Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697641575656.pdf (Australia)
Senate Standing Committee on Economics PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Australia 5th November 2013 SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSION TO MY PREVIOUS SUMMISSION NO>26 In relation to ASIC’s Submission no.45 re BFCSA and its members (ASIC’s Supplementary Submission 45.1) Dear Senators, It seems that ASIC is suggesting that most of the problems BFCSA members had with fraudulent LAF forms was between 2003 to 2007 which is incorrect.
Personally I started my nightmare in 2007, refinanced in 2008 and refinanced again in 2009 and each time the LAF’s had been fraudulently manipulated to such a degree the only true statements on all 11 in total was our names, address, phone no.

etc.. On finally receiving my laf’s minus the service calculator I discovered that wages were exaggerated 10 fold and suddenly I went from unemployed to manager and self- employed for a number of years.
As I said this happened on all 11 laf’s over a three year period with different lenders.

A return letter from ASIC was in the negative and suggesting if I wanted, to go get a lawyer and not in their interest.

Reading ASIC’s Sup.

Sub.

there is obvious intent by them to suggest that brokers are the agents of the borrower and not the lender.

There have been a number of Supreme Court rulings that the Judges have ruled that the broker is in fact the agent of the lender.
Brokers have access to the lenders serviceability calculators and brokers have their I.D.

on lenders letter heads.

They also collect commissions and trailing commissions on deals approved and for the life of the loans.

ASIC is protecting lenders from not handing over the serviceability calculator and it’s not the same one people can access online, it’s the lenders serv.

calc.
calc.

that’s far more sinister in fudging figures whether the borrower can afford the loan or not, and done without the borrowers knowledge or consent.

The S.C. forms part of the loan application forms and if not submitted loans cannot be approved.

The only information on them is the borrowers personal details and financial position so must be handed over by law.
For ASIC to approve lenders version of commercially sensitive only suggests that they have added incriminating and fraudulent information which would show criminal intent and ASIC don’t want that.

Why didn’t ASIC stop the use of the S.C. which they knew lenders used and they also knew of what it’s objective was (to fudge figures).
No matter what year this scam started why didn’t ASIC instruct lenders to supply a copy of completed LAF including the S.C. as this would have guaranteed everything was above board and no arguments from anyone.

Why didn’t ASIC advise banks/lenders to make one single phone call to verify details of borrowers.
ASIC knew that banks/lenders were using a system full of fraudulent intent (scam) and has done absolutely nothing to stop it when the only possible outcome was for the banks/lenders to get richer and the borrowers would eventually loose every cent earned over a life time of hard work and to lose their family home.

ASIC has known of this scam since at least 2002-2003 and their deliberate target area were mainly retirees or people nearing retirement who owned their home, asset rich income poor (ARIP).
ASIC know full well that there were powers in their arsenal to stop this and have failed at every turn.

For ASIC to suggest that brokers are the problem only goes to show how closely The performance of the Australian Securities and Investments CommissionSubmission 26 - Supplementary Submission aligned they are to the lenders and also a large percentage of these loans were done by the banks themselves.
Fact of the matter is that they preferred borrowers go through their brokers so that they would have their six degrees of separation and perceived immunity from prosecution when the mortgage imploded or was looked at later.

Blame the broker.

There is fraud multiple times in my laf’s, plain clear and can’t be denied, why does ASIC, FOS and COSL downgrade fraud to maladministration in lending, and still blame the borrower.
In these cases it should be the lenders/banks taring their hair out trying to explain their actions.

FRAUD is a far more serious criminal intent so I presume that they are saying that their mates wouldn’t be that bad and they don’t wish them jail time.

If any other person or company committed fraud they would certainly be looking at jail time, so why are the higher end of banking people immune from jail.
Surely with so many complaints re low-doc loan mortgage fraud how can ASIC not realise there is a systemic fraud scam problem in the banking sector happening right under their noses and doing absolutely nothing to stop it or to protect consumers.

How many complaints of systemic fraud issues have the FOS and the COSL reported to ASIC, I would imagine not very many.
COSL throw out cases as soon as fraud is mentioned so they wouldn’t be reporting many and both EDR’s use the wording maladministration so systemic fraud would be a rarity at ASIC.

Yours faithfully The performance of the Australian Securities and Investments CommissionSubmission 26 - Supplementary Submission