Why the banks have the power to commit crimes with impunity ?

Legally, the TBTF banks are indistinguishable from the King, since the power to commit crimes with impunity swallows all other sovereign powers; such a power isn’t even supposed to exist in the U.S., and yet it does. Moreover, since there can’t be two kings in a kingdom, the entire U.S. government, from the president on down, is just one of the King’s men under this formulation of power. The real job of the U.S. government, then, isn’t to represent the will of the people at all, it’s to do the King’s bidding. A nation that isn’t governed by law is governed by instead by a king—it’s one or the other—and the president’s inferiority to such an above-the-law sovereign was confirmed over 40 years ago with Nixon’s ouster. The president, unlike the King, answers to the law (despite Nixon's opinion).

Deutsche Bundesbank: How money is created

Frankfurt am Main | 25.04.2017

https://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/EN/Topics/2017/2017_04_25_how_money_is_created.html

How money is created

Since the Eurosystem launched its accommodative non-standard monetary policy measures, the central bank reserves of commercial banks in the euro area have gone up sharply, more than seven-fold within a period of not quite ten years. At the same time, the broader monetary aggregate M3, which comprises the liabilities of domestic banks and central banks against domestic non-banks such as households and enterprises, grew only moderately. In the April issue of the Monthly Report, the Bundesbank's economists look at this issue and explain how book money is created and how the Eurosystem's expanded asset purchase programme (APP) impacts on monetary growth. They also comment on proposals for banks to hold central bank money against 100% of their sight deposits.

Book money created only by transactions between banks and non-banks

In terms of volume, the majority of the money supply is made up of book money, which is created through transactions between banks and domestic customers. Sight deposits are an example of book money: sight deposits are created when a bank settles transactions with a customer, ie it grants a credit, say, or purchases an asset and credits the corresponding amount to the customer's bank account in return. This means that banks can create book money just by making an accounting entry: according to the Bundesbank's economists, "this refutes a popular misconception that banks act simply as intermediaries at the time of lending – ie that banks can only grant credit using funds placed with them previously as deposits by other customers". By the same token, excess central bank reserves are not a necessary precondition for a bank to grant credit (and thus create money).
Commercial banks' ways of creating money are not infinite, however. According to the Monthly Report, they are constrained by the banking system's interaction with non-banks and the central bank, by regulatory policy and, not least, by banks' own inherent interest in maximising their profits. Despite its ability to create money, a bank still has to fund the loans it has created since it needs central bank reserves for the cashless settlement of payments when sight deposits created by lending are transferred to other banks. These are balances which only the central bank can create. A bank decides on the structure of its funding depending on relative costs as well as on interest rate risk and liquidity risk. In order to be able to grant additional loans, a bank can offer more favourable credit conditions. However, if funding costs remain static, the returns on lending will be lower, and, all other things being equal, additional lending will be less attractive.

Complex interactions

The banking system's ability to create money is additionally constrained by the behaviour of enterprises and households, especially by their demand for credit and their investment decisions. In turn, the central bank shapes monetary and credit growth indirectly by adjusting policy rates, which influence the funding and portfolio decisions of banks and non-banks through a variety of channels. According to the Monthly Report, monetary growth is, overall, "the result of complex interactions between banks, non-banks and the central bank." In a conventional monetary policy implemented by manipulating the policy rate, the ups and downs of central bank reserves are shaped by banks' demand.
The Bundesbank's economists also describe how monetary policy asset purchase programmes fundamentally impact on central bank reserves and the money supply. Whereas such programmes necessarily increase central bank reserves, this does not apply to the same extent to the broad monetary aggregate. The only way asset purchases can have a direct positive impact on the money supply is if the end sellers are domestic non-banks, with the report adding that, "in this case, the transaction leads to an increase in the central bank holdings of government bonds and an increase in sight deposits held by the seller". However, the ultimate sellers of the instruments could also be commercial banks or non-residents. In addition, the money supply could also be indirectly influenced by, in particular, the transmission of the asset purchase programme to asset prices and yields or lending. This is why there is no mechanistic relationship between the increase in central bank reserves and the broader monetary aggregate.

Benefits of full backing of deposits with central bank money questionable

The authors also comment on proposals for banks to hold central bank money against 100% of their sight deposits. These proposals are designed to constrain banks' money creation and thereby improve the stability of the banking sector. However, it is not evident, the Bundesbank's economists argue, that this constraint would indeed make for a financial system that is more stable overall than could be achieved through targeted regulatory action. At the same time, that kind of transition to a new system would risk impairing important functions which the banking system performs for the economy and are crucial for keeping real economic growth on a steady path, they write. The Monthly Report says further on that "given the economic costs a change of system would entail, the question arises as to whether the benefits could outweigh the drawbacks".

