# General Business Category > Business Finance Forum >  Our banks are being sued

## SilverNodashi

I thought I'd share this since it affects every South African with a home loan, credit card, personal loan and probably overdraft as well:




> The Sheriff of the Court has just served the four major banks, and the Reserve Bank, with a summons from the New Economic Rights Alliance: Case number 27478/12.
> 
> Put simply, the NewERA is asking the High Court to declare our money lending system fraudulent and unconstitutional. We are not suing for money. Alternatively, we are asking the Court to suspend all legal action currently taken against every South African by the banks, until a full investigation has been undertaken into our banking system.
> 
> It may be bold. It may be daring. But it is 100% correct. The banks are doing some terrible things behind our backs and two years of research by dozens of people around the country, working in their spare time and for no money, has culminated in this action. It is a miracle that we made it this far. We are very proud.
> 
> What can you do about it?
> 
> 1. Take an interest in our money system. Understand WHY we are taking action against the banks. Download and watch The Dark Secrets of Money here (or watch it on YouTube here). We cannot stress this enough – for the sake of your family’s future you need to know how the money system works. The legal document is attached, but it is complicated, so commentary will be available soon to help you understand it.
> ...

----------


## Dave A

I think this action has already been dismissed  :Confused: 

It came up before - start here for what we know so far.

----------


## SilverNodashi

> I think this action has already been dismissed 
> 
> It came up before - start here for what we know so far.


I got this email today, so I guess this is another attempt at taking the banks to court

----------


## Blurock

This case has been dismissed. Their arguments were so flawed and outrageous, it had no chance of success. :Smile:

----------


## tec0

All of us know the banking system is a big bugger up at the moment. The rich can take mass amounts in from of loans and the poor cannot break even on their debts. 

However I must stress that property may well be a target. An old run down home may well be over estimated to a sum of one million rand and more, thus the sum of money you need becomes a perpetual nightmare. 

The benefit of over estimation means more commission, bigger loans and high property tax and that alone is a cause for concern. Even poorly maintained homes will bring in an amount of just under a million rand and then you need to fix everything and that is a costly undertaking in its own right. 

So are the banks on our side? If not then who is?

I say follow the money and make up your own mind.

----------


## dove45

I've read it before reading this post. Even I've discussed with one lawyer too.. But there is no result after this.. Because I am also student of same case.

----------


## Blurock

The banks do not determine the price of properties. Buyers do. As you live in Cape Town, I will use the Bantry Bay/Clifton area as an example. In about 1975-78 my gran pointed out a property that was sold for something like R3 million. We were agast as we thought that was too much. The (smallish) house was high on a cliff with no garage -only street parking and 1000 stairs to climb.

The buyer (obviously paid with Euros or pounds) demolished the house and built a completely new, modern house on the same site! Estimated building cost at that time could have been triple the buying price, I can't remember the figures. 

So the buyer paid for the view, he was not even interested in the house! :Huh:

----------


## Darkangelyaya

Don't shoot me, just a messenger
Big case tomorrow against the four major banks - trying to force them to answer our legal brief. Which does not want to stick, so.

----------


## Citizen X

> Don't shoot me, just a messenge:
> Big case tomorrow against the four major banks - trying to force them to answer our legal brief. which does not want to stick, so.


Good evening Carina,

If I understand this correctly, the banks have filed a notice of exception and it's the hearing of this exception tomorrow that essentially will be taking place i.e. whether the court will uphold the exception in which case the case is thrown out or whether they will dismiss the exception in which case the banks must file their plea?
Could you please clarify :Wink:

----------


## Darkangelyaya

As far as I know, the banks have argued that NewEra's claims are 'vague and embarrassing'. I know that the wording has been changed to clarify matters. I am assuming that the Court will decide whether the banks have to answer the claims or not.

----------


## Frankincense

The Temple Crown Bar is in London, every lawyer called to the "bar" swears allegiance to the Temple Crown Bar. You can't get called, without swearing this allegiance. The members of the Bar, the Court staff/Esqr - including all Advocates/Judges swear allegaince to Crown Temple Bar. The legal system (judiciary) of the R.S.A. is controlled by the Crown Temple from the independent and sovereign City of London.

 The private SARB System, which issues fiat Rand Notes, is financially owned and controlled by the Temple Crown from Switzerland, the home and legal origin for the charters of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and most importantly, the Bank of International Settlements. Even Hitler respected his Crown bankers by not bombing Switzerland. The Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland controls all the central banks of the G7 nations. He who controls the gold rules the world.


Look what happens when a good citizen wishes to challenge The Beast:

http://www.theforumsa.co.za/forums/s...ll=1#post83298

Are you for real? The Courts will gut these resisters like fish on a skillet. 

WTF!

----------


## Darkangelyaya

The Big Case is being heard tomorrow (Wed) at 10h00, Jhb High Court.
Although I believe in the validity of this case, I am not holding my breath - Money talks.
Taking on The Beast, indeed.

