NOTICE & WARNING TO:
EVERY/ALL UTILITY COMPANIES
FOR EMBEZZLEMENT , THEFT BY DECEPTION & EXTORTION
FAILING TO DISCHARGE ALL DEBTS
PURSUANT TO
73RD CONGRESS. SESS 1. CHS. 48 49. JUNE 5, 6,1933 HJR 192
HR 1491 PUBLIC LAW 1 48 STAT 1
PUBLIC LAW 10 CHAPTER 48 STAT 112
PUBLIC LAW 73-10 40 STAT 411
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT (TWEA) OCT 6, 1917
but not limited to:
Since House Joint Resolution 192 (HJR 192) (Public law 7310) was passed in 1933 we have only had debt, because all property and gold was seized by the government as collateral in the bankruptcy of the United States.
In 1863 the first Bank Act was passed. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (or OCC) is a US federal agency established by the National Currency Act of 1863 and serves to charter, regulate, and supervise all national banks and the federal branches and agencies of foreign banks in the United States.
The OCC was created by Abraham Lincoln to fund the American Civil War but was later transformed into a regulatory agency to instil confidence in the National Banking system and protect consumers from misleading business practices.
The Lieber Code, or General Order 100 was also created by Abraham Lincoln in 1863.
The National Bank Act (ch. 58, 12 Stat. 665, February 25, 1863) was a United States federal law that established a system of national charters for banks, the United States national banks. It encouraged development of a national currency based on bank holdings of U.S. Treasury securities, the so-called National Bank Notes. It also established the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) as part of the Department of the Treasury. This was to establish a national security holding body for the existence of the monetary policy of the state. The Act, together with Abraham Lincoln’s issuance of “greenbacks”, raised money for the federal government in the American Civil War by enticing banks to buy federal bonds and taxing state bank issued currency out of existence. The law proved defective and was replaced by the National Bank Act of 1864. The money was used to fund the Union army in the fight against the Confederacy. This authorized the OCC to examine and regulate nationally-chartered banks.
The above only partially begins to include the historical records and other Acts of Congress that proves the US bankruptcy of 1933 and that there is no money, only credit that the American people are the Creditors.
All utilities companies knowingly have been sending their (customers) dividends but, in fact, making each recipient believe that dividend was an invoice for services provided by the utilities companies.
The Utilities Companies have mailed through the US Mail an intentional misrepresentation of facts, unfair business practices and each utility company and agents thereof have knowingly with forethought and malice created a fraudulent debt, defrauding the Creditor, that is the recipient of said dividends, that the utilities companies lead the recipient to believe through deception is an invoice.
The utilities companies in turn then extract through extortionate measures payment from the customers instead of the utilities companies informing those same recipients that this dividend is in actuality payment to the recipient as a charged off debt pursuant to the incorporated in entirety documented evidence provided herein.
Every/all utilities companies have thus created a convertible and fraudulent debt.(see ANALYSIS OF A COUNTRY EMBEZZLED).
Every/all utilities companies have failed to pay off any of the public debt but rather unlawfully redirected ill-gotten gains into private corporate accounts through embezzlement, theft by deception, fraudulent conversion, and in violation to each all incorporated in entirety laws established through and as a result of the US Bankruptcy of 1933, wherein there is no money, only “bank Notes” which are but only a promise to pay.
Thus all debts are to be discharged as agreed, but the utilities companies (and banks) through their greed have not discharged any debt, fraudulently making the utility customer deeper in debt by utilities companies use of “Bank Notes” or “promissory Notes” that the utilities companies add to the public debt side of the books rather than discharging the debts as stipulated in Public Laws, House Resolutions, and House Joint Resolutions.
Additionally, the alleged invoices sent to every recipient is a dividend an/or a coupon to the recipient. The utilities companies all know this to be a fact.
The Comptroller of The Currency also knows all of the above to be irrefutable facts, but is acting as a money laundering agency by/for/through/ the privately owned Federal Reserve, in Houston Texas, et al.
The Comptroller of the Currency at County, State, and Federal level all know the incorporated documents and testimony to be true, but have yet to discharge any of the public debt, therefore have misappropriated funds through embezzlement, theft by deception, obtaining money through false pretences, extortion and other predicate acts since the date of Comptroller of the Currency inception of 1863.
All utility companies, which are private for profit corporations, regardless of location, are knowingly participating in the fraud and ponzi scheme(http://asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byHeadline/13-031MR%20Ponzi%20scheme%20%E2%80%98mastermind%E2%80%99%20handed%20record%20penalty) with the intent to fraudulently convert this and every other country’s wealth into private industry accounts by fraudulent conveyance, embezzlement, theft by deception, creating fraudulent debts, ponzi scheme and fraud through the US Mail, just for starters. Here is a sample of a case in NSW courts as follows.: 13-031MR Ponzi scheme ‘mastermind’ handed record penalty
Thursday 21 February 2013
The man described as the ‘mastermind’ behind more than a dozen unregistered offshore managed investment funds, including a $30 million Ponzi scheme, was today ordered to pay a record penalty of $500,000, and was permanently banned from managing companies and providing financial services.
