Archives for December, 2013

Rothschild Directors Sought by Denia Court

Share

Mark Coutanche and Stephen Dewsnip have been requested to turn up at the Denia Court to be notified of criminal charges being bought against them.

The General Directorate of Police and the Guardia Civil in Madrid have been issued “with Code 1” requests (current address and/or whereabout search warrant) so that they can be notified of ongoing criminal proceedings in Spain.

According to the warrant, the last known address was Paseo de la Castella N 35, 3rd floor, in Madrid, an address that coincides with that of their Madrid offices; it appears that an attempt to deliver a copy of the summons bore no fruits.

The warrant was issued on the 26th November 2013 and ends on the 26th November 2018.

Making service of process difficult has become a useful tool for any lawyer acting for Equity Release banks and NM Rothschild & Sons, a bank known for redifining the meaning of the term “double-standards”, is not going to miss an opportunity to make the lives of their clients-turned-victims a tad more miserable.

N.M. Rothschild & Sons is accused of selling mortgages to Spanish-based pensioners as a tool to defraud the Spanish Tax Office, albeit as a legal product, alongside deliberately concealing crucial data that would prove that their Equity Release product was impractical, from an investment point of view.

Claim Filed In Court Against Sydbank and Nykredit

Share

Lawyers acting for victims of the “Spanish Enquity Release Package”, as advertised by Sydbank (Schweiz) AG, have formally filed a civil suit against this bank, alongside Nykredit (Realkredit) A/S, for statutory voidness and illegality of the named product, on the following grounds:

– Sydbank (Schweiz) teamed up with Nykredit Realkredit A/S, a Danish lender operating through a branch office in Marbella. Both banks contend that they provided separate services and that Nykredit stepped in to lend to British citizens as a result of a “introduction” made by Sydbank, and that was about it as far as their relationship went (it almost seemed as if victims of the Equity Release victims had thrown a party where both banks met each other…getting on famously thereafter).

РSydbank (Schweiz) was and has never been registered to operate legally in Spain, whether via the Bank of Spain or the CNMV. Notwithstanding such serious infringement, they offered their services to the Spanish general public directly, and through a number of IFAs; they actually opened a branch office in Fuengirola yet failing, as expected, to even secure a municipal opening license from the Fuengirola Town Hall.

– Sydbank (Schweiz) offered a product that, in its inception, violated public policy: it was designed to reduce, ilegally, Spanish Wealth and Inheritance Taxes.

– Sydbank and Nykredit tempted British peaceful property owners to trangress the law, to do what was injurious to the law, the community, banking code of ethics and the very rights of their clients.

Mads Petersen and Jorn Gregersen were both conscious –yet deliberately witheld ¬†information they were only privy to- that the investment product PEERLESS SICAV, of which Sydbank was “promoter, investment manager and most important distributor of the Company”, in any of its 3 Subfunds, did not return more than 0.58% in 2006, and actually less in 2007, when 2 and 1 of the couples, respectively, took the product out.

Corporate rogues¬†Petersen and Gregersen not only failed to advise their clients that the product was not suitable for them (never mind the inheritance tax avoidance illicit aim or the lack of regulatory clearance) but, in a display of extraordinary trickery, made them believe that the SICAV yield could actually pay for the cost of Nykredit mortgage loan, plus Sydbank’s commission and lastly, leave the clients a remaining disposable income sum (in simple layman terms, knowing that 0.58% would hardly pay off 6% they still concealed it, with catastrophic effects).

– Finally, Sydbank (Schweiz) AG and Nykredit Realkredit A/S dishonestly tried to disguise the fact that they are actually partners in Denmark, that Sydbank channels all of its loan business through Nykredit¬†(page 4), against payment of a commission, and that Sydbank’s CEO, Karen Frosig, is in fact a director of Nykredit¬†(pg 12).

