Ramos hits back after Public Protector guns for ABSA

[Vrotappel]

Am I the only one concerned that R1.2b of taxpayers money (which is probably more than R10b in today's terms) was used to finance a private company with private shareholders?

I don't think so, many more are captured by the Guptas and their lies. Useful fools are an apt description.

 

[Vrotappel]

Banks to be sued over repossessions

That one fell down at the first hurdle.

 

[rza]

I don't think so, many more are captured by the Guptas and their lies. Useful fools are an apt description.

The problem comes when people apply double standards when it comes to the Ruperts who owned Bankkorp.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Let me use an example so you can understand that it is unlawful to separate assets from liabilities in this case. Let's say I sell you a car that is still under finance by Wesbank, and we enter into a purchase agreement whereby I hand over the car to you while I retain the responsibility for the liability in terms of the amount still outstanding to Wesbank? If I fail to pay Wesbank, is Wesbank right to the asset precluded by our purchase agreement whereby I'm responsible for the liability while you take the asset? Try using your argument on Wesbank and see if it will see the light of day.

If you are struggling to answer the question then go back to studying the formalities of a contract.

Bwahaha rza my son.... so simplistic that this just goes totally over your head

 

[ToxicBunny]

The problem comes when people apply double standards when it comes to the Ruperts who owned Bankkorp.

The Rupert’s owned bankorp??? Mind providing even a stitch of evidence for the complete load of crap

 

[Vrotappel]

The problem comes when people apply double standards when it comes to the Ruperts who owned Bankkorp.

The report she relied upon when doing her findings and recommendations were thoroughly debunked in subsequent reports. The specific report was picked to fuel a specific narrative. Please stop falling for the lies ANN7 is feeding you.

Fact is ABSA is prepared to take this to court. Your dear leader and his followers do everything to stay out of court. Just from this it is evident where the truth is.

 

[Vrotappel]

That one fell down at the first hurdle.

Here it is:

ConCourt dismisses application in home repossessions case

 

[Sideshow Bob]

Am I the only one concerned that R1.2b of taxpayers money (which is probably more than R10b in today's terms) was used to finance a private company with private shareholders?

It looks very complicated although Judge Davis seems to have exonerated ABSA a while ago.

/Dons typical myBB member hat.
And it happened in last century man.. just leave it man..didn't TRC cover all this already..where is your compassion (lol) ..you guys whine so much et. al..
/removes hat.

In any case, it looks like legally nothing can be done after 15 years, so it is not worth spending state resources to pursue this matter. It will be best if state resources are utilized to pursue cases against Zuma, Gupta - not likely to happen of course.
--
The Davis Panel: The Reserve Bank Acted Illegally, But Absa Isn't Liable
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/201...bank-acted-illegally-but-absa-isn_a_21656646/

What did the panel find about Absa?
Davis and his colleagues said that contrary to what was in the public domain, they found no evidence of any conspiracies. They added that Absa paid for the SARB's continued assistance to Bankorp once Absa bought the entity and could not be regarded as having benefited from the SARB "lifeboat".

 

[ForceFate]

Let me use an example so you can understand that it is unlawful to separate assets from liabilities in this case. Let's say I sell you a car that is still under finance by Wesbank, and we enter into a purchase agreement whereby I hand over the car to you while I retain the responsibility for the liability in terms of the amount still outstanding to Wesbank? If I fail to pay Wesbank, is Wesbank right to the asset precluded by our purchase agreement whereby I'm responsible for the liability while you take the asset? Try using your argument on Wesbank and see if it will see the light of day.

If you are struggling to answer the question then go back to studying the formalities of a contract.

Layman here. What does your initial agreement with Wesbank say about it? If the 2nd agreement is precluded in original contract with Wesbank, does that not render it invalid? I feel like this is not a good example.

 

[f2wohf]

The problem comes when people apply double standards when it comes to the Ruperts who owned Bankkorp.

I'll give you a clue.

Bankorp belonged at 88% to Sankorp, a subsidiary of Sanlam, which was a mutual society (meaning belonging to every single one of the hundreds of thousands or even millions of policy holder, which probably includes some of your family).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanlam#History

Since 88% was owned by a non Rupert linked company, you can't say that the Rupert owned Bankorp.

