A case study of Fraud Committed by The National Australia Bank Against their customer

Author Paul Alan Buckman Tinamba Victoria 3859 25th of October 2008.

Page 1 of 34

Table of Contents
The challenge The process of banking Deposits to your bank account The Withdrawal process The Process of Conversion Bank Conduct - Fraud or Mistake The fact of fraud Cheque number 006548 The conduct of the Basstech bank account A graphical analysis of Fraud Legal Precedence & Bank Fraud Bobbett v Plunkett (1876) 1 Exch D 368: National Westminster Bank Ltd v Barclays Bank International Ltd [1975] QB 645 at 666: Bankers & the higher Duty of Care owed to their customer: Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners Ltd. [1964] A. C. 465: National Australia Bank Ltd v Voloshin [2000] NSWSC 84: Conclusion on the Law as it stands The National Australia Banks knowledge of fraud Question The Path to Justice for Mr & Mrs Average Citizen The State & Federal Police Forces The Regulators Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority Australian Competition & Consumer Commission Australian Securities & Investments Commission The Banking Ombudsman Additional Avenues to justice Legal firms No win no fee State Fair trading commissions The Public Interest Law Clearing House (PILCH) Legal Aid The system at work The denial of justice to a victim of fraud How the system works against the natural person the victim Conclusion The current status of those doors to justice in Basstechs case: 3 4 4 4 5 5 6 7 9 9 13 14 14 14 14 16 17 18 19 20 20 21 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 27 28 28 30 30 33 33

Page 2 of 34

Welcome dear reader, I have here a story of fact that should be of concern to every person that has money in a bank account in Australia regardless of its value. To quote a bank advertisement in Victoria of some years past Its your money Ralph 1. To assist your comprehension of what has transpired in this case I have put together a little challenge. I respectfully ask that you participate fully in the challenge and to consider the issues and ramifications that result. For those of you that this case study has been specifically addressed, I have taken the liberty of forging your signature. The challenge Lets assume that I am a thief and have stolen by means various one of your cheques, I have made it out to cash for say $500 and forged your signature. The figure below is that cheque for the purpose of this challenge. If this study has not been specifically addressed to you then the reality will be that I am nowhere near you, and know not your name. Therefore Ill ask that you ask a colleague to sign your name without actually seeing your signature for comparison, etc. That is, ask a colleague or passer-by to forge your signature.

National Australasian Bank of Fraud

Sometown in Australia

The Sum of: Five Hundred Dollars only

Your name is often printed here

Your Cheque number BSB Account Number

That completed we proceed. I, the thief, having forged your signature take your cheque to your bank account branch; I hand it to the bank teller and I demand $500 in cash. Question 1: At this point what would you reasonably expect your banker to do? It has been suggested to me that a reasonable course of action would be for the banker to actually check the validity of the document, by at the very least comparing the signatures on the cheque against your specimen signature lodged by you with your banker for that precise purpose. The principal purpose of that procedure is for the banker to prove their mandate to debit your bank account of those funds. So, now that we have completed the first phase, I am going to change roles; I am now your banker. To simulate that specimen signature and for the purpose of comparison by your banker, can I now ask you to place your normal signature close to that of the forged one; and please compare the one with the other. I submit to you that should there be any uncertainty or irregularity between your true signature and that of the forgery, that it would be reasonable to expect your banker to
1

The State Bank of Victoria prior to its incorporation within the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.
Page 3 of 34

Not Negotiable

Pay

CASH

$500.00

contact you immediately to advise you of that irregularity, and to seek your instructions. Particularly where forged signatures are found during explicit clearance procedures, surely the detection of your forged signature is the detection of a fraud in progress. Most fundamentally, you would expect your banker to validate that sufficient funds exist in your account, and that the transaction is within the normal bounds within which your account historically operated. Not to do so would be at the very least negligent. Now consider that not just one cheque was cleared through your cheque account in this way without your knowledge or consent, but this cheque was but one of 152 forged cheques with a total value of $238,750; Also, due to your banks need to protect itself from its liabilities to you they have pursued and forced you to bankruptcy & as a consequence you have lost 35 years of your productive life. How do you feel now? Do you see a problem here?

The process of banking

Lets side step for a moment and consider the banking environment, the system as it is designed to be in real not just utopian terms. The mechanics of each segment of a banking transaction needs to be frozen in time and analysed. The broad segments are described below: Deposits to your bank account Lets say that you deposit $100 into your bank account; that deposit is in the form of four $20 notes, one $10 note and one $5 note, two $2 coins and one $1 coin. You hand the teller the $100 together with a correctly filled out deposit slip. The moment that the teller accepted your money for processing, that money ceased to be your property. It is now the property of the bank to do with as they please. As part of the bank-customer contract the bank undertakes to return that money to you upon demand. They do not undertake to return the precise serial numbers and/or denominations of the notes or coinage that you deposited as that would clearly be an impractical and unworkable process. What the bank does undertake is to return currency of the realm to the value of the balance of your bank account at the time of demand by you. If $100 is the balance of your account then that release may well be one single $100 note and that will uphold the letter and spirit of the contract. The Withdrawal process When you write a cheque for any purpose it is in fact a legal instruction a demand upon your bank by you for the return of your money. The debiting of your account as a consequence of that transaction is not an immediate process; rather it is one that is delayed until the act of clearance by the bank often conducted at the end of the days trading and that transaction is recorded in your bank account. It may take as much as three days to complete the transaction in the case of a cheque deposited to a creditors bank account at another bank. In the case of cash cheques presented for conversion at a branch of your bank the process is a little quicker but still delayed. So lets follow the process of converting your stolen cheque to cash.

Page 4 of 34

The Process of Conversion The instant that I, the thief, present the stolen cheque to a teller of your bank he/she has the option of displaying due diligence in that process, or, accepting the legitimacy of that cheque upon face value. Buckman makes no comment here at this point in time; suffice to say that the thief is handed $500 in nice clean cash. At this point in time that money (the $500) is not yours to worry about, it is the banks money and the bank is perfectly entitled to do with its money as it pleases. The point at which that position changes is when the bank performs its supposedly diligent clearance process and physically enters that transaction as a debit to your bank account record. It is at this point that the bank must ensure that it has your legal mandate to proceed with that transaction and physically remove those funds from your bank account. As Buckman understands it that is settled law, and as authority Kerr J 2 is quoted and he said The principle is simply that a banker cannot debit his customers account on the basis of a forged signature, since he has in that event no mandate from the customer for doing so Bank Conduct - Fraud or Mistake Yes, there was a time when Buckman and partners could have cheerfully accepted that the bank did no more than make a mistake (many mistakes). One could of course reasonably question where and at what point in time those mistakes became negligence or indeed incompetence; still mistake was a reasonable defence until September of 1999. After that point it became increasingly more difficult to accept mistake as a defence. The 30th of September 1999 was the date when the National Australia Bank through its appointed receiver & manager, Paul Burness, then of Scott Partners Malvern Victoria, sold the Business and assets of Basstech knowing that the bank held factual liability in the events leading to the insolvency of the company. Burness had advice from the directors of Basstech in a letter to him of the 9th of September 1999 of the fact that the National Australia Bank, in clearing forged cheques from the Basstech bank account, had directly led to the insolvency of that company. Despite that advice and a formal request to investigate, Burness refused to investigate the banks conduct in writing on the grounds that the National Australia Bank was his appointor. Further, the National Australia Bank continued to pursue both Buckman and his partners to bankruptcy knowing full well that the bank held underlying liability to them its customer over its conduct and cooperation with a thief to defraud Basstech, the banks customer. So what conduct is Buckman accusing the National Australia Bank of engaging in? The following is an extract of Buckmans recent letter sent and addressed as follows to: Mr John Stewart, The Managing Thief, National Australia Bank and dated the 4th of October 2007. Note that any respectful tone toward this bank & its officers ceased on this day.

National Westminster Bank Ltd v Barclays Bank International Ltd [1975] QB 645 at 666:
Page 5 of 34

Beginning of extract: Sir, as a brief overview your bank has in this the Basstech case: 1. Detected forged signatures on your customers cheques & chose to ignore that fact. 2. You (the National Australia Bank) then chose not to enquire of your customer or to alert them of those detections that is each incident of theft & fraud in progress. 3. You then chose to conspire with the thief to defraud your customer by honouring those forged cheques & illegally debiting your customers account of $238,750 from 152 cheques. 4. You knowingly participated in the conversion of stolen property to cash. 5. You then charged us, your customer, in excess of $21,000 for this privilege. That is you gained financial advantage by deception when you charged us in excess of $21,000 in interest & other fees & charges for services not provided on that money illegally debited from our bank account, without our consent, our knowledge or authority. 6. When we detected account irregularities, (and advised National Australia Bank staff of that detection) you then chose to conspire with our financial advisor, Paul Burness then of Scott Partners Malvern Victoria, to place our business under receivership in his hands, then to liquidate our business & assets knowing that you held both factual culpability & liability in the antecedent events leading to our insolvency. 7. You then took possession of & sold at a mortgagees auction assets from my fellow directors (ie their family home). In National Australia Bank v Voloshin (NSW Supreme Court 2000) the mere attempt by your bank to repossess a customers property under such circumstances was declared Unconscionable & was refused. 8. In an effort to negate your legal liabilities to us, your customer, you forced us to bankruptcy. End of extract.

The fact of fraud Back to reality: what Buckman complains of is not allegation it is fraud proven before a criminal jurisdiction in the state of Victoria. Buckmans analysis of these events and the resulting evidence formed the principal crown prosecution case against one party to the fraud (Brendan James Harty) he was convicted & sentenced to two years & nine months with a non-parole period of twenty months (judgement transcript available). Buckman and his partners got an initial a three-year sentence of bankruptcy followed by a life sentence of financial scrutiny bearing continual responsibility for the costs and ramifications of those actions performed by others, in particular the second and complicit party to these events the National Australia Bank. This sentence is life for Buckman &

Page 6 of 34

partners; it does not stop and the system will not allow it. He to this day is still denied a credit card due to his credit history & bankruptcy and income status. It cannot be in dispute that the National Australia Bank cleared the transactions that underpin this fraud and Hartys conviction, through the Basstech bank account. Of the 184 cheques proven to be the subject of fraud in the County Court Melbourne, 152 cheques bore forged signatures. Of those, other bankers directly referred 38 cheques to the banks Bairnsdale account manager, Mr Matthew Johnson, for explicit clearance. That explicit clearance was given to those cheques in spite of the existence of forged signatures upon those cheques. Lets actually analyse a real cheque in dispute. A good one to see is cheque number 006548 dated the 12th of November 1998. The following three images show the cheque stub, cheque face, and the reverse of that cheque. Cheque number 006548 Note that the payee defined on the cheque stub is the Australian Tax Office. The method employed by Harty was to write cheques for legitimate creditor amounts and process these payments as creditor payments through the Basstech accounting system, thus giving the directors the illusion that the liability had been settled. The large spot to the left is a red sticker applied to the cheque stub during the Police investigation denoting a suspect transaction. The corresponding cheque is made to cash as shown for $10,173.00.

The reverse of this cheque, as shown below, shows that this particular cheque was faxed to the Bairnsdale branch of the National Australia Bank for explicit clearance by bankers from the South Melbourne branch of that bank; the South Melbourne tellers remarks on the reverse state chq faxed sigs (signatures) not on system. See also the attachment A collage of forged cheques.

Page 7 of 34

The important features of this cheque are as follows, with culpability inherited from both legislation and settled law: 1. The cheque is from a pre-printed chequebook produced and supplied by the National Australia Bank showing in particular the account holders particulars, that is Basstech Pty Ltd and the banks BSB and the Basstech account number (083 519: 51564 8121) 2. The signature on the signature line is a legitimate signature 3 (in this case the signature of Paul Alan Buckman); however the corresponding signature on the cash endorsement is clearly forged even to the naked eye. 3. The cheque is a pre-printed non-negotiable crossed cheque in accordance with legislation 4. 4. Section 93(2)(b) of the same Act states where the cheque, at the time of presentment, does not appear, on its face, to be, or at any time to have been, a crossed cheque. This wording implies that the crossing Not Negotiable cannot be reversed or nullified by indorsement. Once a cheque is crossed it remains a crossed cheque in perpetuity. Therefore cheques endorsed Please Pay Cash and countersigned (particularly with a forged signature) are invalid and have no status. 5. Section 50(1) The Holder in Due Course States The holder of a cheque is a holder in due course if :..(b) the holder took the cheque: (iii) Without notice: (B) of any defect in the title of the person who transferred the cheque to the holder or that the person who transferred the cheque to the holder had no title to the cheque. Section 50(2) states Without limiting the generality of paragraph (1)(b),(above) the holder of a cheque shall, for the purposes of that paragraph, be deemed to have taken the cheque with notice of a defect in the title of the
3

Buckmans signature was applied to a blank check in Hartys custody for emergency purposes. Harty was a fellow director at that time & it was believed by all parties that two signatures were required on a legitimate document; that was the instruction by the Basstech directors to the National Australia Bank. 4 refer the Cheques Act 1986 Section 53
Page 8 of 34

person who transferred the cheque to the holder in breach of faith OR under circumstances amounting to a fraud. Lets say that you have provided me with a good or a service, youre labour or sold me your garden gnome, & I give you a cheque for the agreed amount; in terms of that transaction, you are the holder in due course of my cheque.