The penalty order of $500,000 is the largest awarded in ASIC’s history.
David Hobbs of Nelson, New Zealand, was one of 13 people, including his wife, Jacqueline Hobbs, who operated the unlicensed funds, which targeted Australian investors and self-managed superannuation funds.
More than $55 million was invested in 14 individual investment funds in countries including New Zealand, the United States, Hong Kong, Vanuatu, the Bahamas, Anguilla, and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
In a decision in November 2012, the Supreme Court of NSW found that together the funds were one large scheme and that Mr Hobbs either ‘personally chose’ or ‘implicitly approved’ the other individuals who operated the scheme with him (refer: 12-266MR).
At the Supreme Court of NSW, Justice Julie Ward today imposed the following penalties:
Name Disqualification / Banning from financial services Disqualification / Banning from managing corporations Pecuniary penalty
David Hobbs Permanent Permanent $500,000
David Collard (of Peakhurst) Permanent 20 years $150,000
Jacqueline Hobbs (of Nelson, New Zealand) 8 years 6 years $20,000
Huimin (Nancy) Wu (of Strathfield) 8 years 4 years Not applicable
On 11 February 2013 Brian Wood, of Davistown, Jimmy Truong of St John’s Park, and Con Koutsoukos of Wiley Park, were sentenced to jail for the role they played in operating one of the funds called the Integrity Plus Fund (refer: 13-025MR). The Court found the three knew the fund they were operating was a scam with no prospect of legitimate return, and that the ‘salary’ they were drawing for themselves came from investors’ money.
In handing down her decision today, Justice Ward said the Hobbs scheme could be characterised as ‘one presented to unsophisticated investors as a ‘get rich quick’ scheme with no risk of loss of capital and a huge upside on the profits by reason of their investment’.
She found Mr Hobbs’ conduct, in directing the payment of moneys out of investment schemes for his own personal benefit, as well as the giving by him of directions as to the payment of returns at a fixed percentage irrespective of the existence of profits (as in a Ponzi scheme), was serious and reflected a disregard for the interests of investors. Justice Ward said this, along with other factors such as the fact superannuation money was targeted, justified the imposition of significant penalties.
Justice Ward also found Mr Hobbs ‘deliberately sought to put in place and have implemented a structure that was intended to avoid regulatory supervision (and hence would deprive investors of that safeguard)’.
ASIC Commissioner Greg Tanzer condemned Mr Hobbs’ illegal behaviour.
The whole scheme was designed to avoid compliance with Australian financial services laws,’ Mr Tanzer said.
‘Mr Hobbs’ conduct involved a gross breach of investors’ trust. His actions were very serious and have left his victims in difficult financial positions.
‘Today’s outcome should send a strong message that ASIC will act to ensure those who deliberately deceive investors or misuse investors’ money for their own personal benefit are brought to account.
‘The experience of the investors in this matter should serve as a timely reminder to investors to beware of returns that sound too good to be true. Before you invest in any scheme, you should do independent checks to see if it has an Australian financial services licence and how the returns are really going to be made. Don’t just trust the word of the person selling you the scheme,’ Mr Tanzer added.
More information about ponzi schemes and investment funds can be found on ASIC’s MoneySmart website.
The Court also ordered the winding up of the scheme and appointed Mr Barry Taylor and Mr Andrew Needham of HLB Mann Judd as liquidators. Mr Taylor and Mr Needham will determine the return of funds to investors and the Court has ordered they hold a meeting of investors on or before 13 June 2013. They can be contacted on (02) 9020 4000.
Background
ASIC first took court action against the operators of the funds in April 2010 (refer: 10-74MR).
This followed an ASIC investigation into the unregistered offshore fund operators which in 2007 and 2008 froze eight offshore trading accounts containing investors’ funds and ultimately secured the payment into Court of $20 million (refer: 07-326, 08-40 and 12-129MR).
The scheme involved more than 500 Australian investors subscribing to so-called investment education packages and setting up personal offshore companies in which they would then stream their investments through in an attempt to thwart the Australian laws regulating financial services and products and protecting the interests of Australian investors. The defendants encouraged Australian investors to participate in the schemes using false representations as to the characteristics of the scheme and performance of the investments including by creating the impression that, or telling the investors:
•the offshore investments were legal when they were illegal in Australia;
•there was no risk of losing the money they invested (capital) because it was ‘capital guaranteed’ or ‘principal protected’ when in reality it was ‘at risk and that because of the leveraging of those investments, it was possible … to lose more than 100%’ of most invested funds; and
•their investment would return likely ‘around 4% per month’, when it ‘might make no return at all for any number of months’ (in the circumstances the use of qualifications such as ‘best efforts’ or ‘there being no guarantee’ did not ‘remove or counteract the misleading effect of what was said’).
Other types of misrepresentations made on different occasions to different investors included:
•that their investment could be redeemed on 60 days’ notice after 12 months when there was no mechanism to allow this;
•that the scheme was generating profits or sufficient profits to pay purported profit to the investor when it was a ponzi payment;
•investor funds would be invested in AA+ or A+ securities or the underwriting of those securities when they were not so invested; and
•they would become shareholders in a company that would generate profits for shareholders through investments in China, do a commercial bond to fund a project in China and Mr Hobbs would give $200 million from the proceeds of a sale of rights to the company.