Download

in German only

Jonathan Sugarman financial whistleblower: the UniCredit case

Jonathan Sugarman financial whistleblower

---

Whistleblower repeatedly warned authorities of looming financial crash
Jonathan Sugarman says his life has been "completely destroyed" since he first highlighted alleged financial wrongdoing

A former banker who raised serious concerns over alleged financial irregularities at a Dublin-based bank before the economic crash has spoken of how his life has been "completely destroyed" since he first blew the whistle.

Jonathan Sugarman - a former risk manager at the Dublin branch of Italian bank ‘Unicredit’ - appeared before the Oireachtas Finance Committee today.

He said he had repeatedly warned the Financial Regulator that the Irish banking system was facing a liquidity crisis before the financial crash – adding that had his warnings been heeded, the bank guarantee and resultant bailout could have been avoided.

“Had the regulator done its job, it is my contention that the liabilities which were placed on the shoulders of the Irish nation - specifically the blanket guarantee which was given to all the Irish banks overnight, which was effectively a blank cheque underwritten by every citizen in the State - would not have been necessary,” he told the committee.

Billions that do not exist
Mr Sugarman has said he repeatedly alerted authorities to the fact that Unicredit was operating in the IFSC with liquidity levels vastly below what was required by law.

He said he made it clear to the regulator that in his position at the bank, he was breaking the law and “signing for billions that do not exist.”

He said he also informed the Central Bank about the irregularities - but after receiving a letter of acknowledgment, he never heard anything back from them again.

He has also claimed that he met with senior government figures - including Ministers Michael Noonan and Richard Bruton as well as former Tánaiste Joan Burton - about the irregularities.

Unicredit Bank Ireland had an operation worth €39.94bn in Dublin in 2007.

Irish law required the bank to keep the equivalent of 90% of its liabilities in reserves of cash and assets - however upon taking up the position of risk manager, Mr Sugarman said he noticed the bank was operating with far lower reserves.

After raising his concerns with the bank he claims he was told “not to worry.”

He also reported alleged offences under the Central Bank Act to Gardaí in Rathmines eight years ago – but said he never heard anything back after being told the fraud squad was investigating his claims.

Oireachtas Finance Committee
In his opening remarks to the committee this morning, Mr Sugarman said he has been “totally unemployable” for ten years as a result of his attempts to bring the truth to the public domain.

“Official Ireland has absolutely and completely destroyed the lives of every single whistleblower who has come forward, from whatever walk of life they've come,” he said.

“Those with their hands on the levers of power are immune, while those who do the right things have their lives ruined."

He pointed to the treatment of Garda whistleblowers, Sergeant Maurice McCabe and former Garda John Wilson as further examples of the response whistleblowers can expect within the state.

“What I find absolutely incredulous is that my life has been utterly destroyed because I did the right thing - but the people who are jointly liable for the failure to adhere to the regulations - which this house formulated and passed into law - got off absolutely scot-free,” he said.

He said he has been living off the kindness of friends to give him “food to eat and a roof above my head” for the past decade as a result of the damage to his reputation.

"All the major political parties"
Mr Sugarman has never given up on his attempts to push for the truth and late last year, he was one of several whistleblowers to give evidence about his experiences to the European Parliament.

He told the parliament his claims were ignored by “all the major political parties in Ireland” as well as the Financial Regulator.

He said he had held face to face meetings with the now Minister for Education, Richard Bruton and former Tánaiste Joan Burton - and had also spoken to the Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan.

He said Minister Bruton had agreed to get in touch with the regulator about his concerns although: “nothing was heard from him ever again.”

“Michael Noonan, the current Minister of Finance in Ireland later stated that Fine Gael had never heard of me - although there are minutes of a meeting between me and Richard Bruton at a solicitors firm,” he told the parliament.

“Joan Burton, who later became Deputy Prime Minister of Ireland, met me in person, raised my issue in the Irish Parliament but never said a word once she came to power.”

“The silence is what is working against us. The lack of cooperation is also working against us.”

http://www.newstalk.com/Whistleblower-repeatedly-warned-authorities-of-looming-financial-crash




How are Noonan,Bruton and Burton getting away with this ?
Not to mention the Financial Regulator ?