The conduct of the Basstech bank account For the previous 15 years that this bank account had been in operation with the Bairnsdale branch of the National Australia Bank, the companys monthly cash demands were no more than $300 per month and had only reached that level in recent times due to the establishment of a second office, i.e. late 1998/1999. There was thus no history of large cash withdrawals from the Basstech account. It was not a cash business; the business neither deposited nor withdrew large cash amounts. All cheques in dispute share these same features; the legislation clearly states that in the event of a fraud the bank is deemed to know that it has no title to the moneys removed from the Basstech bank account.

A graphical analysis of Fraud The following graphs show pictorially the progress of the fraud and its impact upon the company. Graph #1 A chronology of Fraud shows the monthly debits from the company bank account with a distinction made between those cheques deposited into the thiefs bank account and those cheques made to cash and redeemed across the counter of a National Australia Bank branch.
1

$60,000.00 $50,000.00 $40,000.00 $30,000.00 $20,000.00 $10,000.00 Jul-98 $Jun-98 Mar-98 May-98 Apr-98
1 1 1

6 7 6

6 4

Jan-99

Nov-98

Mar-99

Oct-98

Dec-98

Sep-98

Feb-99

Theft - "Cash" Cheques Payments to Legitimate Creditors

Theft - Deposited to Harty's Accounts

Graph #1 A chronology of Fraud As can be seen from above, conduct of the fraud had three distinct features. Firstly there are the forged cheques that were actually cleared to the correct creditor bank
Page 9 of 34

May-99

Aug-98

Apr-99

accounts. These amounts can be seen from April 1998 to March 1999 although not evident for January 1999 ($201) & February 1999 ($155) due to the displayed scale. These amounts as a consequence do not feature in this dispute or in these accusations of fraud. They still, however, represent moneys removed from the Basstech bank account without the mandate of the customer. The total value of forged cheques removed from the Basstech account was $238,750; the amount supported by convictions of theft was $234,400 or thereabouts and that amount plus the interest and charges accrued forms the basis of this dispute. The next two series on the graph show the amounts for forged cheques that were deposited to the thiefs bank account (Light Blue) followed by the Red series that denotes the value of forged cheques that were surrendered across the counter of a National Australia Bank branch and converted to cash by the bank. The numbers above each months bar show the number of forged cash cheques that were referred to the banks account branch for explicit clearance; on all occasions clearance was granted without enquiry to Basstech the customer. The home branch for the Basstech bank account was National Australia Bank located at Main Street Bairnsdale Vic 3875. The banks account manager was Matthew Johnson and his name appears on the reverse of many of those cheques referred to the Bairnsdale branch for explicit clearance. It needs to be emphasised again that Basstech was not a cash business. For the previous 16 years the normal company cash demands upon our bank were in the order of $200 to $300 per month. Basstech neither took large cash amounts across the counter nor did it carry large cash amounts for change or other business purposes. The business of Basstech operated generally through 30-day accounts with both receipts and payments made by either cheque or credit card. Graph #2: The National Australia Banks statement of account vs the balance that should have rightfully been. From the graph below: The bottom line (blue) NAB balance is the actual Basstech bank account balance as taken from the National Australia Banks issued Statement of Account as shown at the statement date. This is the base line of the graph and includes all transactions as they occurred in real time, including the $300,000 loan facility credited to the account on the 24th of June 1999. The next line (purple) Adjusted Balance depicts what the true account balance should have been had forged signatures not been cleared through the Basstech bank account. This line writes back the amounts on forged cheques, supported with convictions of theft and making a false document, along with overcharges in terms of interest, service fees & other charges. This line is in direct comparison to the Blue Line NAB balance. The Red & Green lines are to be seen in direct comparison. The Red line shows the value of cheques bearing forged signatures that is those cheques supported by convictions of theft against Harty, the convicted party to this fraud. The Green line indicates the effect of bank fees and interest charges imposed upon those funds illegally removed from the Basstech bank account. That difference between Cumulative Theft (Red line) & Cumulative Overcharges (Green Line) represents the gaining of financial advantage by deception by the National Australia Bank from its customers bank account.
Page 10 of 34

Closing monthly balances of the Basstech Pty Ltd trading account with the National Australia Bank.
$400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $$(100,000) $(200,000) $(300,000)
Nov-98 Jul-98 Jun-98 May-99 Jun-99 Jul-99 May-98 Aug-98 Dec-98
WHAT WAS: -The actual Balance from our NAB bank Statements Theft & overcharges WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN: - The true account balance adjusted for Theft and compounded overcharges in interest & un-warranted fees

NAB Balance
The thief becomes a signatory to the company account

Adjusted Balance

Sep-98

Cumulative Overcharges

Feb-99

Cumulative Theft
1st of Sep 1999 - We are made aware of forged signatures on our cheques by Victoria Police following the execution of a search warrant on the National Australia Bank.

National Australia Bank staff first detect forged signatures on Basstech cheques

20th of Aug 1999 Burness, the banks Receiver & Manager is appointed

If the amounts representing the Cumulative Overcharges are added to the NAB balance you then have the Adjusted Balance. That is what the Basstech bank balance should have been had fraud not been imposed upon it. There are a few points of interest that should be noted on this graph: March 1998 Harty, the convicted thief was made a signatory to the Basstech bank account. May the 1st 1998 cheque number 006114 is referred to Matthew Johnson our account manager at the Bairnsdale Vic branch of the National Australia Bank for explicit clearance. This cheque, shown below, was cleared without reference to Basstech. When this signature is compared to that purported to be Buckmans signature on the cheque it is clear that his signatures both on the signature line and the cash endorsement are forged. The banks Bairnsdale
Page 11 of 34

Aug-99

Jan-99

Oct-98

Mar-99

Mar-98

Apr-98

Apr-99

account manager Matthew Johnson cleared this cheque; the phone number on the reverse of the cheque is the Bairnsdale branch fax number.

Buckmans specimen signature is shown opposite to scale.

Early June 1999 Paul Burness of Scott Partners, Railway Pde Malvern Victoria is appointed as Basstechs financial advisor purportedly assisting Basstech in negotiations for a trade-on position with the National Australia Bank. In August Burness advised the Basstech directors that they were in danger of trading whilst insolvent, itself a criminal offence. He advised them that they should advise the bank of that fact and provided a sample letter for that purpose. This the directors reluctantly did in early August. Question: At this point was Burness & Scott Partners acting in Basstechs interests (his client) or in their own financial interests? On the 20th of August 1999 the National Australia Bank appoints Burness as its receiver & manager of Basstech Pty Ltd. Ten days later, on the 1st of September 1999, Victoria Police delivered to Buckman a bundle of approximately 800 cheques for analysis & verification. This is the first indication to the directors that forged signatures were involved in these transactions.

Page 12 of 34

Burness is formally advised on the 9th of September 1999 that the bank bears liability in respect of bank transactions that are the subject of the fraud investigation and formally requested him to investigate. Burness then advised the Basstech directors in writing on the 27th of October 1999 stating after legal advice that I cannot take an action against the bank as they are my appointor. This claim indicates that Burness considers himself to be an agent of the bank. Legal precedent is that the receiver and manager is the agent of the mortgagor 5 in this case Basstech, not the agent of the bank. Indeed in the real world the receiver and manager is given a general immunity by the bank for their actions in the banks favour. This is commercial fact backed by clauses hidden deep within the bowels of the registered debenture signed by directors of a company over the companys assets. Regardless, at the time of appointment the receiver and manager is the sole officer of the company. That is, he or she is the trustee of that company; he surely has a duty of care to all interested parties, not just the interests of the bank. Question: Is the office of receiver and manager a Trustee in legal terms of the company over which he exercises control as the sole officer of the company? If not by what right does he exercise his or her powers. Indeed from where do those powers derive? & to whom is he/ she answerable? Question: As the receiver & manager is the agent and sole officer of the company in real terms, how is it that Burness in this case, sees fit to protect the interests of one party (the National Australia Bank) above and to the detriment of all other parties? Isnt it the duty of the receiver & manager to act in the interests of all parties involved with the company, particularly where fraud and its consequences are concerned? On the 30th of September 1999 Burness sold the business and assets of Basstech Pty Ltd acn 006 035 301 for $60,000. Its name was changed to acn006035301 Pty Ltd ACN 006 035 301 and later deregistered by ASIC.

Legal Precedence & Bank Fraud Legal precedence is long established governing the duties and responsibilities a banker has to his customer, going back as far as Young vs Grote in 1827 and beyond. The following authorities are relevant and please note the year that these decisions were handed down. They have stood the test of time and many are to be found specifically enshrined in current legislation.

SPENDER J in Freeman v National Australia Bank Ltd [2002] FCA 427 (9 April 2002) Spender said at [5] it has been said that the receiver & manager is the agent of the mortgagor, not the agent of the bank, having said that Spender goes on to ignore that implication
Page 13 of 34

Bobbett v Plunkett (1876) 1 Exch D 368: No doubt may be had that a payment by a banker contrary to his customers direction is no mandate by which that banker may debit his customers account. Should that debit occur the banker is negligent 6. The Commissioners of the State Savings Bank of Victoria v Permewan Wright & Co Ltd (1914) 19 CLR 457; Griffith CJ said [at 467]: In my opinion the words Not Negotiable on a crossed cheque are a danger signal held out before every person invited to deal with it, and are equivalent to saying Take care: this cheque may be stolen 7 National Westminster Bank Ltd v Barclays Bank International Ltd [1975] QB 645 at 666: Kerr J said The principle is simply that a banker cannot debit his customers account on the basis of a forged signature, since he has in that event no mandate from the customer for doing so Bankers & the higher Duty of Care owed to their customer: It is clear that the banker is deemed in law to be a professional person carrying professional duty of care responsibilities to their customer. This standing carries not just an ethical or moral duty but also a legal Duty of Care. Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners Ltd. [1964] A. C. 465: Lord Devlin likened the position of banker and customer to that of solicitor and client p. 530. Lord Denning M.R. did the same in Dutton v. Bognor Regis, treating them both as professional men. Again in relation to professional men and after referring to the solicitor cases Lord Denning M.R. had this to say in Esso Petroleum v. Marden at 819 : In the case of a professional man, the duty to use reasonable care arises not only in contract, but is also imposed by the law, apart from the contract, and is therefore actionable in tort. . A professional man may give advice under a contract for reward; or without a contract in pursuance of a voluntary assumption of responsibility gratuitously without reward. In either case he is under one and the same duty to use reasonable care. In the one case it is by reason of a term implied by law. In the other it is by reason of a duty imposed by law. (my emphasis) {end of extract.} Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd [103 of 1983], in the Hong Kong Court of Appeal, Cons JJA said on page 8: In Selangor United Rubber Estates Ltd. v. Cradock, the directors of a company abused their position as signatories of the company's bank account. Their dealings with the company's monies ought to have put the bank on enquiry. It was submitted however on behalf of the bank, that even so the bank's duty extended no further than to see that the signatories on the

6 7

also Banking Law in Australia, Butterworths ISBN 0409 31903 1, Tyree, 25.5.1 see Banking Law in Australia, Butterworths ISBN 0409 31903 1, Tyree, 34.5.4
Page 14 of 34

particular cheques concerned were those of the authorized signatories. Ungoed-Thomas J. rejected that submission (at page 1608) If this were so then it seems to follow that, even if the bank actually knew that the authorised signatories were misapplying the company's funds, it could nevertheless rely on the signatures. This could be so outrageous as to lie outside the intention and true construction of the mandate. As between the company and the bank, the mandate, in my view, operates within the normal contractual relationships of customer and banker and does not exclude them. These relationships include the normal obligation of using reasonable skill and care. And that duty, on the part of the bank, of using reasonable skill and care, is a duty owed to the other party to the contract, the customer, who in this case is the plaintiff, and not to the authorised signatories. And it extends over the whole range of banking business within that contract. So the duty of skill and care applies to interpreting, ascertaining, and acting in accordance with the instructions of a customer; and that must mean his really intended instructions as contrasted with the instructions to act on signatures misused to defeat the customer's real intentions. Cons JJA also referred to - Brightman J. in Karak Rubber Co. Ltd v Burden [1972] 1 W.L.R. 602: Cons adopted that higher duty of care when at page 628 he said: In my view the Achilles heel of the bank's argument, both in the Selangor case (1968) 1 W.L.R. 1555, and in the case before me, is that it is not, and never reasonably could be, asserted that a paying bank with certain knowledge that the authorised signatories are misapplying the company's funds may nonetheless rely on their signatures. If that is axiomatic, and it was conceded so to be in the case before me, it seems utterly irrational to suppose that a bank has an absolute unqualified duty to pay and no duty to inquire despite a deep suspicion, approaching but falling short of a certainty, that the funds are being misapplied. Once a bank disclaims the untenable position of being in all cases an automatic cash dispenser, whatever the circumstances, there is no rational stopping place short of a contractual duty to exercise such care and skill as would be exercised by a reasonable banker in similar circumstances." National Australia Bank Limited v Hokit Pty Ltd & ors 40542/95 commd 50220/94, 17 June 1996, the supreme court of New South Wales court of appeal This appeal concerns the question of who should bear the burden of forged cheques, the customer or the bank. An employee of the respondent companies forged a large number of cheques, which were then presented to the appellant bank and debited to the accounts of the companies. Relying on the principle that when a bank pays out moneys without a customer's authority, that is, on the basis of a forged cheque, the bank bears the loss, the companies sued the appellant to recover some of the amounts. The Bank argued unsuccessfully at trial that the narrow exceptions to the principle should be extended, and asked the court to hold that customers should be subject to an obligation to take reasonable care to prevent the presentation to their bankers of forged cheques. The Bank also argued that the