Lawyers acting for clients have requested that the Spanish Equity Release, comprising the “Business Connection Agreement” (euphemism coined by Sydbank to refer to a regular bank account contract and an associated Peerless SICAV product) and any associated contracts (including Belize companies, as part of Sydbank’s concealmente technology), as well as the Spanish Nykredit mortgage loan, are rendered void ab initio , following the principles quod nullum est, nullum producit effectum (that which is a nullity, produces no effect) and¬†simul stabunt, simul cadent (they will stand together or they will fall together).¬†

 

Icelandic Bank Bosses Jailed

Share

It was a matter of time before someone high up in the banking sector was sent down.

Kaupthing bosses have the dishonour of being the first -surely not the last- top bankers to go to prison for defrauding their company, their clients, their country and presumably too, the Tax Office.

But whilst this case may not be directly connected to Equity Release, it is clear that if someone at the bank came up with the brilliant idea of giving out a massive loan to a Middle East-based wealthy Arab to buy stock from the company, why not give smallish loans to owners of Spanish unencumbered property to invest, for instance, with Lex Life, the company Landsbanki owned?

 

 

Germans Bust Tax Evading Banks

Share

Handcuffs on euro banknotes

It was a matter of time before the efficient German state machinery got hold of banks selling tax-efficient insurance wrappers: in this case, Commerce Bank is the target.

So then, when is Jesper Hertz going to resign from his job, clear his conscience and implicate those who have forced him to sell the Capital Management Plan? Listen Jesper, all your past mistakes and regrets can be just that if you come out clean and openly confess to what your employer has been up to in the last few years, on the Costa del Sol, where a few hundred have been sold exactly the same product the German Prosecutor is angry about. 

Jesper, ERVA has a list of all customers Nordea Bank Luxembourg sold Equity Release to (a product combining a mortgage on a Spanish property and a Capital Managed Plan Life Insurance Wrapper), that’s Spanish Land Registry efficiency for you -some things do actually work down here- and so, if and when the Spanish Prosecutor decides to quit defending the King’s daughter-in-law, your bank should be next.

 

Credit Select Series 4: Rothschild could see tens of millions wiped off

Share

Rothschild Bank International

 

Back in 2008, the Supreme Court in Spain ruled on an interesting case: a Spanish Casino had been lending money to some gamblers (by the way, what a silly thing to do) to bet in their premises. As was expected, the gamblers p****d the money up the wall and refused to return it. The Casino, on the strength of the contract they had made their clients sign, demanded payment of the lent sums, plus interest.

The Supreme Court, in application of the established doctrine that states that contracts that breach mandatory provisions are void, declared the contract unenforceable and dismissed the Casino’s attempts to obtain an order forcing the gambler to return the funds.

The provision that had been violated specifically banned Casino’s from lending money to customers, for the purpose of gambling.

In reaching the decision, the Supreme Court stated that even if administrative laws envisage a penalty for breaches of their own laws, such trangression necessarily has an effect on the validity of the contract, which has to be declare void.

By applying this to Equity Release, it is very possible that where the ER package is declared void, claimants will not only have the right to remove the charge attached to their properties but also, claim the loan that was given to them to invest.

What remains to be seen is whether Courts of law will take into consideration breaches in regulatory mandatory provisions, where these exist  (SLMH, Nykredit/Sydbank, International Property Finance Spain etc.), and apply article 1.306.2, or the tax benefit that was the main objective pursued by the contract.

In the first scenario, an Equity Release victim would be able to remove the mortgage charge from their property and claim the full loan back, before costs, losses etc., and in the second, remove the mortgage and demand the remaining balance on the loan. In both scenarios, the bank could lose tens of millions if the Courts apply, as would be expected, the following article:

Article 1.306:

If the deed which constitutes the unlawful cause should not constitute a crime or misdemeanour, the following rules shall be observed:

1. Where both contracting parties are at fault, none of them may recover what he has given pursuant to the contract, or claim the performance of what the other should have offered.

2. Where only one contracting party is at fault, he may not recover what he has given pursuant to the contract, or demand the performance of what he should have been offered. The other, who was a stranger to the unlawful cause, may claim what he has given, without the obligation to perform what he should have offered.

Ladies and Gentlemen, place your bets!!

Skip to toolbar