The One Bank is a banking crime syndicate

The REAL New World Order - Jeff Nielson

By Jeff Nielson Today 1761 Views No comments

April 24, 2017
 https://www.sprottmoney.com/Blog/the-real-new-world-order-jeff-nielson.html

Regular readers are familiar with the Old World Order : the cabal of Western oligarchs who control not only our own puppet governments, but generally dictate events to most nations around the world. The vehicle used by these oligarchs to maintain their (economic) control over Western governments to keep them meek and submissive is the One Bank . 

Regular readers are also familiar with this entity. The One Bank is a banking crime syndicate. Its dimensions have been previously defined in the computer modeling of a trio of Swiss researchers. The finding of that model is that by itself this crime syndicate controls roughly 40% of the entire global economy – all of the most important sectors. 

What is one of the biggest problems for the One Bank? When you are a crime syndicate which controls 40% of the global economy, it becomes hard to continue to hide in the shadows. 

The solution? The oligarchs resorted to the same solution they use to cover up all of the One Bank’s mega crimes: propaganda. In this case, it was disinformation. The oligarchs went and borrowed a metaphor which already existed in the extremes of conspiracy-theory writing: “the New World Order.”

They then began spreading this disinformation on a much larger scale than any of the previous conspiracy-mongering in this area. To give the disinformation a veneer of plausibility, the oligarchs of the Old World Order even allowed themselves to be (supposedly) linked to the mythological New World Order. 

What is the NWO supposed to be? According to the propagandists (inadvertent and otherwise) who promote it, it is a secret, socialist, one-world government being constructed “above” the level of our own pathetic puppet governments.

How do you hide if you are a crime syndicate which controls 40% of the global economy? Where do you hide? Inside a great, big lie. 

Alert and intelligent readers should automatically dismiss this NWO as nothing but absurd propaganda. What has the OWO been doing, perpetually and ravenously? Stealing all of the wealth of the masses and piling it atop the own obscene hoards of the oligarchs.

That is not “socialism”. Socialism is “share the wealth”, not steal all of the wealth. 

It has become so easy to fool most people with vacuous ideological labels. Barack Obama was frequently labeled a “socialist” by much of the brain-dead Right. What did Obama do for eight years? He stole from the bottom 80% of the U.S. population and gave to his Masters: the Top 0.01%. That is not socialism either. Just another reverse-Robin Hood, right-wing government: steal from the Poor; give to the (very, very) Rich. 

There is no “new world order”. There is only the Old World Order, or at least this has been the case for many, many decades up until now.

There is great irony here. The Old World Order invented the myth of the “New World Order” to hide its raping-and-pillaging of the planet. But it is precisely this continuous and ever more rapacious plundering that has now resulted in the rise of an actual New World Order.

This NWO is not a crime syndicate of psychopaths like the Old World Order. Neither is it some totally ridiculous ideological contrivance like the (mythological) New World Order. The real New World Order that is coming into existence today is an association of necessity, led by China and Russia, to help the nations of the Rest of the World protect themselves from the psychopathic West, and the oligarchs in control of it. 

Remember the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War? Weren’t those happy times? The “evil” Soviets had been defeated, and now we were all going to live happily ever after. China and even Russia were wooed by the West – old enemies becoming new friends. 

However, when the oligarchs of the One Bank learned that Russia and China had no intentions of serving the West (i.e. the Old World Order), this new friendship quickly deteriorated. The next thing we knew, the Corporate media in the West were back to Cold War rhetoric, simply substituting “Russia” for “Soviet Union”.

Russia was first in the cross-hairs because it had never really benefitted from the new (supposed) era of cooperation between East and West. Put another way, the oligarchs had invested nothing in their faux friendship with Russia. Meanwhile, their puppets in the Corrupt West had already begun targeting nations allied to Russia. 

One of the ways these puppet governments have been covering up their own campaign of naked aggression is through fabricating a massive blanket of propaganda. Every act of naked aggression by the West was supposedly a “reaction” by these fascist governments to supposed aggression from Russia’s allies or even Russia itself -- or else “the terrorists” (the West’s mercenary henchmen ). 

It culminated when the U.S. staged a coup in Ukraine, Russia’s closest neighbour and ally. The coup was justified according to the West because the regime previously in power was corrupt. There are two obvious rebuttals to that pathetically flimsy argument.

1. There was already an election scheduled in Ukraine in less than six months. Are the Champions of Democracy (what the Corrupt West likes to call itself) telling us that a coup d’etat is better than simply waiting for an election?
2. If “corruption” was reason enough to stage a revolution, there would already be revolutions-in-progress all over the West itself.

