan a los accionistas y los acreedores no garantizados y asegurados para absorber pérdidas en una manera que respete la jerarquía de las reclamaciones en liquidación "(citado en. Documento Consultivo FSB: Resolución Efectiva de forma sistémica ...)
Este es el tipo de lenguaje técnico complejo utilizado por los banqueros para confundir a la gente, especialmente de los depositantes y para encubrir lo que ya he dicho en Inglés simple y llanamente en los párrafos anteriores.
Las palabras clave de la directriz BIS son:
"Sin perturbaciones sistémicas graves" (es decir, las corridas bancarias),
"Al tiempo que protege las funciones vitales de la economía" (es decir, la protección de los intereses creados - banqueros),
"Acreedores no asegurados" (es decir, su dinero, usted es el ficticio),
"Respeta la jerarquía de las reclamaciones de liquidación" (es decir, usted es la última en la cola para pagar, después de que se hayan pagado todos los acreedores garantizados).
Esto significa que todos los depositantes son los perdedores!
Por favor, lea atentamente este artículo difundalo a lo largo y ancho.
Va a hacer un favor a todos sus compañeros y a su familia y parientes.
No Bank Deposits Will Be Spared from Confiscation | Global Research
No Bank Deposits Will Be Spared From Confiscation
By Matthias Chang – Global Research
I challenge anyone to prove me wrong that confiscation of bank deposits is legalized daylight robbery
Bank depositors in the UK and USA may think that their bank deposits would not be confiscated as they are insured and no government would dare embark on such a drastic action to bail out insolvent banks.
Before I explain why confiscation of bank deposits in the UK and US is a certainty and absolutely legal, I need all readers of this article to do the ***owing:
Ask your local police, sheriffs, lawyers, judges the ***owing questions:
1) If I place my money with a lawyer as a stake-holder and he uses the money without my consent, has the lawyer committed a crime?
2) If I store a bushel of wheat or cotton in a warehouse and the owner of the warehouse sold my wheat/cotton without my consent or authority, has the warehouse owner committed a crime?
3) If I place monies with my broker (stock or commodity) and the broker uses my monies for other purposes and or contrary to my instructions, has the broker committed a crime?
I am confident that the answer to the above questions is a Yes!
However, for the purposes of this article, I would like to first highlight the situation of the deposit / storage of wheat with a warehouse owner in relation to the deposit of money / storage with a banker.
First, you will notice that all wheat is the same i.e. the wheat in one bushel is no different from the wheat in another bushel. Likewise with cotton, it is indistinguishable. The deposit of a bushel of wheat with the warehouse owner in law constitutes a bailment. Ownership of the bushel of wheat remains with you and there is no tras*fer of ownership at all to the warehouse owner.
And as stated above, if the owner sells the bushel of wheat without your consent or authority, he has committed a crime as well as having committed a civil wrong (a tort) of conversion – converting your property to his own use and he can be sued.
Let me use another analogy. If a cashier in a supermarket removes $100 from the till on Friday to have a frolic on Saturday, he has committed theft, even though he may replace the $100 on Monday without the knowledge of the owner / manager of the supermarket. The $100 the cashier stole on Friday is also indistinguishable from the $100 he put back in the till on Monday. In both situations – the wheat in the warehouse and the $100 dollar bill in the till, which have been unlawfully misappropriated would constitute a crime.
Keep this principle and issue at the back of your mind.
Now we shall proceed with the money that you have deposited with your banker.
I am sure that most of you have little or no knowledge about banking, specifically fractional reserve banking.
Since you were a little kid, your parents have encouraged you to save some money to instil in you the good habit of money management.
And when you grew up and got married, you in turn instilled the same discipline in your children. Your faith in the integrity of the bank is almost absolute. Your money in the bank would earn an interest income.
And when you want your money back, all you needed to do is to withdraw the money together with the accumulated interest. Never for a moment did you think that you had tras*ferred ownership of your money to the bank. Your belief was grounded in like manner as the owner of the bushel of wheat stored in the warehouse.
However, this belief is and has always been a lie. You were led to believe this lie because of savvy advertisements by the banks and government assurances that your money is safe and is protected by deposit insurance.
But, the insurance does not cover all the monies that you have deposited in the bank, but to a limited amount e.g. $250,000 in the US by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Germany €100,000, UK £85,000 etc.