Investors’ money was transferred through a series of offshore accounts resulting in a complicated international paper trail.
ASIC was assisted by a number of other regulators including the United States Commodity Future Trading Commission, New Zealand Financial Markets Authority and Hong Kong Securities & Futures Commission.
Editor's note 1:
Mr Hobbs is seeking to appeal Justice Ward's findings and the pecuniary penalty imposed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal.
The matter was last before the court on 2 September 2013, and has been listed for further directions on 28 October 2013.
Editor's note 2:
On 17 December 2013, the appeal brought by Mr Hobbs was dismissed by the court for want of prosecution.
Could you please send me 13-031MR Ponzi scheme ‘mastermind’ handed record penalty
Thursday 21 February 2013
The man described as the ‘mastermind’ behind more than a dozen unregistered offshore managed investment funds, including a $30 million Ponzi scheme, was today ordered to pay a record penalty of $500,000, and was permanently banned from managing companies and providing financial services.
The penalty order of $500,000 is the largest awarded in ASIC’s history.
David Hobbs of Nelson, New Zealand, was one of 13 people, including his wife, Jacqueline Hobbs, who operated the unlicensed funds, which targeted Australian investors and self-managed superannuation funds.
More than $55 million was invested in 14 individual investment funds in countries including New Zealand, the United States, Hong Kong, Vanuatu, the Bahamas, Anguilla, and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
In a decision in November 2012, the Supreme Court of NSW found that together the funds were one large scheme and that Mr Hobbs either ‘personally chose’ or ‘implicitly approved’ the other individuals who operated the scheme with him (refer: 12-266MR).
At the Supreme Court of NSW, Justice Julie Ward today imposed the following penalties:
Name Disqualification / Banning from financial services Disqualification / Banning from managing corporations Pecuniary penalty
David Hobbs Permanent Permanent $500,000
David Collard (of Peakhurst) Permanent 20 years $150,000
Jacqueline Hobbs (of Nelson, New Zealand) 8 years 6 years $20,000
Huimin (Nancy) Wu (of Strathfield) 8 years 4 years Not applicable
On 11 February 2013 Brian Wood, of Davistown, Jimmy Truong of St John’s Park, and Con Koutsoukos of Wiley Park, were sentenced to jail for the role they played in operating one of the funds called the Integrity Plus Fund (refer: 13-025MR). The Court found the three knew the fund they were operating was a scam with no prospect of legitimate return, and that the ‘salary’ they were drawing for themselves came from investors’ money.
In handing down her decision today, Justice Ward said the Hobbs scheme could be characterised as ‘one presented to unsophisticated investors as a ‘get rich quick’ scheme with no risk of loss of capital and a huge upside on the profits by reason of their investment’.
She found Mr Hobbs’ conduct, in directing the payment of moneys out of investment schemes for his own personal benefit, as well as the giving by him of directions as to the payment of returns at a fixed percentage irrespective of the existence of profits (as in a Ponzi scheme), was serious and reflected a disregard for the interests of investors. Justice Ward said this, along with other factors such as the fact superannuation money was targeted, justified the imposition of significant penalties.
Justice Ward also found Mr Hobbs ‘deliberately sought to put in place and have implemented a structure that was intended to avoid regulatory supervision (and hence would deprive investors of that safeguard)’.
ASIC Commissioner Greg Tanzer condemned Mr Hobbs’ illegal behaviour.
‘The whole scheme was designed to avoid compliance with Australian financial services laws,’ Mr Tanzer said.
‘Mr Hobbs’ conduct involved a gross breach of investors’ trust. His actions were very serious and have left his victims in difficult financial positions.
‘Today’s outcome should send a strong message that ASIC will act to ensure those who deliberately deceive investors or misuse investors’ money for their own personal benefit are brought to account.
‘The experience of the investors in this matter should serve as a timely reminder to investors to beware of returns that sound too good to be true. Before you invest in any scheme, you should do independent checks to see if it has an Australian financial services licence and how the returns are really going to be made. Don’t just trust the word of the person selling you the scheme,’ Mr Tanzer added.
More information about ponzi schemes and investment funds can be found on ASIC’s MoneySmart website.
The Court also ordered the winding up of the scheme and appointed Mr Barry Taylor and Mr Andrew Needham of HLB Mann Judd as liquidators. Mr Taylor and Mr Needham will determine the return of funds to investors and the Court has ordered they hold a meeting of investors on or before 13 June 2013. They can be contacted on (02) 9020 4000.
Background
ASIC first took court action against the operators of the funds in April 2010 (refer: 10-74MR).
This followed an ASIC investigation into the unregistered offshore fund operators which in 2007 and 2008 froze eight offshore trading accounts containing investors’ funds and ultimately secured the payment into Court of $20 million (refer: 07-326, 08-40 and 12-129MR).