After the U.S. staged that coup, demonization of Russia dramatically escalated, along with the military campaign against Syria – another Russian ally. Economic terrorism was launched against Russia’s economy. The ruble was ruthlessly attacked by the convicted currency manipulators of the One Bank. Oil prices were manipulated dramatically lower, with Barack Obama publicly boasting that this manipulation was “a part of the U.S. strategy” against Russia. 

Soon, even China was targeted. China had outlived its usefulness as a (low wage) jurisdiction for Western multinational corporations. The Chinese people now wanted to be paid decent wages, so the oligarchs had already begun to shift their corporate operations to other even lower-wage jurisdictions. 

The excuse for (once again) referring to China as an enemy was/is the South China Sea. While the West flexes its muscles by dropping bombs on the heads of people in Africa and Asia, the Western media has been relentlessly demonizing China for building artificial islands in essentially unoccupied waters. 

Building islands or dropping bombs? Which is the more deplorable international crime? According to Western media, it is (conveniently) the “crime” of building islands. 

This renewed aggression against Russia and China by the West did not spawn the Rest of the World’s “New World Order”. Instead, this aggression is the belated realization by the West’s psychopathic oligarchs of the existence of this new, world order. While the oligarchs have been busy destroying everything in sight, China and Russia were attempting to build something. 

Here China has taken the lead with its Belt and Road Initiative . Loosely based upon China’s ancient “Silk Road”, it is the world’s largest project in terms of infrastructure and economic cooperation, even larger than the Marshall Plan at the end of World War II. 

The Marshall Plan was an enormously successful initiative where the oligarchs actually worked on fixing all of the damage and destruction they had engineered after manufacturing World War II. In contrast, the Belt and Road Initiative is a plan to economically fortify (first) Asia and (then) the Rest of the World against the Corrupt West. 

Along with this, China and Russia have constructed “parallel” economic institutions which now exist side-by-side with similar Western-based institutions. The great joke here is that while China and Russia have publicly spoken of these institutions existing in conjunction with their (corrupted) versions in the West, the oligarchs can clearly see that they are intended to replace Western-based institutions. 

With which institutions would the Rest of the World prefer to do business: entities rancid with corruption like the World Bank and the IMF, or an honest broker like the Asia Development Bank? 

Constant economic predation. Ever more reckless military acts from ever more-desperate regimes. The psychopathic empire of the One Bank has simply become so intolerable and so dangerous that the Rest of the World is being forced to unite as a mechanism of self-preservation. 

This is the New World Order – the real one.

It really is “new”. It really does involve the “world” (except for the Corrupt West). And it really could/should lead to “order”, not the ever-worsening chaos as the One Bank regularly orders its puppet governments to destroy any nation that gets in its way. 

What the New World Order is not is any sort of one-world government. What the New World Order is not is some (supposed) “socialist utopia”.

The new, world order being crafted by China and Russia is non-ideological. It is non-controlling. Another great irony here is that as Western regimes have gotten increasingly corrupt, belligerent, and simply evil, the Eastern powers have become relatively more virtuous. 

Perhaps it was simply being able to observe how not to run the world (for several decades), but China and Russia have seemingly adopted the doctrine of Enlightened Self-Interest. By helping neighbouring nations and acting as honest brokers in the global community, China and Russia see the surest path to their own prosperity and security. 

Another thing that the New World Order is not is perfect. As global powers, China and Russia do not resemble White Knights, merely the lessers-of-evil – much less evil. The New World Order coming into existence today is not some ideologically based pipe-dream. It is a construct of pragmatism, designed to help nations co-exist and (hopefully) prosper. In time, perhaps it will replace the United Nations – another corrupted Western institution. 

The real NWO will succeed as the new “order” in the world because the Old World Order has succeeded in making itself obsolete.

---

Jeff Nielson is co-founder and managing partner of Bullion Bulls Canada; a website which provides precious metals commentary, economic analysis, and mining information to readers and investors. Jeff originally came to the precious metals sector as an investor around the middle of last decade, but with a background in economics and law, he soon decided this was where he wanted to make the focus of his career. His website is www.bullionbullscanada.com.

---

The views and opinions expressed in this material are those of the author as of the publication date, are subject to change and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sprott Money Ltd. Sprott Money does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness and reliability of the information or any results from its use.