But, unlike the owner of the bushel of wheat who has deposited the wheat with the warehouse owner, your ownership of the monies that you have deposited with the bank is tras*ferred to the bank and all you have is the right to demand its repayment. And, if the bank fails to repay your monies (e.g. $100), your only remedy is to sue the bank and if the bank is insolvent you get nothing.
You may recover some of your money if your deposit is covered by an insurance scheme as referred to earlier but in a fixed amount. But, there is a catch here. Most insurance schemes whether backed by the government or not do not have sufficient monies to cover all the deposits in the banking system.
So, in the worst case scenario – a systemic collapse, there is no way for you to get your money back.
In fact, and as illustrated in the Cyprus banking fiasco, the authorities went to the extent of confiscating your deposits to pay the banks’ creditors. When that happened, ordinary citizens and financial analysts cried out that
such confiscation was daylight robbery. But, is it?
Surprise, surprise!
It will come as a shock to all of you to know that such daylight robbery is perfectly legal and this has been so for hundreds of years.
Let me explain.
The reason is that unlike the owner of the bushel of wheat whose ownership of the wheat WAS NEVER tras*FERRED to the warehouse owner when the same was deposited, the moment you deposited your money with the bank, the ownership is tras*ferred to the bank.
Your status is that of A CREDITOR TO THE BANK and the BANK IS IN LAW A DEBTOR to you. You are deemed to have “lent” your money to the bank for the bank to apply to its banking business (even to gamble in the biggest casino in the world – the global derivatives casino).
You have become a creditor, AN UNSECURED CREDITOR. Therefore, by law, in the insolvency of a bank, you as an unsecured creditor stand last in the queue of creditors to be paid out of any funds and or assets which the bank has to pay its creditors. The secured creditors are always first in line to be paid. It is only after secured creditors have been paid and there are still some funds left (usually, not much, more often zilch!) that unsecured creditors are paid and the sums pro-rated among all the unsecured creditors.
This is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The law has been in existence for hundreds of years and was established in England by the House of Lords in the case Foley v Hill in 1848.
When a customer deposits money with his banker, the relationship that arises is one of creditor and debtor, with the banker liable to repay the money deposited when demanded by the customer. Once money has been paid to the banker, it belongs to the banker and he is free to use the money for his own purpose.
I will now quote the relevant portion of the judgment of the House of Lords handed down by Lord Cottenham, the Lord Chancellor. He stated thus:
“Money when paid into a bank, ceases altogether to be the money of the principal… it is then the money of the banker, who is bound to return an equivalent by paying a similar sum to that deposited with him when he is asked for it.
The money paid into the banker’s, is money known by the principal to be placed there for the purpose of being under the control of the banker; it is then the banker’s money; he is known to deal with it as his own; he makes what profit of it he can, which profit he retains himself,…
The money placed in the custody of the banker is, to all intent and purposes, the money of the banker, to do with it as he pleases; he is guilty of no breach of trust in employing it; he is not answerable TO THE PRINCIPAL IF HE PUTS IT INTO JEOPARDY, IF HE ENGAGES IN A HAZARDOUS SPECULATION; he is not bound to keep it or deal with it as the property of the principal, but he is of course answerable for the amount, because he has contracted, having received that money, to repay to the principal, when demanded, a sum equivalent to that paid into his hands.” (quoted in UK Law Essays, Relationship Between A Banker And Customer,That Of A Creditor/Debtor, emphasis added,)
Holding that the relationship between a banker and his customer was one of debtor and creditor and not one of trusteeship, Lord Brougham said:
“This trade of a banker is to receive money, and use it as if it were his own, he becoming debtor to the person who has lent or deposited with him the money to use as his own, and for which money he is accountable as a debtor. I cannot at all confound the situation of a banker with that of a trustee, and conclude that the banker is a debtor with a fiduciary character.”
In plain simple English – bankers cannot be prosecuted for breach of trust, because it owes no fiduciary duty to the depositor / customer, as he is deemed to be using his own money to speculate etc. There is absolutely no criminal liability.
The trillion dollar question is, Why has no one in the Justice Department or other government agencies mentioned this legal principle?