The scheme involved more than 500 Australian investors subscribing to so-called investment education packages and setting up personal offshore companies in which they would then stream their investments through in an attempt to thwart the Australian laws regulating financial services and products and protecting the interests of Australian investors. The defendants encouraged Australian investors to participate in the schemes using false representations as to the characteristics of the scheme and performance of the investments including by creating the impression that, or telling the investors:
•there was no risk of losing the money they invested (capital) because it was ‘capital guaranteed’ or ‘principal protected’ when in reality it was ‘at risk and that because of the leveraging of those investments, it was possible … to lose more than 100%’ of most invested funds; and
•their investment would return likely ‘around 4% per month’, when it ‘might make no return at all for any number of months’ (in the circumstances the use of qualifications such as ‘best efforts’ or ‘there being no guarantee’ did not ‘remove or counteract the misleading effect of what was said’).
Other types of misrepresentations made on different occasions to different investors included:
•that their investment could be redeemed on 60 days’ notice after 12 months when there was no mechanism to allow this;
•that the scheme was generating profits or sufficient profits to pay purported profit to the investor when it was a ponzi payment;
•investor funds would be invested in AA+ or A+ securities or the underwriting of those securities when they were not so invested; and
•they would become shareholders in a company that would generate profits for shareholders through investments in China, do a commercial bond to fund a project in China and Mr Hobbs would give $200 million from the proceeds of a sale of rights to the company.
Investors’ money was transferred through a series of offshore accounts resulting in a complicated international paper trail.
ASIC was assisted by a number of other regulators including the United States Commodity Future Trading Commission, New Zealand Financial Markets Authority and Hong Kong Securities & Futures Commission.
Editor's note 1:
Mr Hobbs is seeking to appeal Justice Ward's findings and the pecuniary penalty imposed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal.
The matter was last before the court on 2 September 2013, and has been listed for further directions on 28 October 2013.
Editor's note 2:
On 17 December 2013, the appeal brought by Mr Hobbs was dismissed by the court for want of prosecution…. End of Sample.!
Every judge and every attorney in America/Australia, especially those who hold positions with several direct connections into the utilities companies bank accounts and acting as attorneys for the banks, most presumably in all other countries as well, since they all get their instructions from England the same place that all the banks get their instructions through the Comptroller of The Currency headquarters in London England, each knowing the above and incorporated to be true, since they are well versed on the US Bankruptcy of 1933 and that America still remains to date in a state of Emergency and operates under English Law, though that also is supposed to be a well kept secret.
This means there “IS NO MONEY.” It further means that since there is no money, American/Australian signatures are used as the credit to run these countries. That in turn means that it is the American /Australia people whom are the Creditors not the Debtors, as the banks and utilities companies would like everyone to believe.
The utilities companies have been operating with this knowledge with intent, forethought and malice to commit the crimes mentioned herein but not limited to.
Due to the facts incorporated herein in entirety, all debts are to be charged off, including but not limited to every alleged utilities invoice, which each/all have actually been a dividend, for which every utilities company embezzled payment through fraud, using extortion and other threats to discontinue service if “Payment is not made.”
These alleged invoices were dividends that every utilities company using deceptive business practice lead the public to believe were debts owed, when it is a fact that it is the utilities companies who owe the American /Australian public all those fraudulently received ill gotten gains plus the interest, stocks, bonds and other proceeds derived therefrom.
All utilities companies are now put on notice that all debts are to be charged off pursuant to the stipulated and incorporated herein Acts et al.
Under the Crime Act The law
Section 178BB of the Crimes Act states:
Whosoever, with intent to obtain for himself or herself or another person any money or valuable thing or any financial advantage of any kind whatsoever, makes or publishes, or concurs in making or publishing, any statement (whether or not in writing) which he or she knows to be false or misleading in a material particular or which is false or misleading in a material particular and is made with reckless disregard as to whether it is true or is false or misleading in a material particular shall be liable to imprisonment for five years.
For the purposes of and without limiting Part 1 A, the necessary geographical nexus exists between the State and an offence against this section if the offence is committed by a public official (within the meaning of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988) and involves public money of the State or other property held by the public official for or on behalf of the State. .
EVERY/ALL UTILITY COMPANIES
FOR EMBEZZLEMENT , THEFT BY DECEPTION & EXTORTION
FAILING TO DISCHARGE ALL DEBTS
PURSUANT TO
73RD CONGRESS. SESS 1. CHS. 48 49. JUNE 5, 6,1933 HJR 192
HR 1491 PUBLIC LAW 1 48 STAT 1
PUBLIC LAW 10 CHAPTER 48 STAT 112
PUBLIC LAW 73-10 40 STAT 411
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT (TWEA) OCT 6, 1917
but not limited to:
Since House Joint Resolution 192 (HJR 192) (Public law 7310) was passed in 1933 we have only had debt, because all property and gold was seized by the government as collateral in the bankruptcy of the United States.
In 1863 the first Bank Act was passed. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (or OCC) is a US federal agency established by the National Currency Act of 1863 and serves to charter, regulate, and supervise all national banks and the federal branches and agencies of foreign banks in the United States.
The OCC was created by Abraham Lincoln to fund the American Civil War but was later transformed into a regulatory agency to instil confidence in the National Banking system and protect consumers from misleading business practices.
The Lieber Code, or General Order 100 was also created by Abraham Lincoln in 1863.