Marco Saba's historic speech at UniCredit in 2014

Marco Saba's historic speech at UniCredit shareholders meeting in 2014
https://www.unicreditgroup.eu/content/dam/unicreditgroup-eu/documents/en/governance/shareholders-meetings/archive/2014/shareholders-meeting-13-maggio-2014/Minutes-May-13-2014.pdf

Mr Marco SABA took the floor and made the following speech:

“I address all of the Directors and, by extended greeting, all shareholders.
My name is Marco Saba, and I am speaking as the delegate of shareholder Christian Savatteri. I ask for a copy of my speech to be transcribed with the minutes.
I wish to begin by stating that my topic of intervention is item 1 on the Agenda, UniCredit’s 2013 consolidated financial statements,  specifically  its  legality,  legal  and  economic underpinnings,  with  recourse  to  “exceptio  veritatis”,  in compliance with IAS standard 8 and Bank of Italy Circular no.262 dated 22 December 2005, amended for the second time on 21 January 2014, which states the following: “If, in exceptional situations,  application  of  a  provision  envisaged  under international accounting principles is inconsistent with the true  and  correct  balance  sheet,  financial  situation  and earnings results, it should not be applied.”
The  drafting  of  UniCredit’s  financial  statements  must  take into  account  the  fact  that  in  addition  to  marginal  gross income, banks create new money every time they lend or invest, a fact confirmed recently by Bank of France General Council member Bernard Maris, as well as in Bank of England Bulletin no. 1, 2014. This creation of liquidity is not highlighted as it should be among income statement activities; it may only be deduced secondarily under item 70 as loans to clients on the consolidated balance sheet (on page 82), where it is stated at Euro  503.1  billion,  a  figure  miles  away  from  the  Euro  3.4 billion indicated in the consolidated cash flow statement on page 88 as “liquidity generated over the period”. I restrict myself to this 503.1 billion, as I consider right now that the cloning of money that took place in 2013 through cash payments and  during  foreign  currency  transactions  is  of  secondary importance.  The  current  balance  sheet  is  therefore  clearly spoiled  by  significant  errors,  indeed,  material  errors  of omission,  which  must  be  corrected  pursuant  to  the  above-mentioned provisions. As it stands, the operating results for the financial year are not a true and correct representation, as they forgo an item for the creation of money supply, or rather,  liquidity  generated  just  prior  to  being  used  for commitments   during   FY   2013.   If   we   adjust   UniCredit’s consolidated financial statements, considering therefore just item 70 on the consolidated income statement (on page 82) – “Loans to customers” - and shifting it over to item 280 on the consolidated income statement (on page 84) - that is, “Profit (Loss)  before  tax  from  continuing  operations”  -  we  come up with a gross profit  of Euro 487.9 billion, rather than the gross loss of Euro 50.2 billion that was posted. There is a difference of at least Euro 503 billion less to recoup. Net of taxation at 27.5% we would therefore have - under item 340 of the consolidated income statement – net operating profit of at least 353 billion,  rather than the net  loss of billions  of euros we see today. It follows that, for distribution of the dividend, we should be referring to the adjusted net profit which,  at  the  same  rate,  works  out  at  around  Euro  61  per share. By restoring the bank’s accounts to in bonis status, by way of example the three largest shareholders Blackrock, Aabar and PGFF would be in line to bank around Euro 17 billion each.
On  the  other  hand,  the  consolidated  financial  statements presented today artfully overturn the real earnings result and hoodwink all shareholders. It should further be noted that the tax authorities are  down Euro 150 billion on the deal,  and that   the   CGIL   Union   did   well   recently   to   seek   the reintroduction of the crime of false accounting and laundering one’s own money.
I  am  therefore  against  approving  the  current  financial statements, and ask the pro-tempore
CEO for a written response to this speech within the next 15 calendar days.
Those  interested  should  not  hesitate  to  contact  me  if  they wish  to  have  further  explanations  of  the  research  I  have undertaken as Head of Research at the Centro Studi Monetari, and on the sources that can be used to recoup the shortfall.
I reserve the right to act in any forum and at any level to protect the interests of my delegating party, notwithstanding the associated benefits pursuant to Section 930 of the Italian Civil Code, and I conclude by thanking everybody in attendance for listening to me. "

"Replying to Mr Saba , who believed that UniCredit’s economic performance for the period had not been accurately or fairly represented,  since  there  was  no  reference  to  the  monetary aggregate generated in FY 2013, and stated that he would be voting against the approval of the accounts, asking the Chief Executive Officer for a written reply within the next fifteen calendar  days,  Mr  Ghizzoni  pointed  out  that  both  the consolidated  accounts  and  the  individual  balance  sheet reported by UniCredit S.p.A. had been drafted in accordance with  international  accounting  standards  (IAS  and  IFRS),  and with the provisions laid down by the Bank of Italy, and had been certified by the audit firm Deloitte & Touche."