----------


## Frankincense

The validity of the case is not the question. 
I understand whats going on. 

The validity of the Judiciary residing over this case, being the Custodian of the very trust we placed in these contravening institutions by the people, who's deliberation you even contemplating holding your breath for, will mark its own homework sufficiently, and gut these "insurgents" like fish on the skillet, after insulting them.

Its how they roll.

Exhale!

----------

Darkangelyaya (19-Mar-13)

----------


## Blurock

Here we go with conspiracy theories again. In the USA there are beings pretending to be human. They are actually aliens living amongst us...

Come on, lets rather stick to the facts.

----------


## Citizen X

> The validity of the case is not the question. 
> I understand whats going on. 
> 
> The validity of the Judiciary residing over this case, being the Custodian of the very trust we placed in these contravening institutions by the people, who's deliberation you even contemplating holding your breath for, will mark its own homework sufficiently, and gut these insurgents like fish on the skillet, after insulting them.
> 
> Its how they roll.
> 
> Exhale!


A very good evening to you Francois,

I have accessed the link you posted. That being said, I want to sincerely satisfy myself that I completely understand where you coming from on this matter and why it is that you believe what you do. Could you share your perspective on things in concise manner for me please?

----------

Frankincense (19-Mar-13)

----------


## Darkangelyaya

Received this update per email:

'THE BIG CASE UPDATE: Judge van Eeden will hand down his ruling at 10h00 on Friday morning. Will NewERA's case (attached) be thrown out for being vexatious and / or "vague and embarrassing?" Or will the Judge ask NewERA to amend their summons and try again? Or will the Judge require the banks to respond to the allegations made against them?

We shall see...

One additional (and quite remarkable) point: We believe that the Reserve Bank had two Senior Counsels arguing their case today. The four major commercial banks were represented by three counsel, two of them senior. One SC was Gilbert Marcus, brother of Reserve Bank Chairman Gill Marcus. NewERA was represented by one junior counsel acting pro bono. The entire argument lasted no more than an hour. At an average of R50,000 for each of the SC's, one wonders: why all the trouble and expense to fight off nothing more than a "vexatious litigant?".

What can you do:

Spend 20 minutes skimming through the headlines and articles on our website. This page is the best and quickest summary of local and overseas news. For example: Did you know that Cyprus had to fight off the banks from seizing 10% out of their savings accounts to pay for their banks bailout? The same could be asked of Italy and now even New Zealand. 
Join our Class Action and lets sue the banks as a large group. Click here to join the class action. 
Please support NewERA. Become a paying Member here.

And please note: Our annual AGM will be held in the afternoon of April 12th. We are looking for directors and volunteers for 2013. Please come and join us. We would love to have your support. (Details to follow in our next letter).

THE NEW ECONOMIC RIGHTS ALLIANCE'

----------


## SkyWalker42

Latest news HERE

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

To put into perspective the SC would be far more than 50 000, maybe the jnr rate!

----------


## Blurock

People or institutions with money will always employ the best legal team just to narrow the odds and to make sure they win. That is regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Did you really expect them to defend themselves with junior counsel? Maybe that shows the naivety of NewEra.

----------


## SkyWalker42

Latest news from NewERA:


Judgement opens a world of trouble for SA banks
http://www.newera.org.za/judgement-o...-for-sa-banks/

----------


## SkyWalker42

SABC3 Special Assignment:

A 34 year old journalist has single handedly exposed a deceitful scheme involving the major South African banks.

Peter Moyo from SABC3’s Special Assignment is a hero.

Maintaining journalistic integrity at all times, Peter and his camera man Casher, flew around the country to examine every side of the story. The result:

          THE NATIONAL CREDIT REGULATOR:                   HUMILIATED
          THE SOUTH AFRICAN SECURITISATION FORUM:   HUMILIATED
          THE SOUTH AFRICAN RESERVE BANK:                 HUMILIATED
          THE BANKS AND THEIR LAWYERS:                      EXPOSED!

A secret and devious scheme, called securitisation, is being run by the banks and their lawyers. They have illegally repossessed homes, cars and stolen our livelihoods. This kind of underhanded activity has placed this country in a serious economic crisis.

The combined intellect and resources of the South African legal system, and those government institutions specifically set up to monitor this kind of thing, achieved absolutely nothing. In fact, the banks and the Judiciary are actively trying to punish NewERA for bringing this evidence to their attention. [See here.]

Yet, in just one month, a lone journalist has researched, understood and exposed the cover-up.

The implications are wild. If the banks are not disclosing this scheme in their financial statements, then this may be so serious that it could involve criminal action against their directors. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Peter Moyo, you are a testimony to South Africa. You are the kind of investigative journalist that freedom fighters twice your age fought so hard to cultivate. On behalf of the New Economic Rights Alliance, we congratulate and solute you.