The reason why no one dare speak this legal truth is because there would be a run on the banks when all the Joe Six-Packs wise up to the fact that their deposits with the bankers CONSTITUTE IN LAW A LOAN TO THE BANK and the bank can do whatever it likes even to indulge in hazardous speculation such as gambling in the global derivative casino.
The Joe Six-Packs always consider the bank the creditor even when he deposits money in the bank. No depositor ever considers himself as the creditor!
Yes, Eric Holder, the US Attorney-General is right when he said that bankers cannot be prosecuted for the losses suffered by the bank. This is because a banker cannot be prosecuted for losing his “own money” as stated by the House of Lords. This is because when money is deposited with the bank, that money belongs to the banker.
The reason that if a banker is prosecuted it would collapse the entire banking system is a big lie.
The US Attorney-General could not and would not state the legal principle because it would cause a run on the banks when people discover that their monies are not safe with bankers as they can in law use the monies deposited as their own even to speculate.
What is worrisome is that your right to be repaid arises only when you demand payment.
Obviously, when you demand payment, the bank must pay you. But, if you demand payment after the bank has collapsed and is insolvent, it is too late. Your entitlement to be repaid is that of a lonely unsecured creditor and only if there are funds left after liquidation to be paid out to all the unsecured creditors and the remaining funds to be pro-rated. You would be lucky to get ten cents on the dollar.
So, when the Bank of England, the FED and the BIS issued the guidelines which became the template for the Cyprus “bail-in” (which was endorsed by the G-20 Cannes Summit in 2011), it was merely a circuitous way of stating the legal position without arousing the wrath of the people, as they well knew that if the truth was out, there would be a revolution and blood on the streets. It is therefore not surprising that the global central bankers came out with this nonsensical advisory:
“The objective of an effective resolution regime is to make antiestéticasible the resolution of financial institutions without severe systemic disruption and without exposing taxpayers to losses, while protecting vital economic functions through mechanisms which make it possible for shareholders and unsecured and uninsured creditors to absorb losses in a manner that respects the hierarchy of claims in liquidation.”(quoted in FSB Consultative Document: Effective Resolution of Systemically …)
This is the kind of complex technical jargon used by bankers to confuse the people, especially depositors and to cover up what I have stated in plain and simple English in the foregoing paragraphs.
The key words of the BIS guideline are:
“without severe systemic disruptions” (i.e. bank runs),
“while protecting vital economic functions” (i.e. protecting vested interests – bankers),
“unsecured creditors” (i.e. your monies, you are the dummy),
“respects the hierarchy of claims in liquidation” (i.e. you are last in the queue to be paid, after all secured creditors have been paid).
This means all depositors are losers!
Please read this article carefully and spread it far and wide.
You will be doing a favour to all your fellow country men and women and more importantly, your family and relatives.
By Matthias Chang – Global Research
I challenge anyone to prove me wrong that confiscation of bank deposits is legalized daylight robbery
Bank depositors in the UK and USA may think that their bank deposits would not be confiscated as they are insured and no government would dare embark on such a drastic action to bail out insolvent banks.
Before I explain why confiscation of bank deposits in the UK and US is a certainty and absolutely legal, I need all readers of this article to do the ***owing:
Ask your local police, sheriffs, lawyers, judges the ***owing questions:
1) If I place my money with a lawyer as a stake-holder and he uses the money without my consent, has the lawyer committed a crime?
2) If I store a bushel of wheat or cotton in a warehouse and the owner of the warehouse sold my wheat/cotton without my consent or authority, has the warehouse owner committed a crime?
3) If I place monies with my broker (stock or commodity) and the broker uses my monies for other purposes and or contrary to my instructions, has the broker committed a crime?
I am confident that the answer to the above questions is a Yes!
However, for the purposes of this article, I would like to first highlight the situation of the deposit / storage of wheat with a warehouse owner in relation to the deposit of money / storage with a banker.
First, you will notice that all wheat is the same i.e. the wheat in one bushel is no different from the wheat in another bushel. Likewise with cotton, it is indistinguishable. The deposit of a bushel of wheat with the warehouse owner in law constitutes a bailment. Ownership of the bushel of wheat remains with you and there is no tras*fer of ownership at all to the warehouse owner.
