
	
	
	by Jeff Nielson 
	
	11 July 2012
	
	from
	
	BullionBullsCanada Website
	
	 
	
	 
	
	
	
	
	On the same morning we hear that
	
	¼ of Wall Street executives think that 
	fraud is a necessary part of “doing business” in the financial sector, 
	we hear of a
	
	second “MF Global”.
	
	
	 
	
	The U.S.’s so-called regulators are now 
	reporting that somewhere around $220 million in customer funds is “missing” 
	at a financial institution known as
	PFGBest; once again closing the barn 
	door after all the cows have run off.
	
	With at least one out of every four bankers at U.S. Big Banks (that’s how 
	many admitted to being crooks in the survey) thinking that stealing is part 
	of their job descriptions, it’s very important for people to realize how 
	little protection there now is between these thieves and your bank accounts.
	
	
	 
	
	Based on the writing of a number of other 
	individuals with more expertise in these markets, it is apparently an 
	inherently fraudulent banking process known as “rehypothecation” 
	which is allowing the mass-plundering of accounts at U.S. financial 
	institutions, with other Western financial regulatory authorities also 
	rubber-stamping this relatively new form of bankster crime.
	
	Rehypothecation is a heinous practice permitted by the pretend-regulators of 
	Western markets, where financial institutions are allowed to pledge their 
	clients’ funds as collateral to cover their own gambling debts.
	
	 
	
	I say “inherently fraudulent” since few of the 
	clients of these financial institutions would ever knowingly enter into 
	contracts with these gambling-addicts where their cash could be used to 
	cover their bankers’ gambling debts.
	
	Instead, what is happening here is that the rehypothecation clauses are 
	being buried in the “small print” of these contracts and (obviously) never 
	properly explained to these clients: seemingly textbook fraudulent 
	misrepresentation. The only “advantage” to a client into entering into such 
	a contract is a slight reduction in fees, or slightly improved interest rate 
	- certainly not near enough to entice people into risking some near-100% 
	loss insuring someone else’s gambling debts.
	
	So we have our “regulators” (i.e. the only protectors of our funds in the 
	hands of these admitted thieves) giving these fraud-factories the green 
	light to enter into these inherently fraudulent contracts, putting any/all 
	funds of these clients in permanent jeopardy. 
	
	 
	
	Thus it’s important to outline how this could 
	happen with ordinary bank accounts.
	
	First it must be noted that 
	
	the Corporate Media (loyal friends of the Big 
	Banks) are referring to this as a “brokerage” problem. Understand that a 
	brokerage is nothing but a legal “bookie”, an entity which takes (and makes) 
	bets, and which must hold the funds of its “customers” in order to do 
	business. Apparently the principal difference now between a “legal” bookie 
	and an “illegal” bookie is that an illegal bookie is much less likely to use 
	his customers’ funds to cover his own bad bets.
	
	What people must also understand is that the world’s biggest bookies, 
	indeed, the biggest bookies in the history of the world are the Big Banks 
	themselves (specifically U.S. Big Banks). Most of their gambling is done in 
	their own, rigged casino: the $1.5 quadrillion 
	
	derivatives market.
	
	
	Note that you won’t see that number quoted by the Corporate Media (any 
	longer). 
	
	 
	
	As concern about the size of the bankers’ 
	mountain of bets grew; the bankers asked the Master Bookie - the
	
	Bank for International Settlements - to 
	change the “definition” of this market, and instantly the derivatives market 
	shrunk to 1/3rd its former size.
	
	As many know, the BIS is known as,
	
		
		“the central bank for central banks”. 
		
	
	
	What a smaller number of people know is that 
	this is the 
	world’s great money-laundering vehicle, an 
	entity created just before World War II specifically to allow Western 
	industrialists to continue to do a vast amount of business with Adolph 
	Hitler. In other words, it’s not exactly a reliable source for information.
	
	
	 
	
	So I choose to use the same numbers that the 
	banksters previously used themselves, before they started getting defensive 
	about the insane amounts of their gambling.
	
	We are being led to believe by the Corporate Media (another unreliable 
	source) that this problem is only a risk for all individuals with 
	“brokerage” accounts, however as we piece together all the pieces of the 
	puzzle (already revealed) this is what we see before us:
	
		
			- 
			
			Our banking regulators knowingly allow 
			financial institutions to engage in recklessly misleading (if not 
			outright fraudulent) contracts with their clients, through the use 
			of complex “small print” in their account contracts with clients.
 