Page 15 of 34

companies should be estopped from denying the regularity of cheques signed by the employee because they knew of, and acquiesced in, her signing cheques for other purposes. These arguments were repeated on appeal. The Consumers Federation of Australia also sought leave to intervene as amicus curiae. Judgement of Mahoney P and supported by Clarke JA, Waddell AJA It has sometimes been said that, in a contest between persons damaged by the default of a third party, the burden should be borne by the person whose negligence contributed to the default: see Macmillan (1918) AC at 794. However, that principle does not, I think, apply in the present case. For it to apply, it would be necessary for this Court to hold that the companies owed a duty to the Bank to do what they did not do and that it was the breach of that duty, eg, to take care in respect of the custody and checking of its banking records, which caused or contributed to the acceptance of the forged cheques by the Bank. But, for the reasons to which I have referred, the companies owed no duty to the Bank to do or not to do what in the present case (as the Bank contends) led to the forgeries and led to the Bank accepting the cheques. Unless there be such a duty, there is no negligence. Accordingly, in my opinion, there is no estoppel by reason of what the companies did or did not do. For these reasons I am of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed with costs. National Australia Bank Ltd v Voloshin [2000] NSWSC 84: Maser Harrison noted the following references in support of his judgement in this case. If a transaction has been originally founded on fraud, the original vice will continue to taint it, however long the negotiations may continue, or into whatever ramifications it may extend: Reynell v Sprye (1852) 1 DM G 660 at 697; Smith v Kay (1859) 7 HLC 750 at 775. Not only is the person who has committed the fraud precluded from deriving any benefit under it, but an innocent person is so likewise, unless there has been some consideration moving from himself: Scholefield v Templer (1859); Johns 155; 4 D & J 429; Tophamp v Duke of Portland (1863) 1 DJ & S 517 at 569 per Turner LJ; Morley v Lougham [1893] 1 Ch 736 at 757 The judgement of Master Harrison Master Harrison brought down judgement in this case on the 25th of February 2000. Buckmans understanding is that a Master of a Supreme Court is a senior court official empowered to hear cases and effect judgement upon them. He is not entitled to interpret the law; his sole authority is to apply the existing interpretations and legal philosophy as established by the Judges of that and other senior jurisdictions. Background, in Voloshin, someone fraudulently altered the PAYEE field of cheques destined for Voloshins bank account with the result that those cheques were paid into some other bank account not under the knowledge or control of Voloshin. Moneys deposited to Voloshins bank account were relied upon for the payment of his mortgage; as moneys were not deposited

Page 16 of 34

into his account his mortgage was placed into arrears. The bank sought foreclosure on the property of Voloshin to satisfy the debt to them. Master Harrison did not just find against the bank with costs; but gave leave for Voloshin to amend his entire case, and I quote It is my view that it is at least arguable that the plaintiffs conduct in seeking to enforce the mortgage is unconscionable with the consequence that the court will decline to permit the National Bank to enforce its legal rights. The bank was the one who accepted the forged cheques. The defendant has not pleaded unconscionable conduct and I give leave for him to do so. In addition it may be that the defendant has suffered some other type of damage other than the loss of the moneys he loaned the company. If no other damage is sought then paragraphs 1 to 16 of the cross claim which pleaded negligence ought to be struck out. It is my view that the defendant has an arguable cross claim. Also the success of this case depends on a matrix of facts, including whether the plaintiff knew that cheques were forged prior to the giving of the $425,000 mortgage. For these reasons the cross claim should not be struck out but needs to be amended. The notice of motion is dismissed. As this case involves fraud, it is not appropriate to strike out the defence nor is it appropriate to enter judgment for possession. Costs are discretionary. Costs should follow the event. The plaintiff is to pay the defendants costs

Conclusion on the Law as it stands It appears to be settled law that a banker cannot remove moneys from his customers bank account upon the basis of a fraud. Fraud includes any unauthorised alteration of any of the fields on a cheque; this includes the Payee, the amount both in words and figures, the signatures and any endorsements applied. The history of settled law in these matters dates well back to the early eighteen hundreds {Young vs Grote in 1827, Reynell v Sprye (1852)} and has been continuously reinforced by all common law jurisdictions around the world. Indeed a bank owes its customer a duty of care in the handling and management of its customers moneys and this duty extends to more than just the checking of signatures. In the case of Selangor United Rubber Estates Ltd. v. Cradock, the legal signatories were misusing the companys funds forged signatures were not used. The Selangor judgement was further reinforced in Tai Hing{refer Ungoed-Thomas J and Cons JJA above, both referring to Selangor and Brightman J. in Karak Rubber Co. Ltd v Burden} The judgement of Ungoed-Thomas J in Tai Hing above said of the bankers duty of care: So the duty of skill and care applies to interpreting, ascertaining, and acting in accordance with the instructions of a customer; and that must mean his really intended instructions as contrasted with the instructions to act on signatures misused to defeat the customer's real intentions. Furthermore, Kerr on the Law of Fraud and Mistake 7th ed (1952) @162 states; But where a person obtains a contract or other advantage by mistake or misstatements innocently made, he cannot retain the advantages he has gained when he discovers this mistake. If he does so his innocent misstatement becomes from that moment a deliberate misrepresentation, or in other words FRAUD.

Page 17 of 34

It is therefore clear from settled law: 1. That a bank owes its customer a high duty of care. 2. That the bank cannot debit its customers bank account on the basis of forgery 3. The fact that Harty was a signatory to the Basstech bank account is irrelevant to the culpability of the bank in terms of forged signatures as evidenced in Selengor, Tai Hing and other cases cited above. 4. That the bank is entitled to make mistake, but once that mistake becomes known then the bank cannot retain any benefit and/or advantage gained from it; should they do so that is fraud. 5. The banks refusal to return funds that were the subject of proven fraud and to resolve the outstanding consequential issues further compounds the banks culpability in these matters. 6. Any subsequent action that causes loss to its customer are further instances of knowing fraud by that bank. Officers of the National Australia Bank and its receiver & manager have been aware of these mistakes since mid September 1999 and advised of that condition in writing.

The National Australia Banks knowledge of fraud So in the words of Kerr {above} he cannot retain the advantages he has gained when he discovers this mistake, you may well ask the question when did the National Australia Bank become aware of the fact that it was an integral party to fraudulent transactions? That answer is as follows: 20th of May 1999 the banks account manager for the Basstech bank account Mr Matthew Johnson was made aware verbally and in writing that fraud had been detected by the Basstech directors and that the services of Brendan Harty had been terminated; and that his signatory status was to be cancelled forthwith. This is evidenced by the bankers notation on the banks Customer Service Record for the Basstech bank account dated the 20th of May 1999. A copy of this customer service record was surrendered to Victoria Police under search warrant by the bank. 9th of June 1999 Det Snr Const Sharp (Victoria Police) serves the National Australia Bank with a search warrant ordering the surrender of approximately 1100 cheques in the banks custody plus bank and credit card statements. 9th of September 1999 in writing from Basstech to Burness the receiver & manager formally requesting him to investigate the conduct of the bank in these fraudulent transactions. Burness declines to investigate on the grounds that the bank is his appointor. Correspondence between Buckman and the National Australia Bank during November 1999; January, February, March, May, and June 2000.

Page 18 of 34

Correspondence between Buckman and the National Australia Bank during January, April, May, June, July, and September 2003. Correspondence between Buckman and the National Australia Bank during September and October 2004. Correspondence between Buckman and the National Australia Bank in November 2005, including a 3-day placard demonstration outside its 800 Bourke Street headquarters, to the chagrin of the banks head of security. The last correspondence between Buckman and the National Australia Bank was October 2007 as evidenced by the extract produced at the head of this document. Given the tone and content of correspondence noted earlier between Buckman and the NAB, I think that one would agree that that correspondence constitutes formal notice to the bank that it has made mistakes and that restitution and resolution of those issues were demanded particularly where much of this correspondence has been addressed directly to the chairman, managing director and other board members of that bank. As such the National Australia Banks conduct since September 1999 reasonably constitutes fraud, condoned protected and reinforced by the directors and management of that bank. Since September of 1999 the defence of mistake is not available to the bank. Question Both you & I, the natural person, are deemed to know the law as it applies to our individual and collective conduct within society; our ignorance of the law is deemed to be no excuse. A corporation too is deemed to be a person before the law in precisely the same way and to the same extent that you & I are persons before the law. 1. Surely it is reasonable to expect that a bank with 150 plus years of experience in the business of banking and finance would know the law as it applies to its conduct and operations. 2. How much time must elapse and how many judgements must turn against a bank before those venerable institutions comprehend: a. That they cannot clear forged cheques through their customers bank account? b. That they cannot then proceed to act and force the financial ramifications and responsibility onto their customer as a direct result of the banks negligence and unconscionable conduct; that is, after the bank having cleared forged cheques from its customers bank account that results in the customers insolvency, to then liquidate that customers business and assets? 3. How is it that a corporation is entitled to act in this fraudulent way, with immunity from investigation, let alone prosecution? 4. These issues have been brought to the direct attention of the managing director & chairman of the board, commencing with Frank Cicutto & Charles Allen, then later with John Stewart, Graham Kraehe, as well as
Page 19 of 34

Ahmed Fahour & others on many occasions. How is it that this bank can continue to ignore the issues and retain custody of funds knowing that it is not entitled to retain them? From Kerr on the Law of Fraud and Mistake that is fraud. So how is it that a natural person is required to act honestly and equitably and should they not do so they are investigated diligently and prosecuted by the agencies of the state; yet the wealthy and influential corporation is immune from investigation let alone prosecution?

The Path to Justice for Mr & Mrs Average Citizen

If you are unfortunate enough to be caught in the centre of the type of events that befell Basstech and partners, you really have no comprehension of what is going to hit you. You believe in the justice system, you believe that the law enforcement and regulatory authorities will protect the public interest, you believe that fraud will not be accepted by officialdom; thats the spin produced for the mass consumption by us, the plebs. You believe in a lot of things, what you believe in though is some utopian ideal of what Australia is and how it works. Coming to terms with the loss of 35 years of ones life is traumatic enough; coming to terms with the realisation that the reality is inverse to your perception of how the legal, regulatory and justice systems operate is soul destroying. You cannot believe the feeling of betrayal that one feels once you realise that justice is merely a product, distributed by the court system to those that can afford to play the game. In other words those of wealth, power and influence own the justice system as it currently stands. So how does the system work? The first casualty is the myth that no one is above the law.

The State & Federal Police Forces State and Federal Police forces are predominately concerned with and focused on the natural person; in particular the concepts of mens actus and mens rea, the guilty act and the guilty mind. As a rule, police officers investigate complaints lodged with them impartially, diligently and without fear or favour and in my experience do so in both trying circumstances and with limited resources. When it comes to corporate offences the investigators still view evidence in terms of which natural person can we walk up to and say I charge you with this offence. The corporation in their view has no mind, therefore it cannot have a guilty mind; it is an inanimate object therefore it cannot perform acts guilty or otherwise. Only the natural person can have a mind, know right from wrong and/or perform an action, if that action is illegal then that natural person is charged and prosecuted. In the case of a corporation (a bank) decisions and actions during the course of business are shared among several people; each phase of the business process may appear legal when viewed from a limited perspective; that is, a bank teller receives a demand for cash and cash is surrendered. If the mandate is secure then the transaction is legitimate there is no problem. If however there is no mandate for these transactions to occur as in the Basstech case and bank staff having been made

Page 20 of 34

aware of those facts after the event refuse to remedy the situation, then the total conduct of the banks staff constitute fraud. If the banks staff members have not directly gained from any transaction then they cannot be charged, indeed one particular incident may well be mistake, negligence or indeed incompetence. Incompetence is not a crime. There is therefore reluctance within law enforcement circles to consider the corporation as a single person for the reasons above, it has no will or mind and cannot of its own accord take an action. The will, the mind, and the actions are performed by a multitude of bank officers each performing his or her function according to their job description and doing his or her prescribed portion of a process that in the end completes a transaction, evidence and culpability is therefore diluted. Generally, the only time an unauthorised or illegal transaction will become evident is after the event. It is the conduct of the bank as an entity that truly constitutes criminal activity; which is enhanced by their refusal to remedy the inequities. Their refusal is justified by the mantra they have no responsibility to anyone other than the interests of the corporation sic shareholders. Furthermore the directors & management of the corporation feels it has like the psychopath it resembles, the corporation feels no moral obligation to obey the law 8 as noted in a joint paper authored by law professor Daniel Fishel and his honour Frank Easterbrook (a noted judge and legal commentator). So the corporation, although a person before the law, in the eyes of legislation and supposedly the judicial system, is not a person for the purposes of an investigation or prosecution by Police. The reasoning being that the corporation is an inanimate object; it has no soul to be damned and no body to kick 9. So, as related to Buckman, a consequence of this complexity is that the various Police forces generally do not have the expertise to investigate crime committed by corporate entities, those matters are referred to the Australian Securities & Investments Commission for investigation. The bank has learned a valuable lesson here; it is above & beyond the reach of the law and immune from investigation for criminal conduct.