The National Bank Act (ch. 58, 12 Stat. 665, February 25, 1863) was a United States federal law that established a system of national charters for banks, the United States national banks. It encouraged development of a national currency based on bank holdings of U.S. Treasury securities, the so-called National Bank Notes. It also established the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) as part of the Department of the Treasury. This was to establish a national security holding body for the existence of the monetary policy of the state. The Act, together with Abraham Lincoln’s issuance of “greenbacks”, raised money for the federal government in the American Civil War by enticing banks to buy federal bonds and taxing state bank issued currency out of existence. The law proved defective and was replaced by the National Bank Act of 1864. The money was used to fund the Union army in the fight against the Confederacy. This authorized the OCC to examine and regulate nationally-chartered banks.
The above only partially begins to include the historical records and other Acts of Congress that proves the US bankruptcy of 1933 and that there is no money, only credit that the American people are the Creditors.
All utilities companies knowingly have been sending their (customers) dividends but, in fact, making each recipient believe that dividend was an invoice for services provided by the utilities companies.
The Utilities Companies have mailed through the US Mail an intentional misrepresentation of facts, unfair business practices and each utility company and agents thereof have knowingly with forethought and malice created a fraudulent debt, defrauding the Creditor, that is the recipient of said dividends, that the utilities companies lead the recipient to believe through deception is an invoice.
The utilities companies in turn then extract through extortionate measures payment from the customers instead of the utilities companies informing those same recipients that this dividend is in actuality payment to the recipient as a charged off debt pursuant to the incorporated in entirety documented evidence provided herein.
Every/all utilities companies have thus created a convertible and fraudulent debt.(see ANALYSIS OF A COUNTRY EMBEZZLED).
Every/all utilities companies have failed to pay off any of the public debt but rather unlawfully redirected ill-gotten gains into private corporate accounts through embezzlement, theft by deception, fraudulent conversion, and in violation to each all incorporated in entirety laws established through and as a result of the US Bankruptcy of 1933, wherein there is no money, only “bank Notes” which are but only a promise to pay.
Thus all debts are to be discharged as agreed, but the utilities companies (and banks) through their greed have not discharged any debt, fraudulently making the utility customer deeper in debt by utilities companies use of “Bank Notes” or “promissory Notes” that the utilities companies add to the public debt side of the books rather than discharging the debts as stipulated in Public Laws, House Resolutions, and House Joint Resolutions.
Additionally, the alleged invoices sent to every recipient is a dividend an/or a coupon to the recipient. The utilities companies all know this to be a fact.
The Comptroller of The Currency also knows all of the above to be irrefutable facts, but is acting as a money laundering agency by/for/through/ the privately owned Federal Reserve, in Houston Texas, et al.
The Comptroller of the Currency at County, State, and Federal level all know the incorporated documents and testimony to be true, but have yet to discharge any of the public debt, therefore have misappropriated funds through embezzlement, theft by deception, obtaining money through false pretences, extortion and other predicate acts since the date of Comptroller of the Currency inception of 1863.
All utility companies, which are private for profit corporations, regardless of location, are knowingly participating in the fraud and ponzi scheme(http://asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byHeadline/13-031MR%20Ponzi%20scheme%20%E2%80%98mastermind%E2%80%99%20handed%20record%20penalty) with the intent to fraudulently convert this and every other country’s wealth into private industry accounts by fraudulent conveyance, embezzlement, theft by deception, creating fraudulent debts, ponzi scheme and fraud through the US Mail, just for starters. Here is a sample of a case in NSW courts as follows.: 13-031MR Ponzi scheme ‘mastermind’ handed record penalty
Thursday 21 February 2013
The man described as the ‘mastermind’ behind more than a dozen unregistered offshore managed investment funds, including a $30 million Ponzi scheme, was today ordered to pay a record penalty of $500,000, and was permanently banned from managing companies and providing financial services.
The penalty order of $500,000 is the largest awarded in ASIC’s history.
David Hobbs of Nelson, New Zealand, was one of 13 people, including his wife, Jacqueline Hobbs, who operated the unlicensed funds, which targeted Australian investors and self-managed superannuation funds.
More than $55 million was invested in 14 individual investment funds in countries including New Zealand, the United States, Hong Kong, Vanuatu, the Bahamas, Anguilla, and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
In a decision in November 2012, the Supreme Court of NSW found that together the funds were one large scheme and that Mr Hobbs either ‘personally chose’ or ‘implicitly approved’ the other individuals who operated the scheme with him (refer: 12-266MR).
At the Supreme Court of NSW, Justice Julie Ward today imposed the following penalties:
Name Disqualification / Banning from financial services Disqualification / Banning from managing corporations Pecuniary penalty
David Hobbs Permanent Permanent $500,000
David Collard (of Peakhurst) Permanent 20 years $150,000
Jacqueline Hobbs (of Nelson, New Zealand) 8 years 6 years $20,000
Huimin (Nancy) Wu (of Strathfield) 8 years 4 years Not applicable
On 11 February 2013 Brian Wood, of Davistown, Jimmy Truong of St John’s Park, and Con Koutsoukos of Wiley Park, were sentenced to jail for the role they played in operating one of the funds called the Integrity Plus Fund (refer: 13-025MR). The Court found the three knew the fund they were operating was a scam with no prospect of legitimate return, and that the ‘salary’ they were drawing for themselves came from investors’ money.
