Aren't banking laws govern by Acts of Parliament. There are many Acts and subsidiary legislation governing banking practice and it matters not whether it comes from the Banking Act or the Legal Profession Act. Practice Direction issued by MAS is also law governing banks and the banks have to comply.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Abuse of Power by Singapore Civil Servants
- Thread starter tomasloh
- Start date
Aren't banking laws govern by Acts of Parliament. There are many Acts and subsidiary legislation governing banking practice and it matters not whether it comes from the Banking Act or the Legal Profession Act. Practice Direction issued by MAS is also law governing banks and the banks have to comply.
If banks are not required to read into the name of every bank account, who would then put money into the bank as there will be a free for all as the banks can then pay out of any account as their whims and fancies.
If what you are saying is right that civil servants must be looked upon as GOD and be pleased by the public who seek their services otherwise they would not do you favour, then I think you must be the biggest fool in town.
Civil servants are paid by the public. It is just like you pay your domestic maid salary and yet you have to please your maid to make her happy. She should be grateful that she is employed and millions of unemployed people are waiting and willing to take their place.
FYI, I have tons of documents to support what I have said about the abuse of powers. If the government thinks I am maligning them, then I would have been arrested by the government now and charged in court and landed in Changi prison.
I have said upteem times that the present PAP members unlike members who join in the 50s and 60s are there for personal glory as they think they represent the government.
How often you hear of PAP members abusing their position and privilege and threaten people that they will come after them just because they think they represent the government. But they are only representing the party who form the government.
Recently, at an MPS session in a PAP ward, a helper at the MPS who was summons for a parking fine because he did not put a car park coupon wanted to use the party's name to write in to the Car Park Division to waive the fine. Isn't that an abuse as he jolly well knows that he must display his car park coupon and yet he wanted to use the PAP name to buy his way out of the fine.
The trend of abuse started off with the party members and hence it filters down to the civil servants and the government.
If you think that my pappy days are in the 50s and 60s, you are dead wrong !! I only quit in 2003 half a year after the SARS. We had to take temperature for those who wish to see the MP.
For your information, parking fine is the easiest to get waive if you know how. I know how, I got away a couple of times during my happy... er.. pappy days. If you are really a bona fide helper at MPS, it is "free" parking for you. At least, I parked free those days.
Thomas, I believe I know what seems to be your problem and why those MPs pushed you around, "fly your airplane", and got away with it. Even though I do not know you personally, but your replies echo some personality about you which is quite worrying. I hope you find some kind soul to broaden your perspective. Amitabha Buddha.... It will never be me !!! Sorry, I am a devil trying to behave or be good !!
Which planet were you born on? If banks inquired into every single cheque rather than depending on signature mandates, the system will come to a standstill. And you know it. But won't admit it. And that's why you're bankrupt. And I'm sure despite all your postings on the Internet, you will remain bankrupt.
Z
Zombie
Guest
Did the firm sign for OD facility using the client's account?
Simple.
Coz it doesn't happen on him...thatz why it is easier for him to say "get over it"
I'm sure our elites had train the peasants well.
anything happen....can say this....
"I'm sorry. It has happened.
Let's Move On."
:p
Sadly such idiots are aplenty here!!
There can never be any overdraft in a client account. The bank cannot grant any overdraft facility in a client account.
If the client does not put in any money in the client account, the account will stand at zero dollar sum. Client account is a trust account. That is the reason why the law requires the bank to distinguish a law firm office account and a client account and the lawyers to maintain seperate accounts.
Standchart had allowed my client account to go into overdraft on more than 2 occasions and the sum exceeded more than a quarter of a million dollars in overdraft.
I only had overdraft in my office account which the bank granted to me in a letter of offer. But nothing for client account.
If what you are saying is right that the bank only check on signature mandate and does not care to look into any cheque per se, then can I ask you to answer me this question.
If you write a cheque for $1,000 and in numerical you state "$1,000" but in words you state "Dollars Ten Thousand Only". Would the bank let the cheque through even though the wordings in numerical and words are different. If the bank let the cheque through, let me know which bank then.
If the bank don't let the cheque pass, isn't the bank looking through every cheque that require it to be passed. Every monring why are bank officers looking through cheques before the accounts are debited with the drawn sum.
You are absolutely right that a lot of people are talking and writing without going through their head or they are only "half baked" intellectual trying to act like a banking guru thinking that they know how the banking system work.
Z
Zombie
Guest
I am not sure that I get the right answer.
I did not ask whether you can or not, or whether the bank can or not, under whichever law.
I only asked, "Did the firm sign for OD facility using the client's account?"
I think a simple yes or no, will help.
Don't jump to conclusion just because of the way I replied. If you are dealing in a personal matter which is not your fault for 12 years and you face it day and night and sleep with it always and if you had experienced and gone through it, then you come and tell me how you feel. I have been made a scapegoat by Standchart for no fault of mine and that is why I am fighting the bank. What I cannot imagine is that the government is "assisting" them to suppress the case in court.
I am saying this is because of the way the Official Assignee ("OA") wanted to settle the matter out of court and Standchart has said that they will withdraw the appeal if the OA are given the power to settle. But GOD has its way when the high court ruled that the OA does not have the power to settle. The OA was not happy with the court decision and refused to hand over documents to me and resulting in a contempt of court. Did the Attorney-General take the OA to court. NO, but they took the general public to court if anyone breached a court order. Isn't that double standard.
Now, you understand why Standchart appeal goes on in the Court of Appeal on 15 January 2009 because the OA has no longer any power to settle my matter. I have disclosed the bad faith of the OA in court documents and I am waiting to see what the 3 wise men in the Court of Appeal have to say or will they stay silent on the matter.
Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, Judge of Appeal V K Rajah and Andrew Phang will be hearing the appeal.
A lot of people when they faced financial problems, they are already facing sleepless nights let alone the fact that I am fighting this case against the banks for 12 years and the government for abuse of power.
I am not sure that I get the right answer.
I did not ask whether you can or not, or whether the bank can or not, under whichever law.
I only asked, "Did the firm sign for OD facility using the client's account?"
I think a simple yes or no, will help.
The answer is NO.
Z
Zombie
Guest
Thanks. I am just curious.
May I also ask, are these two accounts shown in your blog, both the firm's accounts? Or are them your personal accounts?
http://lawyersingapore.blogspot.com/
Let me give you a very brief run down of this case and my client account case. My affidavit of evidence-in-chief runs into almost 1,000 pages including exhibits. Without the supporting documents, the affidavit is about 54 pages in facts.
When Standchart sued me in December 1997 to recover the overdraft in the client account, I filed a defence and counterclaim against them for $378,000 in late February 1998. I transferred the case for hearing to the high court in April 1998 and the court ordered the transfer on 18 May 1998. This is relating to my law firm client account.
I had 2 personal overdraft accounts with Standchart, one is secured mortgage with property as collateral and the other one is an unsecured clean overdraft account.
After I had filed my counterclaim against the bank in February 1998, the bank knew that I was on a collision course with them and if evidence are disclosed at the trial, it will be very embarrassing for the bank. All this happen at the peak of the Asian financial crisis in 1997/98 and the bank cannot afford any scandal of this scale to surface as all banks are facing heavy losses during that time.
On 1 April 1998, the bank started playing with both my personal accounts. They played with both accounts for 16 months until August 1999 when the clean OD account was closed unilaterally by the bank when they deposited money into my account to close it. The secured OD account was closed in March 2000 when they unilaterally wrote off the account.
In May 1998, Standchart had deliberately bounced my cheques and allow certain cheques to go through even when the cheques were issued within the overdraft limit. My monthly housing loan instalment of $1,302 in cash was fixed by the bank's letter of offer. But for 16 months, the bank claimed that they were unable to deduct money for the monthly instalment when there was sufficient funds in it and yet on the other hand, they made various deductions in varying amount every month for the instalment. They deducted sums ranging from $1,500 to as high as $10,500 every month at their whims and fancies and yet they claimed that I did not have money to pay the instalment sum of $1,302.
Further, they had charged over and above the interest they are allowed to charge for more than 16 months. Administrative charges were deducted every month for more than 16 months and all without justification.
The bank did it to put financial pressure on me to drop my counterclaim in 1998. They knew that I had no choice but to stay with the bank because in 1998, no bank was willing to do refinancing just like what is happening today.
The bank's defence was one of denials and non-admission. Look at the court statement of claim, defence and the Reply I put up in the blog and the fact speaks for itself. Even the court noted the bank's defence to be one of denials and non-admission. The bank have not explained why the discrepancies in the accounts for 16 months.