The Regulators The average person has this spin doctor-generated utopian perception that the regulatory authorities are there to protect the public interest; to regulate matters of fair-trading, unconscionable conduct, monitor business practice and prosecute breach of law, particularly where there is a size difference between the parties. Wasnt that the impetus for the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the rationale for the creation of the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission and its predecessors? Hasnt unconscionable conduct become an integral focus of this legislation? And hasnt that been extended to ASIC by subsequent legislation to cover the financial system.

Frank H. Easterbrook and Daniel R. Fishel. Limited Liability and the Corporation. University of Chicago Law Review 52 (1985) 9 A statement by Edward Thurlow, Lord Chancellor of England in the eighteenth century.
Page 21 of 34

So how do these shining knights and protectors of the public interest view the conduct of the National Australia Bank in the Basstech case? Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority After years of correspondence on this matter with this august body, Ms Alice Mantel (Compliance & Governance) wrote on the 16th of November 2007 in response to my further complaint in writing of the 4th of October 2007 ref no 07/10703 and I quote: While APRA assesses fraud risk as part of its supervision framework, this is aimed at ensuring that the fraud detection and management systems are adequate for the scale and type of activity undertaken by the regulated entity. As part of this process, APRA takes into account the number and type of incident in forming a view on the adequacy of fraud risk management and, where relevant, the fitness and propriety of management, it is not the roll of a prudential regulator to resolve outcomes in individual cases. Hence, APRA is not able to assist you in investigating the conduct of the bank in taking the actions it did. These are matters it is able to undertake as an exercise of its commercial activities, but they are not unlawful or matters of prudential concern. What APRA has actually said here is that fraud by a bank against their customer is perfectly acceptable and part and parcel of normal corporate operations; what is unacceptable in the view of APRA is fraud should it succeed by anyone else against a bank. The safety and security of depositor funds or of customer assets are of no consequence to APRA, and that fraud by a bank against their customer is a commercial right of passage; it seems that ones bank account is merely a holding account for the banks future profit. One would reasonably think that the safety and security of depositor funds would be a principal focus of this regulatory authority. Australian Competition & Consumer Commission The abdication of responsibility by the ACCC is legendary. In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on the 30th of June 2004 Anne Lampe writes a lot of complaints expire because regulators dilly-dally enough to move them outside actionable time frames. This statement is borne out in correspondence between Buckman and this most venerable of institutions, the fierce defenders of the public interest. Academic Evan Jones, then Associate Professor of the Sydney University School of Economics and Political Science, has had much correspondence with the ACCC, among others, and has questioned on numerous occasions the Commissions commitment to the protection of small business. A letter to Commissioner John Martin on the 13th of January 2005 included his working paper ECOP2004-3 10, outlining a series of unconscionable conduct &/or fraud by the National Australia Bank against at least 8 documented clients.
10

Evan Jones, University of Sydney Faculty of Economics and Business ISBN 1 86487 629 8 ISSN 1446-3814
Page 22 of 34

He also includes references and court precedents. The ACCC responded through Mr Nigel Ridgway, General Manager Compliance Strategies, on the 8th of April 2005, who writes in respect of the Basstech case study and I quote: At issue here was who was culpable for the loss of the money; Basstech for hiring the fraudster, or the bank for lack of diligence when clearing cheques? If the bank was found to have been culpable then it is arguable that its subsequent actions may have been considered unfair tactics by the stronger party and fall under the provisions of 51AC. The determination of unconscionability by the bank is a threshold issue that relies on legislation other than the Trade Practices Act. Professor Jones was kind enough to make a copy of that letter available for Buckmans consideration. Buckman responded to Commissioner John Martin on the 23rd of May 2005 outlining anomalies & errors of fact contained in that letter. Mr Nigel Ridgway responded on the 15th of July noting the dates of previous correspondence with Buckman on this matter. He laments that, in the Commissions view, neither the Trade Practices Act nor the ACCC is able to provide a remedy for your circumstances. Buckman then sent a further submission to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission on the 17th of November 2005. Patrick Crouche Deputy Regional Director replied to that submission on the 1st of December 2005 and essentially restates the Commissions position i.e. not our problem go see someone else. He also said In this case, it would appear that any cause of action that you may have under the Act in respect of any contravention of section 51AC and or section 52 of the Act by the NAB arising from your allegations arose more than three years ago. As such even if the NAB contravened section 51AC or section 52 of the Act , it would appear that the ACCC would be statute barred from seeking damages on your behalf. This position was further entrenched in a letter from the ACCCs Mr Bob Weymouth and subsequent phone call arising from Buckmans letter to the ACCC of the 4th of October 2007; the point of Weymouths position was the three-year statute bar. With respect to the tenor of Anne Lampes article some three years earlier, not much has changed it seems dilly dally long enough and the ACCCs problem is solved. The convenient supposition that the ACCC are statute barred by reason of their three year time frame is totally rejected by Buckman as fraud is a very powerful crime & it has been said in support of many legal judgements in Supreme Court jurisdictions fraud viates everything 11, even judgements & orders of the court 12. Australian Securities & Investments Commission Correspondence between Buckman and ASIC has been just as prolific as that between Buckman and the other regulators. Submissions sent to one regulator were sent to the others.
11 12

Kerr on the law of fraud & mistake 1952 @ 6 National Australia Bank v Voloshin (NSW Supreme Court 2000), the judgement of Master Harrison
Page 23 of 34

The tussle with respect to jurisdiction between ASIC, APRA & the ACCC is both well practiced and supported by ASIC; it has been refined to a virtual art form. Its not a tussle where each regulator jealously defends its turf; rather it is one where they each deflect jurisdiction and responsibility to others and are quick to direct you to the Banking Ombudsman go see anyone but us. Of course the others likewise reject jurisdiction. So the round robin event continues until the complainant generally tires of it or runs out of funds, health, and stamina or will to pursue it further. As a consequence of Buckmans last correspondence with ASIC he had a face-to-face meeting with Mr Philip Laird and colleague on or about the 19th of November 2007. The focus of ASICs position was that the conduct of the bank, as highlighted above, is regrettable but not criminal. As such it is the province of the aggrieved party to take legal action. It was pointed out that as Buckman & partners are not the aggrieved party they are not entitled to take legal action, it is the company (Basstech) that must initiate such a process. Basstech being sent insolvent by the fraudulent bank conduct in dispute was deregistered and therefore does not have directors or funds to launch any such action. As Basstech is deregistered all rights and course of action now legally vest in ASIC. Both Mr Philip Laird and colleague agreed that there was an excellent case against the bank but in their view a civil case. Once again the fraudulent conduct by a wealthy & influential corporation is protected and defended by officialdom. The system is corrupt to its core. The bank has learned a valuable lesson here; it is the law.

The Banking Ombudsman Buckman first raised the issues with this esteemed body in person between the end of 1999 and mid 2000 at its Melbourne headquarters. The person who conducted the interview was courteous and very keen to espouse the Ombudsman role and capabilities. It came to pass that the Ombudsman was limited to cases where the disputed amounts were below $100,000 at that time. The amounts in the Basstech dispute were much larger, without issues of compensation for losses, health and well-being etc. being taken into account. So oh dear! We cannot help you, go see ASIC, APRA and the ACCC. Buckman on the 9th of July 2003 constructed a partial submission containing forged cheques totalling $44,527.15, well below the Ombudsmans $100,000 limit; he formally requested the him to investigate and cause the repatriation of those moneys. A subset of the Cheque evidence from the County Court trial was contained in a bound volume. The Ombudsman responded to that submission on the 6th of August 2003 noting that Basstech had been deregistered. He further advised, When a company is deregistered, all rights, including the right to bring a claim on behalf of that company vest in the Australian Securities & Investments Commission. We are not able to investigate a complaint from a former director. The full submission was returned to Buckman including the now unbound evidence; copies were obviously made and kept.

Page 24 of 34

The fact of the matter is that the Australian Banking Industry Ombudsman is a creation of and directly funded by the banking industry itself. It has no power to enforce or compel a bank to comply or take note of its findings should it indeed choose to investigate. Of course all parties have an interest in promoting the feel good public image that the banking industry has an effective code of conduct and that the Ombudsman is actually doing something effective; to that effect they do resolve some of the insignificant transactions or mistakes that occur from time to time with retail customers. Once issues go beyond that to the point of considerable liability on the part of a bank, the focus of the Australian Banking Industry Ombudsman is to extricate itself from the loop as speedily as possible. The ABIO becomes at that point nothing more than a sanitisation agent for the industry, deflecting the issues and concentrating on the glossy script.

Additional Avenues to justice Like most Australians, Buckman believed in the utopian ideal that the mechanisms of government were there to protect the integrity of the state and its people to create and protect the egalitarian nature and culture of a country much loved. The judicial systems are the ultimate line of defence of these concepts, of justice itself. Without justice we revert to a place of anarchy and the law of the jungle where power, wealth, and the gun reign supreme and replace principles of ethics, equity, honesty, integrity and indeed justice itself. The Australia Buckman thought we had was a truly unique place, far superior to third world countries, even first world countries like Europe with its cross ethnic hatreds, or the USA with its manic get out of my face attitude and gun culture. Indeed Buckman remembers when Police Officers in Australia patrolled their beats unarmed. Today though we see the community structures eroding and the emerging of US style street gangs defending their turf, carrying weapons for their self protection; of road rage & the like. This breakdown in the respect for the wellbeing and safety of others, the community and property Buckman believes is the logical result derived from the universal abdication by officialdom to manage and protect the lawful pursuit of just enterprise. Police try very hard to keep control of the streets and to a large degree they are successful but the trend continues. The citizens are confused and at times outraged by examples of seeming preferential treatment by enforcement officials, regulators and the judiciary particularly where wealth power and influence intervene. In the corporate arena there is but total abdication of responsibility by those charged with the protection of the public interest to such an extent that all avenues are denied to those ordinary folk who find themselves the victim of the unconscionable and criminal conduct of major corporations. Having exhausted the official process one must turn to the civil process for the remedy of grievances. Buckmans experience is as follows.

Page 25 of 34

Legal firms No win no fee Some legal firms such as Slater & Gordon run schemes such as this. There is a cost, however, and their fees (including risk) are the first deduction from any settlement; fair enough. The most common use of the scheme though seems to be in class actions and is occasionally successful. But class action firms have consistently steered clear of litigation against banks as being in the too hard basket. Law firms large and small are composed of people both good and bad. Some have viewed this case and considered that the Basstech issues show an excellent prima facie case against the NAB, but there are issues; issues take time to resolve and large sums of money. What right does Buckman have to expect any legal professional ethical and justice issues aside to put their lives on hold to fight this case with a miniscule chance of being paid? They have partners &/or wives, children, cats & dogs to support after all, and dont forget the budgie. Litigation is expensive and the odds stacked high against those in a position such as Buckman and his partners. To illustrate the problem one needs to look no further than the case Idoport Pty Ltd vs NAB & others 13. Idoport were developers of technical solutions to the banking industry; through that process they engaged in a commercial development arrangement with the NAB. That arrangement for whatever reason went sour with Idoport suing the NAB for substantial damages. The court case went for 222 court days in the NSW Supreme Court at an estimated cost of $70 million with the case being dismissed on the 29th of January 2002, Justice Einstein presiding. The ground upon which the case was dismissed was that Idoport ran out of money. In an article by Annabel Hepworth 14 she writes; The trial judge did say in one of his more than 50 interlocutory judgements that this case was difficult for the court's process to handle, and in practical terms that means if one has enough money, it can be hijacked; and further quotes ``It would appear that there is not much the process can presently do to avoid that." Furthermore Einstein is reported to have stated that It [Idoports evidence] just hasn't been heard, and the claim cannot be said to have failed. So the only rational conclusion one can make here is succinctly quoted in the same article It appears that sufficient money will bestow the privilege of not needing a defence" Mr Maconochie said a day after the NSW Supreme Court dismissed his $50 billion claim against the bank. I doubt that there is any person on earth with sufficient resources to mount a challenge in a Court, a place of justice, against a criminally minded corporation with the intent and financial means to enforce its will. Given the above it would be grossly unfair to be critical of the many fair minded and largely ethical members of the legal fraternity who take their oaths to justice with solemn reverence as a sworn duty, their dollar driven colleagues though are a different matter.
13 14

Idoport Pty Ltd vs National Australia Bank NSW Supreme Court [52] [2002] NSWSC 18 Australian Financial Review on the 31 January 2002 page 37
Page 26 of 34

State Fair trading commissions These entities in all instances, in Buckmans experience, direct all complaints to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission. The Public Interest Law Clearing House (PILCH) Buckman first contacted PILCH by phone in around 2004 with little success and that avenue was discarded. On the 20th of November 2007 Buckman, in an effort to force some action, visited the usual critters; the Australian Securities & Investments Commission and the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, with zero success. In extreme frustration he physically confronted the registry of the County Court Melbourne on the 21st of November 2007, demanding answers to two questions. He expected to be arrested but that was the least of his concerns. The answers demanded related to the following questions: 1. There are two parties cooperating in a fraud against another, one party (a natural person) is diligently investigated prosecuted and convicted in this place; yet how is it that the second party to the fraud, a wealthy influential and powerful corporation is immune from investigation and prosecution? Is the investigation and prosecution of an offender determined by their wealth power and influence?