In handing down her decision today, Justice Ward said the Hobbs scheme could be characterised as ‘one presented to unsophisticated investors as a ‘get rich quick’ scheme with no risk of loss of capital and a huge upside on the profits by reason of their investment’.
She found Mr Hobbs’ conduct, in directing the payment of moneys out of investment schemes for his own personal benefit, as well as the giving by him of directions as to the payment of returns at a fixed percentage irrespective of the existence of profits (as in a Ponzi scheme), was serious and reflected a disregard for the interests of investors. Justice Ward said this, along with other factors such as the fact superannuation money was targeted, justified the imposition of significant penalties.
Justice Ward also found Mr Hobbs ‘deliberately sought to put in place and have implemented a structure that was intended to avoid regulatory supervision (and hence would deprive investors of that safeguard)’.
ASIC Commissioner Greg Tanzer condemned Mr Hobbs’ illegal behaviour.
The whole scheme was designed to avoid compliance with Australian financial services laws,’ Mr Tanzer said.
‘Mr Hobbs’ conduct involved a gross breach of investors’ trust. His actions were very serious and have left his victims in difficult financial positions.
‘Today’s outcome should send a strong message that ASIC will act to ensure those who deliberately deceive investors or misuse investors’ money for their own personal benefit are brought to account.
‘The experience of the investors in this matter should serve as a timely reminder to investors to beware of returns that sound too good to be true. Before you invest in any scheme, you should do independent checks to see if it has an Australian financial services licence and how the returns are really going to be made. Don’t just trust the word of the person selling you the scheme,’ Mr Tanzer added.
More information about ponzi schemes and investment funds can be found on ASIC’s MoneySmart website.
The Court also ordered the winding up of the scheme and appointed Mr Barry Taylor and Mr Andrew Needham of HLB Mann Judd as liquidators. Mr Taylor and Mr Needham will determine the return of funds to investors and the Court has ordered they hold a meeting of investors on or before 13 June 2013. They can be contacted on (02) 9020 4000.
Background
ASIC first took court action against the operators of the funds in April 2010 (refer: 10-74MR).
This followed an ASIC investigation into the unregistered offshore fund operators which in 2007 and 2008 froze eight offshore trading accounts containing investors’ funds and ultimately secured the payment into Court of $20 million (refer: 07-326, 08-40 and 12-129MR).
The scheme involved more than 500 Australian investors subscribing to so-called investment education packages and setting up personal offshore companies in which they would then stream their investments through in an attempt to thwart the Australian laws regulating financial services and products and protecting the interests of Australian investors. The defendants encouraged Australian investors to participate in the schemes using false representations as to the characteristics of the scheme and performance of the investments including by creating the impression that, or telling the investors:
•the offshore investments were legal when they were illegal in Australia;
•there was no risk of losing the money they invested (capital) because it was ‘capital guaranteed’ or ‘principal protected’ when in reality it was ‘at risk and that because of the leveraging of those investments, it was possible … to lose more than 100%’ of most invested funds; and
•their investment would return likely ‘around 4% per month’, when it ‘might make no return at all for any number of months’ (in the circumstances the use of qualifications such as ‘best efforts’ or ‘there being no guarantee’ did not ‘remove or counteract the misleading effect of what was said’).
Other types of misrepresentations made on different occasions to different investors included:
•that their investment could be redeemed on 60 days’ notice after 12 months when there was no mechanism to allow this;
•that the scheme was generating profits or sufficient profits to pay purported profit to the investor when it was a ponzi payment;
•investor funds would be invested in AA+ or A+ securities or the underwriting of those securities when they were not so invested; and
•they would become shareholders in a company that would generate profits for shareholders through investments in China, do a commercial bond to fund a project in China and Mr Hobbs would give $200 million from the proceeds of a sale of rights to the company.
Investors’ money was transferred through a series of offshore accounts resulting in a complicated international paper trail.
ASIC was assisted by a number of other regulators including the United States Commodity Future Trading Commission, New Zealand Financial Markets Authority and Hong Kong Securities & Futures Commission.
Editor's note 1:
Mr Hobbs is seeking to appeal Justice Ward's findings and the pecuniary penalty imposed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal.
The matter was last before the court on 2 September 2013, and has been listed for further directions on 28 October 2013.
Editor's note 2:
On 17 December 2013, the appeal brought by Mr Hobbs was dismissed by the court for want of prosecution.
Could you please send me 13-031MR Ponzi scheme ‘mastermind’ handed record penalty
Thursday 21 February 2013
The man described as the ‘mastermind’ behind more than a dozen unregistered offshore managed investment funds, including a $30 million Ponzi scheme, was today ordered to pay a record penalty of $500,000, and was permanently banned from managing companies and providing financial services.
The penalty order of $500,000 is the largest awarded in ASIC’s history.
David Hobbs of Nelson, New Zealand, was one of 13 people, including his wife, Jacqueline Hobbs, who operated the unlicensed funds, which targeted Australian investors and self-managed superannuation funds.
More than $55 million was invested in 14 individual investment funds in countries including New Zealand, the United States, Hong Kong, Vanuatu, the Bahamas, Anguilla, and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
In a decision in November 2012, the Supreme Court of NSW found that together the funds were one large scheme and that Mr Hobbs either ‘personally chose’ or ‘implicitly approved’ the other individuals who operated the scheme with him (refer: 12-266MR).
At the Supreme Court of NSW, Justice Julie Ward today imposed the following penalties:
Name Disqualification / Banning from financial services Disqualification / Banning from managing corporations Pecuniary penalty
David Hobbs Permanent Permanent $500,000
David Collard (of Peakhurst) Permanent 20 years $150,000
Jacqueline Hobbs (of Nelson, New Zealand) 8 years 6 years $20,000
Huimin (Nancy) Wu (of Strathfield) 8 years 4 years Not applicable
On 11 February 2013 Brian Wood, of Davistown, Jimmy Truong of St John’s Park, and Con Koutsoukos of Wiley Park, were sentenced to jail for the role they played in operating one of the funds called the Integrity Plus Fund (refer: 13-025MR). The Court found the three knew the fund they were operating was a scam with no prospect of legitimate return, and that the ‘salary’ they were drawing for themselves came from investors’ money.
In handing down her decision today, Justice Ward said the Hobbs scheme could be characterised as ‘one presented to unsophisticated investors as a ‘get rich quick’ scheme with no risk of loss of capital and a huge upside on the profits by reason of their investment’.
She found Mr Hobbs’ conduct, in directing the payment of moneys out of investment schemes for his own personal benefit, as well as the giving by him of directions as to the payment of returns at a fixed percentage irrespective of the existence of profits (as in a Ponzi scheme), was serious and reflected a disregard for the interests of investors. Justice Ward said this, along with other factors such as the fact superannuation money was targeted, justified the imposition of significant penalties.
Justice Ward also found Mr Hobbs ‘deliberately sought to put in place and have implemented a structure that was intended to avoid regulatory supervision (and hence would deprive investors of that safeguard)’.
ASIC Commissioner Greg Tanzer condemned Mr Hobbs’ illegal behaviour.
‘The whole scheme was designed to avoid compliance with Australian financial services laws,’ Mr Tanzer said.
‘Mr Hobbs’ conduct involved a gross breach of investors’ trust. His actions were very serious and have left his victims in difficult financial positions.
‘Today’s outcome should send a strong message that ASIC will act to ensure those who deliberately deceive investors or misuse investors’ money for their own personal benefit are brought to account.
‘The experience of the investors in this matter should serve as a timely reminder to investors to beware of returns that sound too good to be true. Before you invest in any scheme, you should do independent checks to see if it has an Australian financial services licence and how the returns are really going to be made. Don’t just trust the word of the person selling you the scheme,’ Mr Tanzer added.
More information about ponzi schemes and investment funds can be found on ASIC’s MoneySmart website.
The Court also ordered the winding up of the scheme and appointed Mr Barry Taylor and Mr Andrew Needham of HLB Mann Judd as liquidators. Mr Taylor and Mr Needham will determine the return of funds to investors and the Court has ordered they hold a meeting of investors on or before 13 June 2013. They can be contacted on (02) 9020 4000.
Background
ASIC first took court action against the operators of the funds in April 2010 (refer: 10-74MR).
This followed an ASIC investigation into the unregistered offshore fund operators which in 2007 and 2008 froze eight offshore trading accounts containing investors’ funds and ultimately secured the payment into Court of $20 million (refer: 07-326, 08-40 and 12-129MR).
The scheme involved more than 500 Australian investors subscribing to so-called investment education packages and setting up personal offshore companies in which they would then stream their investments through in an attempt to thwart the Australian laws regulating financial services and products and protecting the interests of Australian investors. The defendants encouraged Australian investors to participate in the schemes using false representations as to the characteristics of the scheme and performance of the investments including by creating the impression that, or telling the investors:
•there was no risk of losing the money they invested (capital) because it was ‘capital guaranteed’ or ‘principal protected’ when in reality it was ‘at risk and that because of the leveraging of those investments, it was possible … to lose more than 100%’ of most invested funds; and
•their investment would return likely ‘around 4% per month’, when it ‘might make no return at all for any number of months’ (in the circumstances the use of qualifications such as ‘best efforts’ or ‘there being no guarantee’ did not ‘remove or counteract the misleading effect of what was said’).
Other types of misrepresentations made on different occasions to different investors included:
•that their investment could be redeemed on 60 days’ notice after 12 months when there was no mechanism to allow this;
•that the scheme was generating profits or sufficient profits to pay purported profit to the investor when it was a ponzi payment;
•investor funds would be invested in AA+ or A+ securities or the underwriting of those securities when they were not so invested; and
•they would become shareholders in a company that would generate profits for shareholders through investments in China, do a commercial bond to fund a project in China and Mr Hobbs would give $200 million from the proceeds of a sale of rights to the company.
Investors’ money was transferred through a series of offshore accounts resulting in a complicated international paper trail.
