With opposing laws that actually contradict professed business ethics: it’s obvious Banks don’t have to take voluntary guidelines too seriously.

In the time since the Bank called a debtor a ‘Sitting Duck’ about a ‘Tied Loan’ in 2000, the tricked business analyst turned debtor, turned writer, has tested the systems of governance and found them wanting. Banks operate by their own voluntary guidelines and rarely comply with government regulations that the industry, mainly Bankers write into the Canada Bank Act. Banks appear to have immunity concerning accountability with self regulated business and lending practices: “The fact that a Bank does not comply with its own internal lending practices does not, by itself, render its loan unenforceable or give the borrower a right to action” (Bank of Montreal vs. Duguid). Legal judgment condoning noncompliance has to be a comfort to Bankers. In effect anything goes. After noncompliance there isn’t much left to allege in a court claim. So, the law supports ‘Systematic Predatory Lending’ practices contrived in exquisitely composed ‘No Wrongdoing Guidelines’ that legalize ‘Tied Loans’, which are supposed to be illegal. Using these guidelines, third party businesses are allowed to administer and present Bank loan applications outside the jurisdiction of regulated oversight that would otherwise be expected of financial institutions. In the following schematic from a Bank of Montreal’s ‘Off-Site Loan Closings’ affidavit of documents: the process is much more than a selling convenience for consumer products, like furniture and appliances and cars with ‘Buy now, pay later’ financing. These Bank guidelines and documents are apparently designed to sidestep mortgage and securities regulations and operate in the complete absence of debtors active participation and awareness of borrowing. Contrary to regulations, ‘Predatory Lending’ guidelines exist - around the world – where endless numbers of hapless debtors are forced to repay investment ‘Tied Loans’ to Banks that approve them. This despite Banks; never contacting people for validation, willfully ignoring credit alerts (nine in this case) that would otherwise disqualify any loan application made in person, and approving impossible debt repayment to income ratios. The law sides with the Banks. Once a debt exists and regardless of who, or how it was created: in cases of default - debtors are fully responsible and liable to the Bank for repayment. All it takes is a simple paper trail of; a ‘Loan Application’ plus a ‘Notarized Signature’ plus a ‘Payments Record’ and an ‘Unpaid Balance’. It is quite possible and often the case that Banks seek and win ‘Summary Judgments’ against debtors without any reference or judicial consideration of overwhelming evidence of any third party misrepresentations including obvious and willful and shameful negligence of Bank loan officers in guise of ‘Normal’ due diligence:

When ‘Tied Loans’ exist: in the Bank’s view, and of legal opinion, a willing client was brought to them by an independent third-party agent acting for someone wanting to borrow money to invest. But to people unaware, and those who would never have knowingly allowed it … the opposite is a more plausible truth, that an undisclosed debt was brought to them by a Bank and their agent … that would do anything to sell a loan. With these Bank guidelines an illegal loan transaction becomes legal in the Canadian system of justice. The following illustration describes the flow of predatory lending documents and money transfers and commissions as reported to; Paul Martin, P.C., M.P., Ralph Goodale M.P., and Bonnie Brown M.P., dated January 24, 2004. The scheme was also outlined in various complaints to several watchdog agencies. It is a work of art in automated complexity and effective operations to defraud. It is completely legal. In a scheme that goes far beyond any rational reason for an iconic institution to profit from peoples’ trust, one of the Bank’s forms to sign in the sales materials is a waiver stating that a third-party, the salesperson involved, is not an agent of the Bank. In the legal wording, a third-party ‘Bank Operative’ is actually defined to be the client’s own agent. It further declares that the Bank will evaluate and approve a personal loan solely on creditworthiness, which if found wanting would deny the loan, and make the waiver of no consequence. But on the basis that an agent fills out a loan application and defines a person’s worth, and given that a Bank has target driven incentives and selling bonuses, they approve, and they sign people up more and more loans. ‘New clients’ are generally approved regardless. It happens. In the United Kingdom 250,000 complaints has launched an investigation by the government into the Bank system, to determine if the practice is systemic in the industry. Banks are being forced to cancel debts and pay fines for breaking the Bank Code. In the following system, theft is abstract: Not just identity theft, this phenomena is manifested in theft of personal credit that can slip by unnoticed by almost everyone except the Banks and their agents of lawyers and accountants. It’s only later that the debt becomes a personal crisis when the Bank calls you a ‘Sitting Duck’ about a debt you owe …

BACK