2.

The registry office staff must be commended for their patience and understanding in the circumstances, Buckman must have appeared exceptionally aggressive, he was firm but polite. Security was not called, the registry manager went out of his way to explain the position of the court and try to find an acceptable path of resolution, hence my referral to PILCH a second time. PILCH are not normally a walk in service they conduct most of their business over the phone or by mail. This time, however, they made an exception for which Buckman is immensely grateful. The staff and duty solicitor were very accommodating and professional; they wanted specific answers to specific questions. I was not allowed to deviate from the line of inquiry that they set, we ask the question you answer it. I left limited copies of the evidence as requested and they promised to try and find a counsel willing to give an opinion. On his return home Buckman wrote an email to Associate Professor Jones as a courtesy, owing to Joness assistance and continuing research into small business banking matters; Buckman related the events of days previous. Jones response was simply one sentence, have you looked at their web site? he said no more. PILCH is set up as a not-for-profit organisation that extends legal services to those who do not have the funds or cannot access those services for a variety of reasons a noble and commendable concept. The staff, and in particular Mr Michael McKiterick, afforded Buckman respect and courtesy; and Buckman firmly believes that they went beyond the

Page 27 of 34

limits of what they could have reasonably declined to do. The matter is not a personal matter but commercial yet they were moved to at least gain a barristers opinion. In the mean time and with Jones comments in mind Buckman duly logged onto the PILCH web site 15. There are listed a membership list of twenty nine Law Firms; of those at least eleven are either on retainer to the NAB or have represented them in legal matters. The National Australia Bank legal services group are listed as major contributors to their efforts. One then turns their attention to the directors of PILCH. Of the sixteen directors six represent law firms on retainer to the National Australia Bank; a seventh, David Milton Krasnostein (President) has been a long time senior counsel to the National Australia Bank. Notwithstanding that Buckman is grateful to the staff of PILCH for the assistance and legal opinion that they in fact delivered, can anyone believe that a group of directors such as installed would provide a potential litigant against the National Australia Bank with any substantive form of legal assistance? Legal Aid Legal aid is a scheme principally designed to assist the disadvantaged natural person where they require legal assistance. Whilst Buckman and partners are certainly disadvantaged, the fundamental issue is essentially a corporate matter. Consequently legal aid has been declined; in fact Buckman was advised by legal aid not to waste his time applying. The bank has learned another valuable lesson here; it is not just above & beyond the reach of the law, it owns the law.

The system at work The Australian perception of justice is premised on the belief that the law enforcement and regulatory framework actually do their job of monitoring, investigating and in particular, prosecuting offenders without fear & favour. That they uphold the public interest and the national values of fair play, ethics, equity and the rights of others. As a nation this concept goes to the core of our being; it has underpinned everything we as a nation have done; be it in the field of sport, entertainment, business & commerce or conflict. Indeed everyone who goes offshore to represent this country does so principally to foster honest competition & hopefully peace and tranquillity between peoples. So how is it possible for the events that befell Basstech and partners to occur then continue their existence for close on ten years without just resolution, despite ample legal precedent? It has occurred, one offender has been imprisoned for his part in this fraud; so how does the system work?

15

http://www.pilch.org.au/html/s01_home/home.asp?dsb=22
Page 28 of 34

In fact it has happened again. A mirror image of Basstech was reported in the Melbourne Herald Sun 16 by Elissa Hunt; in short good people hire accountant, accountant steals cheques, accountant forges signatures on cheques, and bank clears cheques. The victim of this fraud was Barrie and Margaret Griffiths of Seymour, Victoria. The Griffiths reportedly won their civil case. It took a Supreme Court action to force the National Australia Bank to return the customers moneys, moneys that the bank had no legal title or right to remove let alone retain another clear case of fraud. If Buckmans problem were simple it would not be an issue today; it would have been resolved long ago. The problem is not one specific issue but an amalgam of influences including lax regulation, a severe lack of enforcement of proper fiscal standards, incompetence and neglect that converge to enable theft and fraud by major corporations to thrive unchecked, particularly where the corporation has the determination to enforce their right to act as they please, criminally or otherwise. Why do these major corporations engage in this behaviour? Well, the answer is, who is going to stop them? The regulators in Australia loudly trumpet their successes, but who are they largely successful against? Invariably it is those corporations that have lost their capacity to adequately defend themselves. Generally they are well after the event with the companies in the throws of insolvency &/or with receivers appointed as in the Pyramid Building Society, One-tel, HIH, and includes the recent crop of 2008 luminaries in Chartwell Enterprises and Opes Prime that bear the weight of regulatory investigation and prosecution; whilst there are some exceptions, the corporations successfully investigated and prosecuted (well after the event) are generally bankrupt. Buckman read with interest an article in the Business Daily 17 Fuming on Opes; Mike Smith CEO of the ANZ bank lamenting & he said Should ANZ have been in this business? Obviously not. George Lekakis wrote further Mr Smiths admission that entering the deals under which stockbrokers put up their clients shares to the bank as collateral for credit to the brokers had been a strategic mistake, came only hours before ANZ agreed to invest in another troubled broker, Chimaera Financial Group. To quote further, the ANZ boards risk management committee had never discussed the perils of securities lending. This sort of lending is so far below the radar of the board. Notice though that ANZ on the one hand can admit to incompetence in its risk management of this sector, stating that the bank should never have been in it, then some hours later reportedly pumped $55 million dollars into another similar group. In the meantime, ignoring the potential for liability for its own conduct, the bank felt no ethical or moral pangs as it took possession of and sold off the lifes savings of the unwitting clients of Opes Prime for the sole benefit of the bank. The bank even refused pleas to enable some of the unwitting clients to payout their facilities more profit and fun to be had by financially destroying people. Banks of course will defend their right to destroy anyone financially if it is in the banks interest especially where the bank owes that person a duty of care or there is the potential for liability on the part of the bank. Question: where were the regulators, what were they monitoring and regulating these past years? Financial disasters such as those noted above do not just happen by accident, & lets not mention the global credit crises spewing forth upon the world from the US banking system presently.

16

Melbourne Herald Sun, Monday the 24th of January 2005, page 25 $3.2m siphoned off. 17 Melbourne Herald Sun, Thursday April 24th 2008 page 71 author: George Lekakis
Page 29 of 34

The denial of justice to a victim of fraud So what creates the environment, what nourishes and fertilises the ground where the conduct of enterprises such as these takes root? Just as there are a multitude of factors that cause a rose to flourish, there are multiple factors that enable unconscionable and criminal conduct to thrive in the corporate world. Some of these factors are listed below and are by no means definitive: 1. The fervent belief by corporate officers that they cannot do anything wrong or hold liability whether by mistake or design from the consequences of their actions. The religious devotion to the mantra that a corporation is an inanimate object and as such cannot possibly possess a moral compass; officers of the company have no other legal or moral obligation to anything or anyone other than the self-interest of their company. 2. The view of the various state and Federal Police forces, as related to Buckman by serving officers, is that a corporation cannot be charged with an offence such as fraud; a corporation cannot act only people can act therefore criminal charges must be levelled against a natural person not a corporation. The confused role of the regulators; they are there to monitor, regulate, educate, and foster confidence in the financial system. The apparent consequence of these conflicting roles is total confusion over what it is in fact they are required to do. Yes they do monitor and even prosecute at times, but only when the entity has no capacity to defend itself or they the regulators themselves are under threat and/or public pressure to do something, or more the point, be seen to do something. The considerable funds required to obtain a legal opinion, let alone the sums required to launch legal proceedings as in the Idoport case are prohibitive. The privileged position that a bank occupies within the national financial system; it is a position of absolute power, influence and wealth. The banks are the foundation stone of any national and international financial system. The reluctance of the judicial system to contemplate that such an influential industry is capable of behaving criminally, bestowing an almost reverential and saintly status upon banking officials. A bankers word is generally received by the judicial system as statements of fact requiring little or no corroborating evidence. The almost universal perception that everyone that falls victim to financial impropriety must have been complicit or acted in a stupid fashion and, as a consequence, they deserve their fate. Bankers after all are diligent, prudent and honest professional people.Arent they?

3.

4. 5.

6.

7.

How the system works against the natural person the victim The average small businesspersons such as the partners involved in Basstech have crucial relationships both personal and business. Personal relationships aside, the most crucial of the business relationships are those with your bankers, creditors and

Page 30 of 34

your customer. Without your customer you have no business; without your creditor, you have nothing &/or no capacity to sell, your banker however is strategically the most important business relationship that any small businessperson can have. It is the fundamental cement that underpins the financial security of the enterprise, both in terms of the safety and security of financial transactions as well as the ongoing funding of the business. When a bank finds itself in a position of liability to a customer, as in the Basstech case, that customer is universally bankrupted. It is irrelevant as to whether the customer is a natural person or an incorporated business (a company). The bank for the following reasons engineers the process for its own protection, and this is how the system works against the customer the average citizen. Basstech & its owners/ operators is used as a prime example: 1. In most instances the financial backing for that small business is a registered debenture over the assets of the business and a mortgage over the assets of its owners and directors and in particular, the family home. 2. Once a bank finds itself with a potential liability to their customer those customers find themselves in an insolvent position very quickly. 3. The bank will withhold from the customer all knowledge & all information in their possession regarding the conduct of relevant parties to the underlying transactions. In the Basstech case the bank withheld their knowledge of their detection of forged cheques, the legal fact that a bank cannot debit their customers account on the basis of forged signatures did not enter the equation. You, the customer, have to try and discover what the bank knows well after the event at great expense to you both in time & money. 4. The process commences in a way that seems incomprehensible to the customer, decisions are made by the bank that have the effect of costing you substantial sums of money, despite more effective options being available. In fact the process is designed to maximise your losses. They will renege on previous and recent agreements and promises. In cases where the customer has found buyers for their business at a reasonable price, the bank will intervene and scuttle that sale; only to sell it at a later time at a substantial discount. 5. In the case of a company a Receiver & Manager is appointed. Once that occurs he/she is in direct control of that company. The owner of that business no long has any input authority or control over decisions made by the receiver and manger. The judicial perspective is that the Receiver & Manager is considered the agent of the company, in Buckmans view he is the sole trustee of the company; however the operational reality is far removed from the sanitized perception of the judicial system. The reality is that the Receiver & Manager acts as the agent and servant of the bank protected by an indemnity from that bank. 6. Once the bank has decided to liquidate it will do so in extreme haste. In the Basstech case, it took five working weeks from the time the Receiver & Manager was appointed to the signing of the contracts of sale by him on a $1.6m business. On the other hand it can take considerable Police time to uncover and prove the real events and circumstances behind any insolvency
Page 31 of 34

and bring matters before a court, in Basstechs case in excess of 24 months. By that time the owners' business & assets were liquidated, this is a common result. 7. In order to protect themselves against liability to their customer the bank pursues the customer to bankruptcy, regardless of the rights or wrongs of said customers position or the liability of the bank. In respect to legal recourse the customer now finds that he has no access due to the fact that legal recourse must be paid for; the customer has no money so who will pay the bill? 8. Oh yes, the legal view is that you the owner and director of the company have lost nothing. It is the company that has lost everything. So what are you bellyaching about? 9. As a bankrupt, the customer/s are banned people in terms of acting for or operating a company, they also have no control over their own personal finances or life decisions. Those rights now vest in the Bankruptcy Trustee in Buckmans case the ITSA 18. 10. Once bankrupt, any and all current or planned litigation is cancelled forthwith. You do not have the right to initiate the action nor do you have the funds. Should you have any funds remaining the Trustee will confiscate them for distribution to your creditors. 11. The bankruptcy trustee is not there to protect the interests of the bankrupt. They are there solely to protect the interests of the bankrupts creditors in Buckman and Basstechs case that was principally the National Australia Bank. 12. The bankruptcy trustee will not pursue any legal investigation or legal action unless the creditors agree to fund such an action. It is not difficult to believe that a bank will decline an invitation to fund any investigation into their own criminal conduct. So, the Police forces are loathe to investigate fraud by a corporation and instead refer those matters to ASIC to investigate; the regulators ASIC, APRA & the ACCC refuse to accept jurisdiction for what-ever reason. Civil proceedings are beyond the reach of the bankrupt and now vest in a Trustee bound to protect the interests of those who have defrauded you. The bank then are therefore free to concentrate upon their next victim, free in the knowledge that in this case their financial, legal and ethical liabilities to their customer are protected, albeit by conspiracy and fraud defended and sanitized by the inaction of the very regulators and agencies charged with the mandate to protect the public interest and those of the banks customers. The safety & security of depositors funds is surely in the public interest? All in all a rather sweet little arrangement dont you think?