ASIC was assisted by a number of other regulators including the United States Commodity Future Trading Commission, New Zealand Financial Markets Authority and Hong Kong Securities & Futures Commission.
Editor's note 1:
Mr Hobbs is seeking to appeal Justice Ward's findings and the pecuniary penalty imposed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal.
The matter was last before the court on 2 September 2013, and has been listed for further directions on 28 October 2013.
Editor's note 2:
On 17 December 2013, the appeal brought by Mr Hobbs was dismissed by the court for want of prosecution…. End of Sample.!
Every judge and every attorney in America/Australia, especially those who hold positions with several direct connections into the utilities companies bank accounts and acting as attorneys for the banks, most presumably in all other countries as well, since they all get their instructions from England the same place that all the banks get their instructions through the Comptroller of The Currency headquarters in London England, each knowing the above and incorporated to be true, since they are well versed on the US Bankruptcy of 1933 and that America still remains to date in a state of Emergency and operates under English Law, though that also is supposed to be a well kept secret.
This means there “IS NO MONEY.” It further means that since there is no money, American/Australian signatures are used as the credit to run these countries. That in turn means that it is the American /Australia people whom are the Creditors not the Debtors, as the banks and utilities companies would like everyone to believe.
The utilities companies have been operating with this knowledge with intent, forethought and malice to commit the crimes mentioned herein but not limited to.
Due to the facts incorporated herein in entirety, all debts are to be charged off, including but not limited to every alleged utilities invoice, which each/all have actually been a dividend, for which every utilities company embezzled payment through fraud, using extortion and other threats to discontinue service if “Payment is not made.”
These alleged invoices were dividends that every utilities company using deceptive business practice lead the public to believe were debts owed, when it is a fact that it is the utilities companies who owe the American /Australian public all those fraudulently received ill gotten gains plus the interest, stocks, bonds and other proceeds derived therefrom.
All utilities companies are now put on notice that all debts are to be charged off pursuant to the stipulated and incorporated herein Acts et al.
Under the Crime Act The law
Section 178BB of the Crimes Act states:
Whosoever, with intent to obtain for himself or herself or another person any money or valuable thing or any financial advantage of any kind whatsoever, makes or publishes, or concurs in making or publishing, any statement (whether or not in writing) which he or she knows to be false or misleading in a material particular or which is false or misleading in a material particular and is made with reckless disregard as to whether it is true or is false or misleading in a material particular shall be liable to imprisonment for five years.
For the purposes of and without limiting Part 1 A, the necessary geographical nexus exists between the State and an offence against this section if the offence is committed by a public official (within the meaning of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988) and involves public money of the State or other property held by the public official for or on behalf of the State. .
Section 300 of the Crimes Act states:
A person who uses an instrument which is, and which the person knows to be, false, with the intention of inducing another person:
to accept the instrument as genuine, and
because of that acceptance, to do or not do some act to that other person/s, or to another person/s, prejudice, is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.
The law
Section 178A of the Crimes Act states:
Whosoever having collected or received any money or valuable security upon terms requiring him or her to deliver or account for or pay to any person the whole or any part of: such money or valuable security or the proceeds thereof; or
any balance of such money, valuable security, or proceeds thereof after any authorised deductions or payments have been made thereout,
fraudulently misappropriates to his or her own use or the use of any other person, or fraudulently omits to account for or pay the whole or any part of such money, valuable security, or proceeds, or the whole or any part of such balance in violation of the terms on which he or she collected or received such money or valuable security, shall be liable to imprisonment for seven years.
For the purposes of this section any such money, valuable security, or proceeds thereof, or any balance thereout shall be deemed to be the property of the person who authorised the collection or receipt of the money or valuable security or from whom the money or valuable security was received notwithstanding that the accused may have been authorised to make any deduction thereout on his or her own behalf, or any payment thereout to another person, or to mix such money, valuable security, or proceeds thereof, or such balance with his or her own moneys .
A person who uses an instrument which is, and which the person knows to be, false, with the intention of inducing another person:
to accept the instrument as genuine, and
because of that acceptance, to do or not do some act to that other person/s, or to another person/s, prejudice, is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.
The law
Section 178A of the Crimes Act states:
Whosoever having collected or received any money or valuable security upon terms requiring him or her to deliver or account for or pay to any person the whole or any part of: such money or valuable security or the proceeds thereof; or
any balance of such money, valuable security, or proceeds thereof after any authorised deductions or payments have been made thereout,
fraudulently misappropriates to his or her own use or the use of any other person, or fraudulently omits to account for or pay the whole or any part of such money, valuable security, or proceeds, or the whole or any part of such balance in violation of the terms on which he or she collected or received such money or valuable security, shall be liable to imprisonment for seven years.
For the purposes of this section any such money, valuable security, or proceeds thereof, or any balance thereout shall be deemed to be the property of the person who authorised the collection or receipt of the money or valuable security or from whom the money or valuable security was received notwithstanding that the accused may have been authorised to make any deduction thereout on his or her own behalf, or any payment thereout to another person, or to mix such money, valuable security, or proceeds thereof, or such balance with his or her own moneys .
