REVEALED: The staggering level of anti-SME bank fraud.

Financial rape of Britain’s entrepreneurs

Full-time support group formed to sue guilty bankers; 1600 active members reviewing scams and mis-selling against small businesses; customers borrowing to buy hotels a particular target; super-injunctions being thrown around like confetti; assets being repossessed after falsifying default or insolvency; Financial Ombudsman snowed under with complaints.

I’ve been reading some of the paperwork to do with the mounting number of lawsuits against RBS.By the end of the process, one is beginning to think that the RBS should stand for Rogered Bowel Syndrome. Almost all of the legalese and data relate to the two main scams unearthed so far – mis-selling rate-swaps to SME borrowers (which then bankrupt them) and fraudulently undervaluing an asset used as collateral by small business borrowers (which then renders them insolvent – and hands over the asset to the bank).

I can’t talk to you about a lot of those cases. This has nothing to do with sub judice, but everything to do with super-injunctions. These latter, as most of you know already, are standard weapons of the guilty, designed to stop news spreading of various heinous crimes ranging from paedophilia via phone hacking and celeb infidelity to serious fraud. Suffice to say that at least two of the fraud allegations brought against RBS are very serious indeed, and contain compelling evidence of organised systemic policy. Oddly enough, these tend to be the ones with super-injunctions dumped on them.

What I can write about, however, is the sheer scale of the operations. For example, ‘‘ is a support and action group dedicated to bringing fraudulent banking practices to justice. A substantial proportion of the cases involve RBS group banks, and those already in the b-b group think they represent only the tip of an iceberg….especially when it comes to mis-sold rate swaps.

Now hold your breath. Over 1600 people and 800 small businesses are already active within the group.

If you think you’re a victim too (or you know someone else who might be) get in touch with them.


What I can also do is tell you all about those who are bitter – but not as yet in Court having super-injunctions hurled at them by sociopathic law firms, and granted by oddly biased judges. I wrote about one such victim, Colin Jones, last week. Today I want to review the allegations of one Muhammed Aslam.

Once again (and I’d love to know why) the target is a small entrepreneur borrowing to buy hotel premises. In this case, however, there is also evidence that the bank’s plan was to establish a ‘history’ of bad debt, and then offload the risk of the debt.

In earlier years, however – under Sir Freddie Badloss – RBS was red-hot to trot as far as Mr Aslam’s business loans were concerned.

“I had a business term-loan with RBS of £450,000 for a small hotel and an overdraft of £15,000” he says. “I took out another business term loan of £115,000 in 2005 to buy a house to let. In 2007 when I was going to leave RBS, they offered the £450,000 at 2% above base – interest only – fixed for 5 years. In 2008 they gave me another business term loan of £78,000 to purchase a takeaway.”

No offence meant at all to Muhammed, but this was not sensible business for any honest, sane bank to take on, because it stood no chance of becoming profitable for some considerable time. But a common strategy in those days was to pile daft liability onto the balance sheet….because in the bonkers world of banking, these could then be treated as assets.

Also, having got the ‘asset’ on board, teams of ‘sweaters’ would illegally charge, scam and generally cheat the asset’s owner into a position where profit could be squeezed out. As we now know, this is exactly what several major banks did.

One way in which Mr Aslam alleges RBS did so came in May of 2011 when two of his direct debits were not honoured by the bank. He was charged £70.00, the reason being ‘no funds in account’. He proved that there were, and so the bank had to back down.

Later, he discovered that his ‘interest only’ loan was interest only up to but not including some capital repayments. Again, the bank backed down.

In fact, once RBS had gone mammories skywards, things became much nastier. A programme of trying to prove a history of default by Muhammed Aslam now swung into action as the bank seemingly tried to offload toxicity.

“The £78,000 loan taken out in 2008 had not had any repayments collected by the bank, and so the interest on it had been accruing since it had been taken out,” he reports. “Now it was standing at approx £86,000.00. They have not been able to tell me why this happened.”

I could offer a possible clue: perhaps RBS was trying to establish a track-record of bad debt.

On 23rd January 2012, the bank wrote telling Muhammed he had breached the terms of the loan on his Glenisla Hotel. RBS charged that he had done so by leasing out the hotel; but he is emphatic he can prove that several bank officers were aware of the fact that he had leased out the Glenisla.

Despite Aslam offering to cancel the lease, the bank’s response was to withdraw his overdraft facility. Yet despite their apparent best efforts to prove otherwise, Muhammed Aslam had never been in default with RBS at that time.

In early September 2012, the Royal Bank of Scotland froze all Mr Aslam’s accounts, without either warning or informing him. He found out on going into the branch on the 19th. Then he received this classic:

‘The interest on loan account 00244388 [the Glenisla account] in your name at Bonnyrigg branch could not be met on 27 September 2012.’

This is wonderfully Kafkaesque: you freeze somebody’s accounts for no other apparent reason beyond (again I quote) ‘they are no longer in line with bank lending policy’ – and then declare the customer a bad risk…because a frozen account can’t meet repayments on the loan you begged him to take out four years previously in order to keep the business.

Indeed, Mr Aslam’s accounts have now been transferred to the department dealing with debt recovery…another neat and nasty way of ‘framing’ the customer when things get to Court.

His £78,000 loan has now been called in (conveniently, this too has a history of ‘non-repayment’) and so Muhammed Aslam has turned to the Financial Ombudsman.

I’d love to see him get a result, but I’m not holding my breath. Meanwhile, RBS stands to reap the cost-free harvest of a hotel and a takeaway at zero cost of sales. Nice work if you can get it.

But as Boris keeps reminding us, “We really must stop knocking our bankers”.