And as stated above, if the owner sells the bushel of wheat without your consent or authority, he has committed a crime as well as having committed a civil wrong (a tort) of conversion – converting your property to his own use and he can be sued.
Let me use another analogy. If a cashier in a supermarket removes $100 from the till on Friday to have a frolic on Saturday, he has committed theft, even though he may replace the $100 on Monday without the knowledge of the owner / manager of the supermarket. The $100 the cashier stole on Friday is also indistinguishable from the $100 he put back in the till on Monday. In both situations – the wheat in the warehouse and the $100 dollar bill in the till, which have been unlawfully misappropriated would constitute a crime.
Keep this principle and issue at the back of your mind.
Now we shall proceed with the money that you have deposited with your banker.
I am sure that most of you have little or no knowledge about banking, specifically fractional reserve banking.
Since you were a little kid, your parents have encouraged you to save some money to instil in you the good habit of money management.
And when you grew up and got married, you in turn instilled the same discipline in your children. Your faith in the integrity of the bank is almost absolute. Your money in the bank would earn an interest income.
And when you want your money back, all you needed to do is to withdraw the money together with the accumulated interest. Never for a moment did you think that you had tras*ferred ownership of your money to the bank. Your belief was grounded in like manner as the owner of the bushel of wheat stored in the warehouse.
However, this belief is and has always been a lie. You were led to believe this lie because of savvy advertisements by the banks and government assurances that your money is safe and is protected by deposit insurance.
But, the insurance does not cover all the monies that you have deposited in the bank, but to a limited amount e.g. $250,000 in the US by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Germany €100,000, UK £85,000 etc.
But, unlike the owner of the bushel of wheat who has deposited the wheat with the warehouse owner, your ownership of the monies that you have deposited with the bank is tras*ferred to the bank and all you have is the right to demand its repayment. And, if the bank fails to repay your monies (e.g. $100), your only remedy is to sue the bank and if the bank is insolvent you get nothing.
You may recover some of your money if your deposit is covered by an insurance scheme as referred to earlier but in a fixed amount. But, there is a catch here. Most insurance schemes whether backed by the government or not do not have sufficient monies to cover all the deposits in the banking system.
So, in the worst case scenario – a systemic collapse, there is no way for you to get your money back.
In fact, and as illustrated in the Cyprus banking fiasco, the authorities went to the extent of confiscating your deposits to pay the banks’ creditors. When that happened, ordinary citizens and financial analysts cried out that
such confiscation was daylight robbery. But, is it?
Surprise, surprise!
It will come as a shock to all of you to know that such daylight robbery is perfectly legal and this has been so for hundreds of years.
Let me explain.
The reason is that unlike the owner of the bushel of wheat whose ownership of the wheat WAS NEVER tras*FERRED to the warehouse owner when the same was deposited, the moment you deposited your money with the bank, the ownership is tras*ferred to the bank.
Your status is that of A CREDITOR TO THE BANK and the BANK IS IN LAW A DEBTOR to you. You are deemed to have “lent” your money to the bank for the bank to apply to its banking business (even to gamble in the biggest casino in the world – the global derivatives casino).
You have become a creditor, AN UNSECURED CREDITOR. Therefore, by law, in the insolvency of a bank, you as an unsecured creditor stand last in the queue of creditors to be paid out of any funds and or assets which the bank has to pay its creditors. The secured creditors are always first in line to be paid. It is only after secured creditors have been paid and there are still some funds left (usually, not much, more often zilch!) that unsecured creditors are paid and the sums pro-rated among all the unsecured creditors.
This is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The law has been in existence for hundreds of years and was established in England by the House of Lords in the case Foley v Hill in 1848.
When a customer deposits money with his banker, the relationship that arises is one of creditor and debtor, with the banker liable to repay the money deposited when demanded by the customer. Once money has been paid to the banker, it belongs to the banker and he is free to use the money for his own purpose.
I will now quote the relevant portion of the judgment of the House of Lords handed down by Lord Cottenham, the Lord Chancellor. He stated thus:
“Money when paid into a bank, ceases altogether to be the money of the principal… it is then the money of the banker, who is bound to return an equivalent by paying a similar sum to that deposited with him when he is asked for it.