18

Insolvency Trustee Service of Australia, part of the Attorney Generals department of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Page 32 of 34

Conclusion Legal precedent has been discussed earlier in this treatise. Surely it is reasonable to expect that a regulatory authority and/or officialdom in general would know the law and be cognisant of legal precedent as it applies to an entity over which they have regulatory and/or investigative jurisdiction and responsibility. Surely they are bound to uphold the public good and the safety and security of depositors funds. Surely the issue of equity and justice are more than just a fly spot on their window. The access to legal recourse must in legitimate terms be taken through the established corridors. It is a gentlemanly game where good chaps engage counsel to perform on that playing field of equity and justice; the problem is that the entry cost to the ordinary citizen, let alone a bankrupt citizen, is well beyond the capacity &/or means of those citizens when confronting issues such as Basstech; as Hepworth reports, in practical terms that means if one has enough money, it [justice] can be hijacked. Conversely, if one has no money or financial means, people such as Buckman, then justice is certainly denied. In the book The Corporation 19 Joel Bakan writes and quote, For a corporation, compliance with the law, like everything else, is a matter of costs and benefits. Quoting Robert Monks 20 Again and again in America we have the problem that whether [corporations] obey the law or not is a matter of whether its cost effective,If the chance of getting caught and the penalty are less than it costs to comply, our people think of it as just another business decision.Executives when deciding whether to comply with or break a law, behave rationally and make cost effective decisions says Monks, which means they ask, Whats the penalty, whats the probability of being caught, how much does that add up to, and how much does it cost to comply and which one is bigger? According to law professor Bruce Welling 21 if a corporation is convicted and fined in a court of law it is of little consequence, he states the logic this way. The practical business view is that a fine is an additional cost of doing business. A prohibited activity is not inhibited by the threat of a fine so long as the anticipated profits from the activity outweigh the amount of the fine multiplied by the probability of being apprehended and convicted. Considering the amount of the average fine, deterrence is improbable in most cases. The argument is even more obvious regarding prevention and recidivism. The corporation, once convicted and fined, will simply have learned how to cover its tracks better. The current status of those doors to justice in Basstechs case: State & Federal Police: cannot or are reluctant to charge a corporation with fraud & therefore will not investigate. Status: The door to justice Closed Legal profession: The process is horrendously expensive. The contrast in financial capacity is stark, a person on an annual salary even $60,000 per annum versus a corporation with an annual reported after tax profit of greater than $4 billion.

19 20

The Corporation ISBN 1-84529-179-8 page 79 See Biography - Robert Monks 21 See Biography - Bruce Welling referenced in The Corporation page 80
Page 33 of 34

Status: The door to justice Closed Legal Aid: funded by the public purse & designed to assist the under privileged in personal matters before a court is neither appropriate nor available for commercial matters. Status: The door to justice Closed The regulators ASIC, APRA and the ACCC copies of 9 years of correspondence available total abdication of responsibility - what more can one say. Status: The door to justice barricaded and welded shut with boiling oil waiting in the parapets above. Court Jurisdictions various: Status: Access Denied, the door to justice Removed It is clear from legislation that there is an implicit requirement for a corporation and its officers and managers to obey the law all laws of the jurisdiction in exactly the same way as you and I, the natural person, are required to obey the law. It is also said by those of position within the ranks of the law enforcement agencies that there is no one above the law. Given the real world examples of law enforcement and regulatory behaviour, that statement should be re-written as no one is above the law except for a corporation of power, immense wealth and influence with the intent of behaving criminally for its own self-interest. It is apparent that justice in Australia is merely a product distributed by the judicial system to those who can pay the price. Should you lack money and influence then be both prepared and pleased to accept that you are but cannon fodder to the profit of the corporate entity. Fraud at this level cannot live without the collusion, co-operation and /or protection of the investigative, regulatory, legal and judicial systems of this country. It is Buckmans belief that he has exhausted all reasonable causes of action and paid due respect to the agencies of the state and the justice system itself and been duly betrayed by that justice system. At the end of the day someone in officialdom will explain why a wealthy, influential and powerful corporation is entitled to defraud their customer as a right of passage; yet the natural person is not? Author

Paul Alan Buckman Finalised on the 25th of October 2008.

Page 34 of 34

Paul Buckman P.O. Box 120 Tinamba Vic. 3859

Mobile: 0417 451 406 Home: 03 5145 1406 Email: paul.buckman@bigpond.com

30th of November 2008.

The Honourable Mr Kevin Rudd Prime Minister of Australia Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Dear Sir, I beg your indulgence to please consider this submission, its impact and ramifications. To introduce myself, I am one of those victims of crime as perpetrated by the banking industry against their customer. I know this document and attachments will be to a broad spectrum of officialdom unwelcome, however they are formally presented and once again I beg you consideration In the attachment there is a challenge and again I beg your participation, please note that I have taken the liberty of forging your signature; should you take offence then I guess you will deal with it. You may however choose to consider the evidence and act on that evidence. Should you wish I would be pleased to appear before your committee & give a presentation based on this attachment and evidence proven before a criminal jurisdiction in the state of Victoria, ie the County Court Melbourne. I have though no expectation that a mere citizen has a right to be heard in such matters, to be heard would be very inconvenient to officialdom I am sure. I have these past ten years attempted firstly to resolve these matters directly with the National Australia Bank to no avail who is going to make them address the issues? Secondly, I have tried very hard to encourage the regulators, ASIC APRA & the ACCC to investigate and prosecute clear issues of fraud to no avail despite the banks conduct contravening established law and long standing legal precedent, the banks conduct does constitute fraud. As a consequence it appears to me that justice through the established channels is denied to the ordinary citizen. Understand Sir that at the end of the day, someone somewhere in officialdom will explain to me logically why two persons before the law can engage in fraud against a third party, one of those persons (a natural person the easy target) is diligently investigated, charged, prosecuted & convicted; yet the second party is immune from investigation let alone prosecution. It does appear to me that the wealth, power & influence of the National Australia Bank is sufficient to deliver to them immunity from investigation and prosecution. In other words they own the law and that fact reinforces the banks view that they may act as they please with impunity.

I respectfully await your consideration. Yours faithfully

Paul Buckman

National Australasian Bank of Fraud

Sometown in Australia

Pay

CASH

Not Negotiable

500.00

The Sum of: Five

Hundred Dollars only

Your name is often printed here

Your Cheque number BSB Account Number

Signature forged and sent to addressee

Paul Buckman P.O. Box 120 Tinamba Vic. 3859

Mobile: 0417 451 406 Home: 03 5145 1406 Email: paul.buckman@bigpond.com

30th of November 2008.

Ms Julia Gillard Deputy Prime Minister Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Dear Ms Gillard, I understand that you are by profession a Barrister that is, a sworn officer of the Justice system. I beg your indulgence to please consider this submission, its impact and ramifications. To introduce myself, I am one of those victims of crime as perpetrated by the banking industry against their customer. I know this document and attachments will be to a broad spectrum of officialdom unwelcome, however they are formally presented and once again I beg you consideration In the attachment there is a challenge and again I beg your participation, please note that I have taken the liberty of forging your signature; should you take offence then I guess you will deal with it. You may however choose to consider the evidence and act on that evidence. Should you wish I would be pleased to appear before your committee & give a presentation based on this attachment and evidence proven before a criminal jurisdiction in the state of Victoria, ie the County Court Melbourne. I have though no expectation that a mere citizen has a right to be heard in such matters, to be heard would be very inconvenient to officialdom I am sure. I have these past ten years attempted firstly to resolve these matters directly with the National Australia Bank to no avail who is going to make them address the issues? Secondly, I have tried very hard to encourage the regulators, ASIC APRA & the ACCC to investigate and prosecute clear issues of fraud to no avail despite the banks conduct contravening established law and long standing legal precedent, the banks conduct does constitute fraud. As a consequence it appears to me that justice through the established channels is denied to the ordinary citizen. Understand Ms Gillard that at the end of the day, someone somewhere in officialdom will explain to me logically why two persons before the law can engage in fraud against a third party, one of those persons (a natural person the easy target) is diligently investigated, charged, prosecuted & convicted; yet the second party is immune from investigation let alone prosecution. It does appear to me that the wealth, power & influence of the National Australia Bank is sufficient to deliver to them immunity from investigation and prosecution. In other words they own the law and that fact reinforces the banks view that they may act as they please with impunity.

I respectfully await your consideration. Yours faithfully

Paul Buckman

National Australasian Bank of Fraud

Sometown in Australia

Pay

CASH

Not Negotiable

500.00

The Sum of: Five

Hundred Dollars only

Your name is often printed here

Your Cheque number BSB Account Number

Signature forged and sent to addressee

Paul Buckman P.O. Box 120 Tinamba Vic. 3859

Mobile: 0417 451 406 Home: 03 5145 1406 Email: paul.buckman@bigpond.com

30th of November 2008.

Mr Philip Laird Australian Securities & Investments Commission 120 Collins Street Melbourne Vic. 3000 Dear Philip, To reintroduce myself, I am one of those victims of crime as perpetrated by the banking industry against their customer. I know this document and attachments will be to a broad spectrum of officialdom unwelcome, however they are formally presented and as you have consistently over many years chosen to protect the banks right to defraud their customer, no action by you is expected. In the attachment there is a challenge and again I beg your participation, please note that I have taken the liberty of forging your signature; should you take offence then I guess you will deal with it. You may however choose to consider the evidence and act on that evidence. Should you wish I would be pleased to appear before your committee & give a presentation based on this attachment and evidence proven before a criminal jurisdiction in the state of Victoria, ie the County Court Melbourne. I have though no expectation that a mere citizen has a right to be heard in such matters, to be heard would be very inconvenient to officialdom I am sure. I have these past ten years attempted firstly to resolve these matters directly with the National Australia Bank to no avail who is going to make them address the issues? Secondly, I have tried very hard to encourage the regulators, ASIC APRA & the ACCC to investigate and prosecute clear issues of fraud to no avail despite the banks conduct contravening established law and long standing legal precedent, the banks conduct does constitute fraud. As a consequence it appears to me that justice through the established channels is denied to the ordinary citizen. Understand Philip that at the end of the day, someone somewhere in officialdom will explain to me logically why two persons before the law can engage in fraud against a third party, one of those persons (a natural person the easy target) is diligently investigated, charged, prosecuted & convicted; yet the second party is immune from investigation let alone prosecution. It does appear to me that the wealth, power & influence of the National Australia Bank is sufficient to deliver to them immunity from investigation and prosecution. In other words they own the law and that fact reinforces the banks view that they may act as they please with impunity.

I respectfully await your consideration. Yours faithfully

Paul Buckman

National Australasian Bank of Fraud

Sometown in Australia

Pay

CASH

Not Negotiable

500.00

The Sum of: Five

Hundred Dollars only

Your name is often printed here

Your Cheque number BSB Account Number

Signature forged and sent to addressee

Paul Buckman P.O. Box 120 Tinamba Vic. 3859

Mobile: 0417 451 406 Home: 03 5145 1406 Email: paul.buckman@bigpond.com

30th of November 2008.

Mr Tony DAloisio Australian Securities & Investments Commission 120 Collins Street Melbourne Vic. 3000 Dear Sir, To reintroduce myself, I am one of those victims of crime as perpetrated by the banking industry against their customer. I know this document and attachments will be to a broad spectrum of officialdom unwelcome, however they are formally presented and as you have consistently over many years chosen to protect the banks right to defraud their customer, no action by you is expected. In the attachment there is a challenge and again I beg your participation, please note that I have taken the liberty of forging your signature; should you take offence then I guess you will deal with it. You may however choose to consider the evidence and act on that evidence. Should you wish I would be pleased to appear before your committee & give a presentation based on this attachment and evidence proven before a criminal jurisdiction in the state of Victoria, ie the County Court Melbourne. I have though no expectation that a mere citizen has a right to be heard in such matters, to be heard would be very inconvenient to officialdom I am sure. I have these past ten years attempted firstly to resolve these matters directly with the National Australia Bank to no avail who is going to make them address the issues? Secondly, I have tried very hard to encourage the regulators, ASIC APRA & the ACCC to investigate and prosecute clear issues of fraud to no avail despite the banks conduct contravening established law and long standing legal precedent, the banks conduct does constitute fraud. As a consequence it appears to me that justice through the established channels is denied to the ordinary citizen. Understand Tony that at the end of the day, someone somewhere in officialdom will explain to me logically why two persons before the law can engage in fraud against a third party, one of those persons (a natural person the easy target) is diligently investigated, charged, prosecuted & convicted; yet the second party is immune from investigation let alone prosecution. It does appear to me that the wealth, power & influence of the National Australia Bank is sufficient to deliver to them immunity from investigation and prosecution. In other words they own the law and that fact and reinforces the banks view that they may act as they please with impunity.