Watch part 1 of Special Assignment here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbCxTy3cnvw

----------


## SkyWalker42

Interview on SAFM:

http://downloads.newera.org.za/Audio/

Download     SAFM May 31(compressed).mp3	      31-May-2013 15:06	11M

----------


## Dave A

> Judgement opens a world of trouble for SA banks
> http://www.newera.org.za/judgement-o...-for-sa-banks/


So The Big Case may have been barking up the wrong tree, but perhaps it has shaken up the tree enough for something interesting to fall out. My thoughts here seem vindicated.

So the SPV's *may* be subsidiaries of the banks themselves!
 :Hmmm:

----------


## SkyWalker42

If your loan or credit agreement has been securitised, then the bank loses all rights to the asset

1.
An article published by Decillion Structured and Corporate Finance written by two experts: Eugene G van den Berg and Annelies Jacobs called South African Securitisation Regulatory Developments with reference to the South African Reserve Bank state that:

_Transfer must totally divest the originator form all rights and obligations and from all risks and rewards"_

_Absolute Cession divests the cedent (originator) from all rights and vests them with the Cessionary (Special Purpose Entity) to the extent that only the Cessionary is entitled to sue for the enforcement of rights_ 

_
A securitisation with which assets are transferred by the originator to an SPE through assignment, effectively divests itself from all rights and obligations enjoyed in an underlying agreement with a borrower._


2.
In the South African Reserve Banks own words: Note on the Impact of Securitisation Transactions on Credit Extension by Banks (by N Gumata and J Mokoena, p60), it states:

_Under a traditional securitisation scheme a true sale takes place and all rights and obligations are transferred to the SPV [Special Purpose Vehicle]_


3.
The SARB published its New Securitisation Regulations, http://www.bclr.com/pdf/legislation/...egulations.pdf

Transfer of assets and recourse
In terms of paragraph 3(a) of the Schedule, it is required that the originator totally divest itself of all rights and obligations originating from the transactions which underlie the assets sold to the SPI and from all risks in connection with the assets transferred.


4.
The Registrar of banks, represented by Advocate Blackbeard, stated in a letter to NewERA that: When transferring assets to a SPV, a bank transfers its full ownership to such SPV and *has no legal standing in respect of the assets thereafter.*

Raymond Dicks explains it very well in this interview...
http://downloads.newera.org.za/May%20Hearing/
*Episode 7 - Raymondt Dicks on Securitisation.mp3*	20-May-2013 19:18	18M	 


In the interview he explains how the banks act illegally with respect to the Banks Act 
Section 78 (g). The bank may not act as an agent without your knowledge, and how they defraud the people of SA which is CRIMINAL, not civil.

1)	A bank -
a)	shall not hold shares in any company of which such bank is a subsidiary;
b)	shall not lend money to any person against security of its own shares or of shares of that banks controlling company;
c)	shall not, for the purpose of furthering the sale of its own shares, grant unsecured loans or loans against security which in the opinion of the Registrar is inadequate;
d)	shall hold all its assets in its own name, excluding any asset-
i)	bona fide hypothecated to secure an actual or potential liability;
ii)	in respect of which the Registrar has, on application of the bank concerned, approved in writing that such asset may be held in the name of another person; or
iii)	falling within a category of assets designated by the Registrar by notice in the Gazette as a category of assets which may be held in the name of another person;
e)	shall not show in its financial statements or in any return referred to in section 75(1)(b) as an asset any amount representing the cost of organisation or extension or the purchase of a business or a loss (including a loss originating from the sale of an asset) or bad debts;
f)	shall not before provision has been made out of profits for the items referred to in paragraph (e)-
i)	open any branch or agency or any further branch or agency; or
ii)	pay out dividends on its shares;
*g)	shall not*, for the purpose of effecting a money lending transaction directly between a lender and a borrower, perform any act in the capacity of an agent except where the funds to be lent in terms of the money lending transaction are entrusted by the lender to the bank *subject to a written contract of agency* in which, in addition to any other terms thereof, at least the following matters shall be recorded:
i)	*Confirmation by the lender that the bank acts as the agent of the lender*;
ii)	that the lender assumes, except in so far as the lender may in law have a right of recovery against the bank, all risks connected with the placing by the bank of the funds entrusted to it by the lender, as well as the responsibility to ensure that the bank executes the lenders instructions as recorded in the written contract of agency; and
iii)	that no express or implied guarantee regarding the payment of any amount of money owing by one person to another in pursuance of the relevant money lending transaction is furnished by the bank;


So, in conclusion:

1. 
If your mortgage/loan has been securitised and you stop paying, the bank cannot repossess the asset/house. The SPV can, theoretically...

2.
But because the bank the broke the law [ Banking Act s78 (g) ] by selling your loan to the SPV without your knowledge or consent, and still insisted you pay them the monthly premium, they are sort of boxed in now. That's the reason for the strong arm court tactics and lying by the banks in general. ("The paperwork was destroyed in a fire/ We lost it during a move"). 

BTW that is not the only law they broke, the NCA and CPA is also involved.

----------