The money paid into the banker’s, is money known by the principal to be placed there for the purpose of being under the control of the banker; it is then the banker’s money; he is known to deal with it as his own; he makes what profit of it he can, which profit he retains himself,…
The money placed in the custody of the banker is, to all intent and purposes, the money of the banker, to do with it as he pleases; he is guilty of no breach of trust in employing it; he is not answerable TO THE PRINCIPAL IF HE PUTS IT INTO JEOPARDY, IF HE ENGAGES IN A HAZARDOUS SPECULATION; he is not bound to keep it or deal with it as the property of the principal, but he is of course answerable for the amount, because he has contracted, having received that money, to repay to the principal, when demanded, a sum equivalent to that paid into his hands.” (quoted in UK Law Essays, Relationship Between A Banker And Customer,That Of A Creditor/Debtor, emphasis added,)
Holding that the relationship between a banker and his customer was one of debtor and creditor and not one of trusteeship, Lord Brougham said:
“This trade of a banker is to receive money, and use it as if it were his own, he becoming debtor to the person who has lent or deposited with him the money to use as his own, and for which money he is accountable as a debtor. I cannot at all confound the situation of a banker with that of a trustee, and conclude that the banker is a debtor with a fiduciary character.”
In plain simple English – bankers cannot be prosecuted for breach of trust, because it owes no fiduciary duty to the depositor / customer, as he is deemed to be using his own money to speculate etc. There is absolutely no criminal liability.
The trillion dollar question is, Why has no one in the Justice Department or other government agencies mentioned this legal principle?
The reason why no one dare speak this legal truth is because there would be a run on the banks when all the Joe Six-Packs wise up to the fact that their deposits with the bankers CONSTITUTE IN LAW A LOAN TO THE BANK and the bank can do whatever it likes even to indulge in hazardous speculation such as gambling in the global derivative casino.
The Joe Six-Packs always consider the bank the creditor even when he deposits money in the bank. No depositor ever considers himself as the creditor!
Yes, Eric Holder, the US Attorney-General is right when he said that bankers cannot be prosecuted for the losses suffered by the bank. This is because a banker cannot be prosecuted for losing his “own money” as stated by the House of Lords. This is because when money is deposited with the bank, that money belongs to the banker.
The reason that if a banker is prosecuted it would collapse the entire banking system is a big lie.
The US Attorney-General could not and would not state the legal principle because it would cause a run on the banks when people discover that their monies are not safe with bankers as they can in law use the monies deposited as their own even to speculate.
What is worrisome is that your right to be repaid arises only when you demand payment.
Obviously, when you demand payment, the bank must pay you. But, if you demand payment after the bank has collapsed and is insolvent, it is too late. Your entitlement to be repaid is that of a lonely unsecured creditor and only if there are funds left after liquidation to be paid out to all the unsecured creditors and the remaining funds to be pro-rated. You would be lucky to get ten cents on the dollar.
So, when the Bank of England, the FED and the BIS issued the guidelines which became the template for the Cyprus “bail-in” (which was endorsed by the G-20 Cannes Summit in 2011), it was merely a circuitous way of stating the legal position without arousing the wrath of the people, as they well knew that if the truth was out, there would be a revolution and blood on the streets. It is therefore not surprising that the global central bankers came out with this nonsensical advisory:
“The objective of an effective resolution regime is to make antiestéticasible the resolution of financial institutions without severe systemic disruption and without exposing taxpayers to losses, while protecting vital economic functions through mechanisms which make it possible for shareholders and unsecured and uninsured creditors to absorb losses in a manner that respects the hierarchy of claims in liquidation.”(quoted in FSB Consultative Document: Effective Resolution of Systemically …)
This is the kind of complex technical jargon used by bankers to confuse the people, especially depositors and to cover up what I have stated in plain and simple English in the foregoing paragraphs.
The key words of the BIS guideline are:
“without severe systemic disruptions” (i.e. bank runs),
“while protecting vital economic functions” (i.e. protecting vested interests – bankers),
“unsecured creditors” (i.e. your monies, you are the dummy),
“respects the hierarchy of claims in liquidation” (i.e. you are last in the queue to be paid, after all secured creditors have been paid).
This means all depositors are losers!
Please read this article carefully and spread it far and wide.
You will be doing a favour to all your fellow country men and women and more importantly, your family and relatives.
Última edición:
