Do bank deposits belong to you?

[Ron Mauer Sr]

From Jim Sinclair's website (http://www.jsmineset.com/) (May 12, 2013)

- When you deposit YOUR money in the Bank, you transfer ownership of that money to the Bank. It becomes THE BANK’S MONEY and as a depositor you instantly become an unsecured creditor.

- You have a ‘claim’ on an equal sum of money and can ask for it back.

- If the Bank won’t return an equal sum to you, it can be sued under tort law, so long as the Bank is solvent… providing you ask for your money back.

- If the Bank is broke then as an unsecured creditor you wind up with pennies on the dollar or even zero since secured creditors of the Bank get paid first.

This is the British LAW. For reference, it was established under UK law in 1848 by ‘Foley vs. Hill.’ Once a deposit has been made into a Bank, the Bank becomes a debtor and the depositor a creditor. You have pointed out similar precedents in US law.

The Bank has NO trusteeship or fiduciary duty to depositors, and cannot be prosecuted under criminal law (a) Eric Holder was RIGHT on this point, and (b) not surprised that he did not cite the exact legal reason in his statement – Banks cannot be held liable to depositors for gambling (think ‘OTC derivatives’ the same known as swaps) or misusing (think risky loans, bad investments, sovereign bonds like Greece, or huge bonuses to themselves).

Almost universally, depositors think that money in the Bank is THEIRS. It is NOT. Almost no depositor thinks of themselves as a creditor, much less an unsecured creditor. This is the Bankster game in plain sight. It’s almost as funny as the saying ‘sound as a dollar.’

In closing, with a respectful hat tip to Mr. Jim Sinclair, it’s time to start getting out of the system.

As Bank depositors learned in Cyprus, that money IN the Bank isn’t really there for them when things go South. How many of them do you think now wish they had their assets outside the system before it blew itself up?

21379

[we-R-one]

Yep, it's the truth! This ruling helped seal the deal.

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/08/banks-can-legally-steal-customer-funds.html

Banks Can Legally Steal Customer Funds From Private Checking Accounts
Susanne Posel
Infowars.com
August 20, 2012

"In 2007, the Sentinel Management Group (SMG) collapsed, leaving many customer segregated funds lost after they had been used as collateral. After a plethora of lawsuits and creditor claims, a decision earlier this month in the 7th Circuit Court placed the banking cartels ahead of customer claims for funds returned. Essentially, the Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM) sued to be first in line for return on stolen customer account monies – and won the right by the US court system.
In the mainstream media (MSM), the SMG collapse and subsequent ruling in favor of BNYM was touted as a difficulty “for customers to recoup money lost”.
SMG, a Chicago-based futures broker, had stolen more than $500 million in segregated customer funds to use as collateral on a loan to BNYM for in-house proprietary trading operations. Their books were audited by the National Futures Association (NFA), however the NFA admitted that they could not understand the convoluted mess they were provided by SMG to sign off on. And yet they did; and approved the audit.

BNYM sued SMG to re-coup any monies owed to them. However, these monies were customer segregated funds that SMG stole and re-hypothecated.
In federal court, John D. Tinder, US Circuit Court Judge ruled “that Sentinel failed to keep client funds properly segregated is not, on its own, sufficient to rule as a matter of law that Sentinel acted ‘with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud’ its customers.”

This means that once a banking customer deposits their money into an account with a bank, the funds become property of the bank. The customer, at the point of deposit, relinquishes all rights to that money regardless of any laws in place, legal assurances, claims or guarantees; and this extends from investments to private checking accounts.

Once the bank has physical possession of your money, they own it and can use it for any means they deem fit. The veil has been lifted on separation of customer and bank funds. They are now legally co-mingled."

[indigopete]

When you deposit YOUR money in the Bank, you transfer ownership of that money to the Bank

Actually, it doesn't quite work like this.

Nobody ever "deposits their money in the bank" because their money never leaves the banks. The money moves from one bank account to another, so for example, from an employer's account to an employee's. But all the time, the money stays on the bank's balance sheet (or at least on the "banking system's" balance sheet).

A depositor account is therefore a misnomer. What it actually represents is a portion of banking system debt which is credited to the account holder. The rest of the economy is responsible for underwriting that debt through economic activity. Thats why all these conditions are there - because the debt is only payable under condition of sufficient economic activity / growth taking place to support it.

Think of is this way, if there is a total of 1 Trillion dollars of debt in the economy (money owed to the banks), and you've got $1000 in your account, that gives you a "call" on that 1 Trillion of debt to the value of $1000. You don't actually "have" $1000 as such. You would have it if you could go to a cash dispenser and withdraw it (i.e. turn it from commercial bank into central bank money = notes), but as we all know, that's not possible. There is only a tiny amount of central bank (notes) money in the system compared to commercial bank (debt based) money.

So the bank says, "look, you've got this call on the 1 Trillion, to the value of £1000, but we warn you, the 1 Trillion is only debt at the moment and if gets defaulted on then your 'call' will be on a smaller amount. Nothing to do with us - it's the economy's job to pay it".

Lately, (the last 5 years) the commercial banks have been haemorrhaging with defaults and that 1 Trillion has massively reduced. So everybody who's $1000 in the plus now has a "call" on a much smaller amount of debt. Now the central banks have stepped in and are printing like mad to compensate for this, however very little of it is finding its way back into the economy (Known by the Bernanki's and Draghis as "transmission of monetary policy"). Instead its being buffered by the commercial banks for 2 reasons:

[1] - they are re capitalising their balance sheets
[2] - the money can only get into the economy by somebody borrowing it from a commercial bank and there are few takers for this at the moment because of the number of burnt fingers around

So thats why the central bankers are looking at the "other side of the equation" which is reduce the number of "calls" on the debt in existence - the "Cyprus" solution. To us therefore it looks like stealing but to them it's fairly legitimate because the money never was there in the first place, it was a conditional call on hypothetical future base of money.

That's my understanding of the whole thing anyway. I'd be happy to have it enhanced by anybody who really knows what they're talking about :)

[sigma6]

No surprise here, been saying from day one, the Birth Certificate is evidence that the State/Province is holding the title to NAME, therefore the State/Province is the true LEGAL owner. The State owns everything. And have, in this incredible act of desperation, basically exposed this reality right under our noses. The flip side potential is there also. Stop pretending you are the business corporation (that's what the NAME is... evidence of our interest in a security, and the government is holding it FOR you. Therefore the legal owner (the State) is the party with liability. I know people who have sent just the BC with some very specific wording and the government went out and cleared all his liabilities in the public! They went searching and clearing proactively, on their own! Still working through the logistics, but for now, just contemplate and know that this is the hidden truth.... Right now there is some focus on clarifying unequivocally that we are NOT the beneficiary (which is our right to say...) that should throw it clearly back to State as trustee and the public as beneficiary (public benefit) Beneficiary also has liability, the NAME always pays as it should, just don't attach yourself...

Criminal Code definition of "every one" "owner" and "person", and similar expressions, include her Majesty and an organization;

[indigopete]

Bitcoin. It belongs to you.

[Conchis]

And the real beauty of the thing is....since printing money is also a part of the whole system...they can guarantee that in the event of bank failure, they can simply print more money, diluting the value of the remaining money(ie through a FDIC scheme). In essence, they can 1) escape repayment altogether through an interesting concept of banking duty or 2) print more money and let the whole system bear the responsibility. Either way, if you consider the entire system, including the Fed, there is no banking risk.

[donk]

And the real beauty of the thing is....since printing money is also a part of the whole system...they can guarantee that in the event of bank failure, they can simply print more money, diluting the value of the remaining money(ie through a FDIC scheme). In essence, they can 1) escape repayment altogether through an interesting concept of banking duty or 2) print more money and let the whole system bear the responsibility. Either way, if you consider the entire system, including the Fed, there is no banking risk.

The risk is that it in actuality, it is a faith-based system. Having global media communications control alleviates most of the risk, but you can only keep changing the rules for so long.

In school, you are taught it is a zero-sum game, and that there is some sort of science/math/reality based formulas that determine actual "value" of "assets".

Boy, won't it be something the day someone listens to one of the plethora of "little boys" screaming the Emporer has no clothes (and the system is an infinite "growth" based paradigm...aka A BIG UNSUSTAINABLE LIE)