Now you can understand why the bank is mounting application after application and appeal after appeal for more than 4 years 8 months so that I have no money to fight them and they would have succeeded in their delaying tactics. In today legal enviroment, how can a case be dragged on for more than 4 years and 8 months and still going.
It is dirty practice. They have the blessings of the Official Assignee who had "helped" the bank all the way and that is the reason why both the Official Assignee and I took the matter to the high court in October 2008 for a ruling on who has conduct of my case in court. The high court ruled in my favour.
Z
Zombie
Guest
In my opinion, commercially it would be unusual for the bank to allow an account to be overdrawn for more than 1/4 million dollars; Especially when the firm did not apply for the credit facility, and when the nature of the business and size of its operations did not require it. But 1995-97 were those good years, many banks could have approved credits with their eyes closed.
Hi Thomas,
I write to show my sympathy for your predicament. I cannot decide on the intricacies of your case but i do feel that it is not right for a person to go through what you had gone through.
Your problems could have been prevented with a little more prudence by requiring both partners' signatures and a company seal, but that you would have already known.
Apparently your stand rests on two legs:
(1) the bank allowed your partner to withdraw cash using an "A/c Payee" cheque
After all, you, your wife and children would like to see you regain your practising certificate once again. Though i do not know you, so do i - as one human being to another.
I write to show my sympathy for your predicament. I cannot decide on the intricacies of your case but i do feel that it is not right for a person to go through what you had gone through.
Your problems could have been prevented with a little more prudence by requiring both partners' signatures and a company seal, but that you would have already known.
Apparently your stand rests on two legs:
(1) the bank allowed your partner to withdraw cash using an "A/c Payee" cheque
Here, the bank produces evidence that your partner crossed out the "A/c Payee" and counter-signed on it - in my opinion, an acceptable state of affairs
(2) the bank allowed your account to go into overdraft of $270,000 when there was no overdraft facility
It appears that no comments were made on this by the newspaper reports which would indicate that the bank do not have a defence for this
Generally a bank will allow temporary overdrafts if your account is in good standing; apparently the bank has a high regard for the quality of your account; such decisions are within the discretion of the branch manager; however as to whose liability it is when the amount is not paid back is not certain to me - your terms and conditions will be more definite as opposed to banking practices
(3) Your points about administrative charges and interestsGenerally a bank will allow temporary overdrafts if your account is in good standing; apparently the bank has a high regard for the quality of your account; such decisions are within the discretion of the branch manager; however as to whose liability it is when the amount is not paid back is not certain to me - your terms and conditions will be more definite as opposed to banking practices
Once you are declared a bankrupt, there should not be any more interests accruing on the account nor are there any administrative charges imposed.
But your posts above indicate that there is. Is this correct?
Finally, will it not be more beneficial for you to accept the out of court settlement by StanChart (is this due to the account going overdraft when there is no such facility?) - - - and stipulate a quicker discharge from bankruptcy as part of the conditions at your end?But your posts above indicate that there is. Is this correct?
After all, you, your wife and children would like to see you regain your practising certificate once again. Though i do not know you, so do i - as one human being to another.
FYI, as I have said that law firm client account is a trust account and therefore there is no overdraft facility in it. Under the current law where even if the bank inadvertently allows overdraft to an account even without proper banking facility for overdraft, the account holder is still liable for the overdraft in the account. In other words, if the bank accidently allow overdraft, the account holder is still liable.
Where it is a trust account, that is, the equivalent of a client account, it is clear that the account holder is holding the money in the said account on trust for someone and therefore it is clear that there can be no overdraft in it. This is where it has to be distinguish betwen an ordinary account and a trust account.
The administrative charges was imposed on my bank account in 1998 and 1999. I was made a bankrupt in July 2003.
It is not that I don't want to settle the matter out of court. The offer made by Standchart is a smack on your face and they made ridiculous offer. The bank have dragged on the case for more than 4 years 8 months and after a long drawn battle it is a waste of time talking to the bank now.
There will be no settlement out of court but to proceed for trial as I wanted the public to know what the bank has done to me for the last 12 years. The dirty tactics that they have used on me and how they had made me a scapegoat ad use financial pressure to kill you with blessings from the Oficial Assignee