 
 
- 
			
			The three largest U.S. “banks” by 
			deposit (JP Morgan, Bank of America, Citigroup) have made bets in 
			their own rigged casino, which total well in excess of $100 
			trillion, an amount which completely dwarfs their total, combined 
			deposits (and assets).
 
 
 
- 
			
			A large portion of those bets occur in 
			the $60+ trillion credit default swap market. Pay-outs in these 
			markets can (and do) exceed
			
			300 times the amount of the 
			original bet. It is bets in this market
			
			which “blew up” AIG, requiring more 
			than $150 billion in immediate government aid.
 
 
 
- 
			
			Following the Crash of ’08; these same 
			banks mooched a package of hand-outs, tax-breaks and “guarantees” 
			(i.e. future hand-outs) from the Bush regime in excess of $15 
			trillion, the last time their gambling debts went bad on them - and 
			all of these banks have been allowed to dramatically increase the 
			total amount of their gambling since then.
 
 
 
- 
			
			It would take only a minor change in the 
			gambling contracts in which these bankers engage to allow their 
			creditors to seize funds out of ordinary bank accounts.
 
 
 
- 
			
			The existing language for the bank 
			accounts of these U.S. banks is possibly already so vague (and 
			prejudicial to clients) that it would allow these banks to 
			reinterpret the terms of these bank accounts - and allow 
			rehypothecation to be used to rob the holders of ordinary bank 
			accounts, people who themselves make no “bets” in markets 
			whatsoever.    
			Alternately, customers could be blitzed 
			with an offer for “new and improved” bank accounts, where terms 
			allowing rehypothecation are slipped into the contract, with the 
			banks knowing that the “regulators” will do nothing to warn 
			account-holders of the gigantic risk they are taking. 
	
	The same media apologists who would scoff at 
	this suggestion are the same shills who claimed,
	
		
		“there could never be another MF Global”.
		
	
	
	Meanwhile we have the biggest gambler of them 
	all, JP Morgan, just confessing to having made
	
	more of these bad bets - which continue 
	growing larger by the $billion.
	
	When we add-in the fact that the U.S.’s
	
	mark-to-fraud accounting rules mean that 
	these banks are easily able to hide the level of their insolvency, the 
	pretend-regulators apparently don’t have the slightest idea of the level of 
	risk to which account-holders are being exposed. This is the charitable 
	explanation for these facts. The alternative interpretation is that these 
	“regulators” are direct accomplices of the criminal banking cabal.
	
	I have consistently referred to the U.S. financial sector as a “crime 
	syndicate” for several years now, often drawing considerable 
	criticism for supposedly hyperbolic rhetoric. Obviously I have been 
	completely vindicated here. 
	
	 
	
	One quarter of these bankers are now 
	confessed thieves. 
	
	 
	
	The pretend-regulators (notably the SEC and CFTC) 
	on a daily basis rubber-stamp the banksters’ acts of fraud (where they are 
	caught red-handed) - handing out totally trivial fines, and not even 
	requiring these thieves to admit their guilt.
	
	If there are any substantive differences between how the U.S. financial 
	sector is allowed to operate versus any generic definition of a “crime 
	syndicate”, it would be enlightening to hear what those (supposed) 
	differences are. And now these thieves are closer than ever to simply 
	reaching into peoples’ bank accounts and grabbing every dollar they can 
	steal.
	
	The principal reason why I and others have urged people to convert their 
	banker-paper to 
	gold and silver in the past was the 1,000 
	year track-record of these bankers’ paper, fiat currencies always going to 
	zero (through the bankers recklessly diluting these currencies via 
	over-printing). However, we can add to that a much more basic reason: every 
	ounce of gold and silver which you purchase (and store in your own home 
	“safe” or other secure location) is wealth which cannot be stolen by the 
	banking crime syndicate. 
	
	 
	
	This is what commentators are really referring 
	to when they speak of “counterparty risk”: placing your future financial 
	security in someone else’s hands.
	
	What the large financial institutions of the 21st century have taught us 
	(through the cruel “lessons” of their serial crimes) is that there is no one 
	in the world whom you can trust less with your money than a banker.