I respectfully await your consideration. Yours faithfully

Paul Buckman

National Australasian Bank of Fraud

Sometown in Australia

Pay

CASH

Not Negotiable

500.00

The Sum of: Five

Hundred Dollars only

Your name is often printed here

Your Cheque number BSB Account Number

Signature forged and sent to addressee

Paul Buckman P.O. Box 120 Tinamba Vic. 3859

Mobile: 0417 451 406 Home: 03 5145 1406 Email: paul.buckman@bigpond.com

30th of November 2008.

Mr Keith Chapman Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority GPO Box 9836 Sydney NSW 2001

Dear Sir, To reintroduce myself, I am one of those victims of crime as perpetrated by the banking industry against their customer. I know this document and attachments will be to a broad spectrum of officialdom unwelcome, however they are formally presented and as you have consistently over many years chosen to protect the banks right to defraud their customer, no action by you is expected. In the attachment there is a challenge and again I beg your participation, please note that I have taken the liberty of forging your signature; should you take offence then I guess you will deal with it. You may however choose to consider the evidence and act on that evidence. Should you wish I would be pleased to appear before your committee & give a presentation based on this attachment and evidence proven before a criminal jurisdiction in the state of Victoria, ie the County Court Melbourne. I have though no expectation that a mere citizen has a right to be heard in such matters, to be heard would be very inconvenient to officialdom I am sure. I have these past ten years attempted firstly to resolve these matters directly with the National Australia Bank to no avail who is going to make them address the issues? Secondly, I have tried very hard to encourage the regulators, ASIC APRA & the ACCC to investigate and prosecute clear issues of fraud to no avail despite the banks conduct contravening established law and long standing legal precedent, the banks conduct does constitute fraud. As a consequence it appears to me that justice through the established channels is denied to the ordinary citizen. Understand Keith that at the end of the day, someone somewhere in officialdom will explain to me logically why two persons before the law can engage in fraud against a third party, one of those persons (a natural person the easy target) is diligently investigated, charged, prosecuted & convicted; yet the second party is immune from investigation let alone prosecution. It does appear to me that the wealth, power & influence of the National Australia Bank is sufficient to deliver to them immunity from investigation and prosecution. In other words they own the law and that fact reinforces the banks view that they may act as they please with impunity.

I respectfully await your consideration. Yours faithfully

Paul Buckman

National Australasian Bank of Fraud

Sometown in Australia

Pay

CASH

Not Negotiable

500.00

The Sum of: Five

Hundred Dollars only

Your name is often printed here

Your Cheque number BSB Account Number

Signature forged and sent to addressee

Paul Buckman P.O. Box 120 Tinamba Vic. 3859

Mobile: 0417 451 406 Home: 03 5145 1406 Email: paul.buckman@bigpond.com

30th of November 2008.

Commissioner John Martin Australian Competition & Consumer Commission P.O. Box 1199 Dixon ACT 2602

Dear John, To reintroduce myself, I am one of those victims of crime as perpetrated by the banking industry against their customer. I know this document and attachments will be to a broad spectrum of officialdom unwelcome, however they are formally presented and once again I beg you consideration In the attachment there is a challenge and again I beg your participation, please note that I have taken the liberty of forging your signature; should you take offence then I guess you will deal with it. You may however choose to consider the evidence and act on that evidence. Should you wish I would be pleased to appear before your committee & give a presentation based on this attachment and evidence proven before a criminal jurisdiction in the state of Victoria, ie the County Court Melbourne. I have though no expectation that a mere citizen has a right to be heard in such matters, to be heard would be very inconvenient to officialdom I am sure. I have these past ten years attempted firstly to resolve these matters directly with the National Australia Bank to no avail who is going to make them address the issues? Secondly, I have tried very hard to encourage the regulators, ASIC APRA & the ACCC to investigate and prosecute clear issues of fraud to no avail despite the banks conduct contravening established law and long standing legal precedent, the banks conduct does constitute fraud. As a consequence it appears to me that justice through the established channels is denied to the ordinary citizen. Understand John that at the end of the day, someone somewhere in officialdom will explain to me logically why two persons before the law can engage in fraud against a third party, one of those persons (a natural person the easy target) is diligently investigated, charged, prosecuted & convicted; yet the second party is immune from investigation let alone prosecution. It does appear to me that the wealth, power & influence of the National Australia Bank is sufficient to deliver to them immunity from investigation and prosecution. In other words they own the law and that fact reinforces the banks view that they may act as they please with impunity.

I respectfully await your consideration. Yours faithfully

Paul Buckman

National Australasian Bank of Fraud

Sometown in Australia

Pay

CASH

Not Negotiable

500.00

The Sum of: Five

Hundred Dollars only

Your name is often printed here

Your Cheque number BSB Account Number

Signature forged and sent to addressee

Paul Buckman P.O. Box 120 Tinamba Vic. 3859

Mobile: 0417 451 406 Home: 03 5145 1406 Email: paul.buckman@bigpond.com

30th of November 2008.

Ms Christine Nixon Chief Commissioner of Police Victoria Police Centre 637 Flinders Street Melbourne, VIC, 3005 Dear Ms Nixon, To introduce myself, I am one of those victims of crime as perpetrated by the banking industry against their customer. I know this document and attachments will be unwelcome however they are formally presented and I demand answers in respect to the issues raised within the attachment. Am I negative, sarcastic and/ or acting above my station, well others may judge that; I am however a realist & can only view these events from the ten-year perspective of the co-operation & sanitisation of bank fraud by those charged with the responsibility of regulating these industries and protecting the public interest. In the attachment there is a challenge and I beg your participation, please note that I have taken the liberty of forging your signature; should you take offence then I am sure that you have ample capacity to deal with it. You may however choose to consider the evidence and act on that evidence. Should you wish I would be pleased to appear before your committee & give a presentation based on this attachment and evidence proven before a criminal jurisdiction in the state of Victoria, ie the County Court Melbourne. I have though no expectation that a mere citizen has a right to be heard in such matters, to be heard would be very inconvenient I am sure. I have these past ten years attempted firstly to resolve these matters directly with the National Australia Bank to no avail who is going to make them address the issues? Secondly, I have tried very hard to encourage the regulators, ASIC APRA & the ACCC to investigate and prosecute the issues to no avail despite the banks conduct contravening established law and long standing legal precedent, the banks conduct does constitute fraud. As a consequence it appears to me that justice through the established channels is denied to the ordinary citizen. Understand Chief Commissioner that at the end of the day, someone somewhere in officialdom will explain to me logically why two persons before the law can engage in fraud against a third party, one of those persons (a natural person the easy target) is diligently investigated, charged, prosecuted & convicted; yet the second party is immune from investigation let alone prosecution. It does appear to me that the wealth, power & influence of the National Australia Bank is sufficient to

deliver to them immunity from investigation and prosecution. In other words they own the law. The architect of this fraud was Brendan James Harty, he was diligently investigated and prosecuted by a member of the Victoria Police at Bairnsdale, Det Snr Const Sharp. I am indebted to him for his diligence, professionalism and understanding through some trying circumstances and I have no issue with his part in the enforcement process. What I do take issue with is the fact that the end result of the banks conduct constitutes fraud yet all investigators and regulators refuse to acknowledge that fact which thereby reinforces the banks view that they may act as they please with impunity.

I eagerly await your consideration. Yours faithfully

Paul Buckman

National Australasian Bank of Fraud

Sometown in Australia

Pay

CASH

Not Negotiable

500.00

The Sum of: Five

Hundred Dollars only

Your name is often printed here

Your Cheque number BSB Account Number

Signature forged and sent to addressee

Paul Buckman P.O. Box 120 Tinamba Vic. 3859

Mobile: 0417 451 406 Home: 03 5145 1406 Email: paul.buckman@bigpond.com

30th of November 2008.

Mr Michael McKiterick Victorian Bar Legal Assistance Scheme P.O. Box 13121 Law Courts Melbourne 8010 Dear Sir, Thankyou for your consideration and assistance arising from my last contact in February 2008, your efforts however limited were very welcome indeed. Alas the end result remains that the wealthy, powerful and influential corporation, that is the National Australia Bank, is considered by the regulatory & legal fraternity to be legally entitled to defraud their customer. If that were not so then the conduct complained of here would not be permitted to stand. The attachment is sent to you as a courtesy as you are mentioned in it. Am I negative & sarcastic, well others may judge that; I am however a realist & can only view these events from the ten-year perspective of the co-operation & sanitisation of bank fraud by those charged with the responsibility of regulating these industries and protecting the public interest. In the attachment there is a challenge and I beg your participation, please note that I have taken the liberty of forging your signature; should you take offence then deal with it legally or otherwise. You may however choose to consider the evidence and act on that evidence. Should you wish I would be pleased to appear before your committee & give a presentation based on this attachment and evidence proven before a criminal jurisdiction in the state of Victoria, ie the County Court Melbourne. I have though no expectation that a mere citizen has a right to be heard in such matters, to be heard would be very inconvenient I am sure. I have these past ten years attempted firstly to resolve these matters directly with the National Australia Bank to no avail who is going to make them address the issues? Secondly, I have tried very hard to encourage the regulators, ASIC APRA & the ACCC to investigate and prosecute the issues to no avail despite the banks conduct contravening established law and long standing legal precedent, the banks conduct does constitute fraud. As a consequence it appears to me that justice through the established channels is denied to the ordinary citizen. Understand sir that at the end of the day, someone somewhere in officialdom will explain to me logically why two persons before the law can engage in fraud against a third party, one of those persons (a natural person the easy target) is diligently investigated, charged, prosecuted & convicted; yet the second party

is immune from investigation let alone prosecution. It does appear to me that the wealth, power & influence of the National Australia Bank is sufficient to deliver to them immunity from investigation and prosecution. In other words they own the law.

I eagerly await your consideration. Yours faithfully

Paul Buckman

National Australasian Bank of Fraud

Sometown in Australia

Pay

CASH

Not Negotiable

500.00

The Sum of: Five

Hundred Dollars only

Your name is often printed here

Your Cheque number BSB Account Number

Signature forged and sent to addressee

Paul Buckman P.O. Box 120 Tinamba Vic. 3859

Mobile: 0417 451 406 Home: 03 5145 1406 Email: paul.buckman@bigpond.com

30th of November 2008.

Mr David Milton Krasnostein President Victorian Bar Council P.O. Box 13121 Law Courts Melbourne 8010 Dear Sir, To introduce myself, I am one of those victims of crime as perpetrated by the banking industry against their customer. I know this document and attachments will be unwelcome however they are formally presented to you in both your capacities as president of the Victorian Bar Council and senior council to the National Australia Bank and I demand answers in respect to the issues raised within the attachment. I contacted PILCH in February 2008 and their efforts however limited were very welcome indeed. Alas the end result remains that the wealthy, powerful and influential corporation, that is the National Australia Bank, is considered by the regulatory & legal fraternity to be legally entitled to defraud their customer. If that were not so then the conduct complained of here would not be permitted to stand. Am I negative & sarcastic, well others may judge that; I am however a realist & can only view these events from the ten-year perspective of the co-operation & sanitisation of bank fraud by those charged with the responsibility of regulating these industries and protecting the public interest. You as I understand it are a sworn officer of the court, that is a sworn officer of the justice system; how is it that you actively protect and defend fraud as committed by your client? In the attachment there is a challenge and I beg your participation, please note that I have taken the liberty of forging your signature; should you take offence then deal with it legally or otherwise. You may however choose to consider the evidence and act on that evidence. What I have said in the attachment is fact supported by evidence proven before a criminal jurisdiction in the state of Victoria, ie the County Court Melbourne. I have these past ten years attempted firstly to resolve these matters directly with the National Australia Bank to no avail who is going to make them address the issues? Secondly, I have tried very hard to encourage the regulators, ASIC APRA & the ACCC to investigate and prosecute the issues to no avail despite the banks conduct contravening established law and long standing legal precedent, the banks conduct does constitute fraud. As a consequence it appears to me that justice through the established channels is denied to the ordinary citizen. Understand sir that at the end of the day, someone somewhere in officialdom will explain to me logically why two persons before the law

can engage in fraud against a third party, one of those persons (a natural person the easy target) is diligently investigated, charged, prosecuted & convicted; yet the second party is immune from investigation let alone prosecution. It does appear to me that the wealth, power & influence of the National Australia Bank is sufficient to deliver to them immunity from investigation and prosecution. In other words they own the law.