Even if they owned shares, it could be maximum 12% (non controlling stake) and I can't find any evidence that Rembrandt, Remgro, Richemont or the Rupert would have owned any stake whatsoever in Bankorp.

The links with the Rupert are actually stated by BLF without any proof, the Rupert are quoted in the CIEX report (as are Nedbank, Daimler, Armscor, FNB and others) but not in relation to Bankorp from what I can gather.

 

[BBSA]

Am I the only one concerned that R1.2b of taxpayers money (which is probably more than R10b in today's terms) was used to finance a private parking company with private shareholders?

Are you the only one who can not see the PP is captured?

The sad thing is that she is using our tax money to do the Zupta's dirty work.

 

[f2wohf]

Let me use an example so you can understand that it is unlawful to separate assets from liabilities in this case. Let's say I sell you a car that is still under finance by Wesbank, and we enter into a purchase agreement whereby I hand over the car to you while I retain the responsibility for the liability in terms of the amount still outstanding to Wesbank? If I fail to pay Wesbank, is Wesbank right to the asset precluded by our purchase agreement whereby I'm responsible for the liability while you take the asset? Try using your argument on Wesbank and see if it will see the light of day.

If you are struggling to answer the question then go back to studying the formalities of a contract.

Your example simply doesn't work, a share purchase agreement has nothing to do (legally and practically) with a car finance agreement (which is governed by consumer and NCA regulations). Compare apples with apples. First, Wesbank wouldn't let you sell the car without settling it, here SARB allowed the sale.

1. Bankorp while owned by Sanlam was bailed out.
2. Sanlam sells Bankorp to ABSA for 0 + the amount of the bailout.

Consequences:
1. ABSA has paid the amount of the bailout to Sanlam
2. The guarantor of the bailout for SARB was Sanlam and remains Sanlam, not Bankorp, not ABSA.
3. Hence SARB should go after Sanlam to recover the bailout money that ABSA already paid to Sanlam.

ABSA would actually pay the amount of the bailout twice if you went after them.

But I guess the tens of contracts lawfirms do on a daily basis where liabilities are covered by the seller are all invalid, I guess all the court rulings validating such are also invalid and I guess all the provisions for liabilities specifically dedicated to this in listed companies are also illegal.

I'll let you browse this and you'll see that the seller can remain the one liable for liabilities existing at the time of the sale:
http://www.pennstatelawreview.org/116/3/116 Penn St. L. Rev. 913.pdf
https://content.next.westlaw.com/Do...&transitionType=Default&firstPage=true&bhcp=1
https://www.goulstonstorrs.com/portalresource/No Undisclosed Liabilities Representations

 

[rza]

Your example simply doesn't work, a share purchase agreement has nothing to do (legally and practically) with a car finance agreement (which is governed by consumer and NCA regulations). Compare apples with apples. First, Wesbank wouldn't let you sell the car without settling it, here SARB allowed the sale.

1. Bankorp while owned by Sanlam was bailed out.
2. Sanlam sells Bankorp to ABSA for 0 + the amount of the bailout.

Consequences:
1. ABSA has paid the amount of the bailout to Sanlam
2. The guarantor of the bailout for SARB was Sanlam and remains Sanlam, not Bankorp, not ABSA.
3. Hence SARB should go after Sanlam to recover the bailout money that ABSA already paid to Sanlam.

ABSA would actually pay the amount of the bailout twice if you went after them.

But I guess the tens of contracts lawfirms do on a daily basis where liabilities are covered by the seller are all invalid, I guess all the court rulings validating such are also invalid and I guess all the provisions for liabilities specifically dedicated to this in listed companies are also illegal.

I'll let you browse this and you'll see that the seller can remain the one liable for liabilities existing at the time of the sale:
http://www.pennstatelawreview.org/116/3/116 Penn St. L. Rev. 913.pdf
https://content.next.westlaw.com/Do...&transitionType=Default&firstPage=true&bhcp=1
https://www.goulstonstorrs.com/portalresource/No Undisclosed Liabilities Representations

This was why the whole bailout was declared unlawful by three investigations (two by judges). So why do you keep on suggesting as if the agreement was above board. SARB should not have done what it did. Absa should never have been allowed to do what they did. This is why we are in this mess we are in today. So stop trying to pretend as if the whole deal is not stinking just because there were purchase contracts in place. The court will definitely find that the bailout was not only unlawful but was corrupt, you can be sure of that.

 

[f2wohf]

This was why the whole bailout was declared unlawful by three investigations (two by judges). So why do you keep on suggesting as if the agreement was above board. SARB should not have done what it did. Absa should never have been allowed to do what they did. This is why we are in this mess we are in today. So stop trying to pretend as if the whole deal is not stinking just because there were purchase contracts in place. The court will definitely find that the bailout was not only unlawful but was corrupt, you can be sure of that.

The bailout was illegal, not the sale and ABSA already paid the bailout to Sanlam, hence why the Davis report says that Sanlam and not ABSA benefited.

The fruits of the crime lie with Sanlam, ABSA lawfully purchased Bankorp and avoided getting in this mess by being smart and repaying the bailout in advance, leaving the liabilities and risks with Sanlam.

Basically Samlam cashed in the bailout paid for by ABSA.

The idea of going after ABSA is because the current Sanlam cannot be sued anymore since it was demutualised, and going after each mutual policy holder of the time is absolutely impossible.

Basically the money is lost, but due to Sanlam, you can't expect ABSA to pay twice.

 

[Barbarian Conan]

Let me use an example so you can understand that it is unlawful to separate assets from liabilities in this case. Let's say I sell you a car that is still under finance by Wesbank, and we enter into a purchase agreement whereby I hand over the car to you while I retain the responsibility for the liability in terms of the amount still outstanding to Wesbank? If I fail to pay Wesbank, is Wesbank right to the asset precluded by our purchase agreement whereby I'm responsible for the liability while you take the asset? Try using your argument on Wesbank and see if it will see the light of day.

If you are struggling to answer the question then go back to studying the formalities of a contract.

You can't sell a car that is under finance at Wesbank, because Wesbank is the owner of that car.

Practically no-one thinks the illegal bailout is OK. It's just that ABSA is not where the money should come from.

Lets say you sell your paid off car worth R10k, but you got your brother's sound system in it (which you still owe him for), so you sell the car for R20k. Now your brother tells you that he want's his sound system.
Does the new owner now owe your brother R10k, since he derived the benefit of the sound system? No, it was priced into the price he paid, just as the price ABSA paid was priced into bankcorp.

ABSA derived no undue benefit from the bailout, as the value of that bailout was priced into the sale price. The owners of BankCorp did benefit from it, since they got more money in the sale than they would have without it.

I know it sucks knowing that there are millions or billions that have been stolen, that will never be recovered. Sadly, that is the nature of government corruption.

 

[f2wohf]

You can't sell a car that is under finance at Wesbank, because Wesbank is the owner of that car.

Practically no-one thinks the illegal bailout is OK. It's just that ABSA is not where the money should come from.

Lets say you sell your paid off car worth R10k, but you got your brother's sound system in it (which you still owe him for), so you sell the car for R20k. Now your brother tells you that he want's his sound system.
Does the new owner now owe your brother R10k, since he derived the benefit of the sound system? No, it was priced into the price he paid, just as the price ABSA paid was priced into bankcorp.

ABSA derived no undue benefit from the bailout, as the value of that bailout was priced into the sale price. The owners of BankCorp did benefit from it, since they got more money in the sale than they would have without it.

I know it sucks knowing that there are millions or billions that have been stolen, that will never be recovered. Sadly, that is the nature of government corruption.

+1 Very well explained!

 

[ponder]

Shakes head, you don't even need a law degree to figure this out as some common sense will do.

That westbank analogy is just :wtf:

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

you don't even need a law degree to figure this out as some common sense will do

Sadly, law degrees are easier to come by these days than common sense ...

 

[Mila]

But I passed one term of Llb 5 years ago.

 

[BBSA]

But I passed one term of Llb 5 years ago.

A very good example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.