CBA execs misled parliament

[AustralianAustrian]

If you are interested please sign this petition to the Senate President urging prosecution of CBA exec for lying to the Senate. Lawyers have presented evidence to the Senate that CBA & Bankwest executives lied to the Senate Inquiry about the existence and motive of clawback on constructive foreclosures of small businesses.

https://www.change.org/p/the-senate...-commonwealth-bank-contempt-of-the-parliament

Thankyou

 

[SteveS]

How about you explain why? I have read the petition and frankly, I have no idea what it's about - certainly not enough info to secure my signature. Maybe financial experts will understand, but you're reducing the potential signatories if you focus on them alone.

 

[AustralianAustrian]

understandable, given it's quite complex. Long-story-short

CBA foreclosed on performing loan Bankwest customers in order to improve its financial position (ie fixed the books) http://www.smh.com.au/business/bank...ers-to-fix-bankwest-books-20140326-35htg.html
Put simply: CBA couldn't afford to buy the whole loan book so took on what it could afford and then foreclosed on the rest - and tried to blame the customers

CBA Denied it at last years Senate Inquiry: http://www.smh.com.au/business/comm...efaults-in-the-spotlight-20150604-ghgrji.html

They lied, they did it. Senate have been given the proof.

Here's the complicated version:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commo..._concerning_the_BankWest_Commercial_Loan_Book

 

[SpacePete]

So CBA execs only get prosecuted if the public petitions the senate? What's the bet they'd only get a slap on the wrist and more likely a blowjob from the government?

 

[Ipv6Ready]

Which part did they lie?

What they did was legal, they foreclosed what the big deal.

 

[Ipv6Ready]

So CBA execs only get prosecuted if the public petitions the senate? What's the bet they'd only get a slap on the wrist and more likely a blowjob from the government?

They is no prosecution as there is no illegality. If their was "proof" why would this group call for a commission, they would just go to court lol.

Even if there was motive, as long as the bank followed the rules by only foreclosing loans that had broken bank convenents even if only slight cba were in their rights to foreclose.

Of course banks can be lenient but it's their choice.

 

[AustralianAustrian]

Which part did they lie?

What they did was legal, they foreclosed what the big deal.

actually, the bank's own lawyers disagree with you. They have admitted in court that the alleged conduct is illegal. It is illegal to premeditate foreclosure based on internal funding issues and instead fabricate a covenant breach whether actual or implied.
summary of affidavit explained in wiki post (or you could go to court and get your own copy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commo..._concerning_the_BankWest_Commercial_Loan_Book

 

[SpacePete]

They is no prosecution as there is no illegality. If their was "proof" why would this group call for a commission, they would just go to court lol.

Knowingly providing false evidence to a parliamentary enquiry is not illegal?

If there is now evidence that this occurred then it most certainly should be taken further.

 

[AustralianAustrian]

So CBA execs only get prosecuted if the public petitions the senate? What's the bet they'd only get a slap on the wrist and more likely a blowjob from the government?

They is no prosecution as there is no illegality. If their was "proof" why would this group call for a commission, they would just go to court lol.

Even if there was motive, as long as the bank followed the rules by only foreclosing loans that had broken bank convenents even if only slight cba were in their rights to foreclose.

Of course banks can be lenient but it's their choice.

The matter is currently before the courts. As is usually the case, the general public will not hear about it until it is too late because hearing about Brangelina's break up is more important. This particular action involves bringing to the attention of the Senate President the false and misleading statements made by an executive who was involved in the 2008 takeover and testified in the Senate last year. The supporting evidence was provided to the President and unfortunately cannot be uploaded to change.org. Those customers effected by the matter are aware of the evidence.

 

[Ipv6Ready]

Knowingly providing false evidence to a parliamentary enquiry is not illegal?

You are 100% correct, if they lied.

Therefore if this numpty's argument is that although what CBA did was legal (so can't be sued for that) but they lied to parliament, so please punish them, I can understand.

But their argument is, I believe they lied and so and so said so, and trust me banks are bad, so please sue them.

 

[Ipv6Ready]

So CBA execs only get prosecuted if the public petitions the senate? What's the bet they'd only get a slap on the wrist and more likely a blowjob from the government?

They is no prosecution as there is no illegality. If their was "proof" why would this group call for a commission, they would just go to court lol.

Even if there was motive, as long as the bank followed the rules by only foreclosing loans that had broken bank convenents even if only slight cba were in their rights to foreclose.

Of course banks can be lenient but it's their choice.

The matter is currently before the courts. As is usually the case, the general public will not hear about it until it is too late because hearing about Brangelina's break up is more important. This particular action involves bringing to the attention of the Senate President the false and misleading statements made by an executive who was involved in the 2008 takeover and testified in the Senate last year. The supporting evidence was provided to the President and unfortunately cannot be uploaded to change.org. Those customers effected by the matter are aware of the evidence.

If they win the case against CBA, than there would be 10000% more support, and so so easy to get 200 signatures, why even start a petition lol. Are they losing?