I eagerly await your consideration. Yours faithfully

Paul Buckman

National Australasian Bank of Fraud

Sometown in Australia

The Sum of: Five

Hundred Dollars only

Your name is often printed here

Not Negotiable

Pay

CASH

500.00

Your Cheque number BSB Account Number

Signature forged and sent to addressee

Paul Buckman P.O. Box 120 Tinamba Vic. 3859

Mobile: 0417 451 406 Home: 03 5145 1406 Email: paul.buckman@bigpond.com

30th of November 2008.

Mr John Stewart Managing Thief, National Australia Bank 120 Collins Street Melbourne Vic. 3000 Dear John, To reintroduce myself, I am one of those victims of crime as perpetrated by your bank against your customer. I know this document and attachments will be to you and a broad spectrum of officialdom unwelcome, however they are formally presented and as you have consistently over many years chosen to protect the banks right to defraud their customer, no action by you is expected. In the attachment there is a challenge and again I beg your participation, please note that I have taken the liberty of forging your signature; should you take offence then I guess you will deal with it. You may however choose to consider the evidence and act on that evidence. What I am saying is not new, it is however fact proven before a criminal jurisdiction in the state of Victoria, ie the County Court Melbourne. I have these past ten years attempted firstly to resolve these matters directly with the National Australia Bank to no avail who is going to make you address the issues? Secondly, I have tried very hard to encourage the regulators, ASIC APRA & the ACCC to investigate and prosecute clear issues of fraud to no avail despite the banks conduct contravening established law and long standing legal precedent, the banks conduct does constitute fraud. As a consequence it appears to me that justice through the established channels is denied to the ordinary citizen. Understand John that at the end of the day, someone somewhere in officialdom will explain to me logically why two persons before the law can engage in fraud against a third party, one of those persons (a natural person the easy target) is diligently investigated, charged, prosecuted & convicted; yet the second party is immune from investigation let alone prosecution. It does appear to me that the wealth, power & influence of the National Australia Bank is sufficient to deliver to them immunity from investigation and prosecution. In other words you own the law and as a consequence the banks view seems to be that you may act as you please with impunity. I await your consideration. Yours faithfully

Paul Buckman

National Australasian Bank of Fraud

Sometown in Australia

Pay

CASH

Not Negotiable

500.00

The Sum of: Five

Hundred Dollars only

Your name is often printed here

Your Cheque number BSB Account Number

Signature forged and sent to addressee

Paul Buckman P.O. Box 120 Tinamba Vic. 3859

Mobile: 0417 451 406 Home: 03 5145 1406 Email: paul.buckman@bigpond.com

30th of November 2008.

Mr Michael A Chaney Chairman of the board of thieves, National Australia Bank 120 Collins Street Melbourne Vic. 3000 Dear Michael, To introduce myself, I am one of those victims of crime as perpetrated by your bank against your customer. I know this document and attachments will be to you and a broad spectrum of officialdom unwelcome, however they are formally presented and as your bank has consistently over many years chosen to protect the banks right to defraud their customer, no action by you is expected. In the attachment there is a challenge and again I beg your participation, please note that I have taken the liberty of forging your signature; should you take offence then I guess you will deal with it. You may however choose to consider the evidence and act on that evidence. What I am saying is not new, it is however fact proven before a criminal jurisdiction in the state of Victoria, ie the County Court Melbourne. I have these past ten years attempted firstly to resolve these matters directly with the National Australia Bank to no avail who is going to make you address the issues? Secondly, I have tried very hard to encourage the regulators, ASIC APRA & the ACCC to investigate and prosecute clear issues of fraud to no avail despite the banks conduct contravening established law and long standing legal precedent, the banks conduct does constitute fraud. As a consequence it appears to me that justice through the established channels is denied to the ordinary citizen. Understand Michael that at the end of the day, someone somewhere in officialdom will explain to me logically why two persons before the law can engage in fraud against a third party, one of those persons (a natural person the easy target) is diligently investigated, charged, prosecuted & convicted; yet the second party is immune from investigation let alone prosecution. It does appear to me that the wealth, power & influence of the National Australia Bank is sufficient to deliver to them immunity from investigation and prosecution. In other words you own the law and as a consequence the banks view seems to be that you may act as you please with impunity. I await your consideration. Yours faithfully

Paul Buckman

National Australasian Bank of Fraud

Sometown in Australia

Pay

CASH

Not Negotiable

500.00

The Sum of: Five

Hundred Dollars only

Your name is often printed here

Your Cheque number BSB Account Number

Signature forged and sent to addressee

Paul Buckman P.O. Box 120 Tinamba Vic. 3859

Mobile: 0417 451 406 Home: 03 5145 1406 Email: paul.buckman@bigpond.com

30th of November 2008.

Mr Gerard Callinan ABC Radio P.O. Box Sale 3850 Dear Gerard, To re-introduce myself, I am one of those victims of crime as perpetrated by the banking industry against their customer. I know this document and attachments will be unwelcome by many however they are formally presented to you in your capacity as an investigative journalist and I demand answers in respect to the issues raised within the attachment from officialdom. I have contacted the following many times over the past ten years; the NAB, ASIC, APRA, ACCC, the Banking Ombudsman, the legal system and PILCH. Alas the end result remains that the wealthy, powerful and influential corporation, that is the National Australia Bank, is considered by the regulatory & legal fraternity to be legally entitled to defraud their customer. If that were not so then the conduct complained of here would not be permitted to stand. Am I negative & sarcastic, well others may judge that; I am however a realist & can only view these events from the ten-year perspective of the co-operation & sanitisation of bank fraud by those charged with the responsibility of regulating these industries and protecting the public interest. In the attachment there is a challenge and I beg your participation, please note that I have taken the liberty of forging your signature; should you take offence then deal with it legally or otherwise. You may however choose to consider the evidence and act on that evidence. Should you wish I would be pleased to appear before your committee & give a presentation based on this attachment and evidence proven before a criminal jurisdiction in the state of Victoria, ie the County Court Melbourne. I have though no expectation that a mere citizen has a right to be heard in such matters, to be heard would be to many very inconvenient I am sure. I have these past ten years attempted firstly to resolve these matters directly with the National Australia Bank to no avail who is going to make them address the issues? Secondly, I have tried very hard to encourage the regulators, ASIC APRA & the ACCC to investigate and prosecute the issues to no avail despite the banks conduct contravening established law and long standing legal precedent, the banks conduct does constitute fraud. As a consequence it appears to me that justice through the established channels is denied to the ordinary citizen. Understand Gerard that at the end of the day, someone

somewhere in officialdom will explain to me logically why two persons before the law can engage in fraud against a third party, one of those persons (a natural person & the easy target) is diligently investigated, charged, prosecuted & convicted; yet the second party is immune from investigation let alone prosecution. It does appear to me that the wealth, power & influence of the National Australia Bank is sufficient to deliver to them immunity from investigation and prosecution. In other words they own the law.

I eagerly await your consideration. Yours faithfully

Paul Buckman

National Australasian Bank of Fraud

Sometown in Australia

Pay

CASH

Not Negotiable

500.00

The Sum of: Five

Hundred Dollars only

Your name is often printed here

Your Cheque number BSB Account Number

Signature forged and sent to addressee

Paul Buckman P.O. Box 120 Tinamba Vic. 3859

Mobile: 0417 451 406 Home: 03 5145 1406 Email: paul.buckman@bigpond.com

30th of November 2008.

Anne Lampe Sydney Morning Herald GPO Box 506 Sydney NSW 2001 Dear Anne, This attachment is sent to you as a courtesy as you are mentioned in it. To introduce myself, I am one of those victims of crime as perpetrated by the banking industry against their customer. I know this document and attachments will be unwelcome by many however they are formally presented to you in your capacity as an investigative journalist and I demand answers in respect to the issues raised within the attachment from officialdom. I have contacted the following many times over the past ten years; the NAB, ASIC, APRA, ACCC, the Banking Ombudsman, the legal system and PILCH. Alas the end result remains that the wealthy, powerful and influential corporation, that is the National Australia Bank, is considered by the regulatory & legal fraternity to be legally entitled to defraud their customer. If that were not so then the conduct complained of here would not be permitted to stand. Am I negative & sarcastic, well others may judge that; I am however a realist & can only view these events from the ten-year perspective of the co-operation & sanitisation of bank fraud by those charged with the responsibility of regulating these industries and protecting the public interest. In the attachment there is a challenge and I beg your participation, please note that I have taken the liberty of forging your signature; should you take offence then deal with it legally or otherwise. You may however choose to consider the evidence and act on that evidence. Should you wish I would be pleased to appear before your committee & give a presentation based on this attachment and evidence proven before a criminal jurisdiction in the state of Victoria, ie the County Court Melbourne. I have though no expectation that a mere citizen has a right to be heard in such matters, to be heard would be to many very inconvenient to many I am sure. I have these past ten years attempted firstly to resolve these matters directly with the National Australia Bank to no avail who is going to make them address the issues? Secondly, I have tried very hard to encourage the regulators, ASIC APRA & the ACCC to investigate and prosecute the issues to no avail despite the banks conduct contravening established law and long standing legal precedent, the banks conduct does constitute fraud.

As a consequence it appears to me that justice through the established channels is denied to the ordinary citizen. I hope I am wrong, but it appears to those in my position that justice is merely a product distributed by the courts system to those who can afford to pay the price. Understand Anne that at the end of the day, someone somewhere in officialdom will explain to me logically why two persons before the law can engage in fraud against a third party, one of those persons (a natural person & the easy target) is diligently investigated, charged, prosecuted & convicted; yet the second party is immune from investigation let alone prosecution. It does appear to me that the wealth, power & influence of the National Australia Bank is sufficient to deliver to them immunity from investigation and prosecution. In other words they own the law.

I eagerly await your consideration. Yours faithfully

Paul Buckman

National Australasian Bank of Fraud

Sometown in Australia

Pay

CASH

Not Negotiable

500.00

The Sum of: Five

Hundred Dollars only

Your name is often printed here

Your Cheque number BSB Account Number

Signature forged and sent to addressee

Paul Buckman P.O. Box 120 Tinamba Vic. 3859

Mobile: 0417 451 406 Home: 03 5145 1406 Email: paul.buckman@bigpond.com

30th of November 2008.

Catriona Lowe The Consumers Federation of Australia P.O. Box 5359 Melbourne VIC. 3001

Dear Ms Lowe, To introduce myself, I am one of those victims of crime as perpetrated by the banking industry against their customer. I know this document and attachments will be unwelcome by many however they are formally presented to you in your capacity as an advocate for the public interest. I have contacted the following many times over the past ten years; the NAB, ASIC, APRA, ACCC, the Banking Ombudsman, the legal system and PILCH. Alas the end result remains that the wealthy, powerful and influential corporation, that is the National Australia Bank, is considered by the regulatory & legal fraternity to be legally entitled to defraud their customer. If that were not so then the conduct complained of here would not be permitted to stand. Am I negative & sarcastic, well others may judge that; I am however a realist & can only view these events from the ten-year perspective of the co-operation & sanitisation of bank fraud by those charged with the responsibility of regulating these industries and protecting the public interest. In the attachment there is a challenge and I beg your participation, please note that I have taken the liberty of forging your signature; should you take offence then deal with it legally or otherwise. You may however choose to consider the evidence and act on that evidence. Should you wish I would be pleased to appear before your committee & give a presentation based on this attachment and evidence proven before a criminal jurisdiction in the state of Victoria, ie the County Court Melbourne. I have though no expectation that a mere citizen has a right to be heard in such matters, to be heard would be to many very inconvenient to many I am sure. I have these past ten years attempted firstly to resolve these matters directly with the National Australia Bank to no avail who is going to make them address the issues? Secondly, I have tried very hard to encourage the regulators, ASIC APRA & the ACCC to investigate and prosecute the issues to no avail despite the banks conduct contravening established law and long standing legal precedent, the banks conduct does constitute fraud.

As a consequence it appears to me that justice through the established channels is denied to the ordinary citizen. I hope I am wrong, but it appears to those in my position that justice is merely a product distributed by the courts system to those who can afford to pay the price. Understand Ms Lowe that at the end of the day, someone somewhere in officialdom will explain to me logically why two persons before the law can engage in fraud against a third party, one of those persons (a natural person & the easy target) is diligently investigated, charged, prosecuted & convicted; yet the second party is immune from investigation let alone prosecution. It does appear to me that the wealth, power & influence of the National Australia Bank is sufficient to deliver to them immunity from investigation and prosecution. In other words they own the law.

I eagerly await your consideration. Yours faithfully

Paul Buckman

National Australasian Bank of Fraud

Sometown in Australia

Pay

CASH

Not Negotiable

500.00

The Sum of: Five

Hundred Dollars only

Your name is often printed here

Your Cheque number BSB Account Number

Signature forged and sent to addressee