Footnote: it strikes me that, with 80% of Rubbish Banker Sh*ts being owned by the Treasury, would it be possible to bring a case against senior officials there, and George Osborne? Any legal advice on that topic gratefully received.

More on the spreading of privilege at: The Fiendish Frunt-Bottomley Cousins of South West Surrey.

23 thoughts on “REVEALED: The staggering level of anti-SME bank fraud.

  1. There must be a way around injunctions. surely British law doesn’t extend to say the U.S. or Australia or even Europe. If a blogger outside our shores was to find out about this info they could post it on a word press site and be perfectly safe, I don’t actually know if that’s 100% correct but there must be a way


  2. Pingback: John Ward – Revealed: The Staggering Level Of Anti-SME Bank Fraud. Financial Rape Of Britain’s Entrepeneurs – 12 October 2012 | Lucas 2012 Infos

  3. A New World Order where a Zionist Banking Elite own and control everyone and everything. David Rockefeller has told us it’s better for us! We are just goyim cattle awaiting slaughter.


  4. Pingback: LAGARDE LIST: Justice closes in on Evangelos Venizelos | A diary of deception and distortion

  5. Were is the party of law and order,were is the party of business,were is the party freedom,busy putting privileged judges in place to serve super injunctions
    Anyone can see this does not resemble freedom opportunity and fairness
    This is not democracy,this is not free markets this is the modern inequivalent of protectionism run by fascist


  6. JW,

    I would not be surprised if the Treasury is indemnified against any liability.

    What I do know for a fact however, is that what a bizarre/inaccurate/ waste of time/ cost Financial Ombudsman’ (FOS) findings can be and are they can not be altered once issued despite glaring inaccuracies entirely due to FOS incompetence and most importantly they have specific Parliamentary indemnity/protection against negligence and all other catch all safeguards.

    Furthermore, if you complain about their findings you eventually end up with a nice person called an Independent Examiner (my memory is not what it was so maybe it is only some like title) who surprise surprise was an ex Director of the FOS and whose hands were tied and could only offer ineffectual words.

    My experience with the FOS was totally unsatisfactory and wasted over 2 years, but was a prerequisite to try and obtain ‘natural justice’ for gross incompetence/ negligence.

    Unfortunately compensation for incompetence /maladministration/negligence is a ‘profit centre’ for companies nowadays so that they just do not have to provide a competent service/product, as they know it pays them to have a % disaffected/ dissatisfied customers- as it increases their profit and ‘shareholder value’.

    It is as Bill Back of UMKC would say ‘a classic case of ‘control fraud”.


  7. ‘with 80% of Rubbish Banker Sh*ts being owned by the Treasury’

    Gordon and Alistair saw that one coming, the banking shares are owned by UKFI, an entity held at arms length (like a smelly nappy).

    This means the Treasury aren’t responsible and FOI requests can be ignored.


  8. The first thing to do when you sign any contract is, “Read the small print,”
    The second thing is Banks are not Charities, they are in it to make money, for themselves [CEO’s] and shareholders.
    Thirdly they rely on the oldest tricks in the book, peoples greed and gullibility.
    Next class action on the horizon is all those people who a] remortgaged property or, b] bought property on interest only loans. These people are now coming up to retirement and don’t have a cat in hells chance of servicing the mortgage when they retire. Noises are already being made to blame the banks for misselling these loans.
    What is clearer then a] %only = you do not repay any capital and , b] if the property as not risen in value [greed] tough you do not have the surpus taxfree gain in your property to repay the debt.
    You lose, the bank wins. Life is tough.


  9. Err you do know that that was one of Maggie Thatcher’s favourite books don’t you? You know Maggie whose ‘Big Bang’ paved the way for the banks to take over everything?

    There are plenty of Libertarians in contemporary finance – as far as they are concerned its survival of the fittest and they are the biggest most vicious animals in the game. Sorry but there are no true Libertarians just as there are no true Anarchists.


  10. Sorry but a load of ideological bullshit. Ooh the Big State! Ooh the Central Banks! You mean the State and Central Banks which have a revolving door into and from the private sector?

    It’s about money, big money. They’re Libertarian when it suits them, Keynesians when their banks need bailing out, Austrians when a competitor is in trouble and Authoritarian when anyone complains.

    I see the author was repeating the trope that the bottom fifty per cent are net recipients of State aid. A total misrepresentation of reality – the figures includes access to education and health and only refer to direct taxes paid. Hardly surprising is it when the top 1% have more wealth than the bottom 50%, and the top 10% control NINETY per cent.

    Could it be that the private sector simply can’t provide enough decent paying jobs? Cue whinge about taxes – yeah, the same taxes the elite have no interest in paying and pass on to the rest of us.

    Give the author’s disdain for the bottom 47% I’m guessing were he among the elite he’d very quickly jettison his Austrian / Libertarian beliefs – just as ‘Communists’ like John Reid and Alan Milburn did in New Labour.


  11. they sold the interest rate swaps with penalities if interest rates fell, so when they manipulate libor they get massive fees from the sme’s . small business owners were induced into speculating on the direction of interest rates they should not do this. the banks had obviously figured out that rates were not going to rise but knew the public had the foolish idea they would, the banks simply screwed the sme’s by pretending to help them


  12. Pingback: At the End of the Day | The Slog. 3-D bollocks deconstruction

  13. Pingback: At the End of the Day: "WARNING: Real news will be printed, and trolls will be removed" #johnward -

  14. Pingback: RBS BONUSES: How to reward failure and fraud with half a billion quid. | The Slog.

  15. Pingback: John Ward – RBS Bonuses : How To Reward Failure And Fraud With Half A Billion Quid – 2 December 2013 | Lucas 2012 Infos

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s