First Santander, tomorrow the world

Some of you might have seen the Santander business [posted on across the net and at my place]:

’1 b) Your Money Any money held for you in an account with Santander UK plc will be held in its capacity as a bank and not as a trustee. In accordance with FSA requirements we are obliged to notify you that the client money rules on money do not apply to a Banking Consolidation Directive (BCD)in relation to deposits within the meaning of the BCD held by that institution. As a result,the money will not be held within the client money rules of the FSA.’

Think about that one.   As Ian PJ’s points out – it seems that the UK government are making the preparations to steal depositors money – this redefinition seems to bear that out.

The Slog had identical terms from HSBC. I think if I get something like this, my money comes out of my bank. Other commenters also mentioned that HSBC is trying this on – the idea that your money is technically theirs when it is deposited.

Well, the preparations for our money to be robbed appear to be proceeding:

Legal cutover to the new UK regulatory regime for financial services

Resource type: Legal update: archive

Status: Published on 28-Mar-2013

Jurisdiction: United Kingdom

On 1 April 2013, the FSA will be abolished and the majority of its functions transferred to two new regulators: the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA). On the same date, the Bank of England (BoE) will take over the FSA’s responsibilities for financial market infrastructures and the Financial Policy Committee (FPC) will be established on a statutory basis.

7 comments for “First Santander, tomorrow the world

  1. John Bolton
    April 3, 2013 at 9:25 am

    James, This is going over my head. More explanation please. I thought it was always the case that the money deposited in a bank account belonged to the bank and the depositor was a creditor of the bank hence legislation to protect deposits up to a certain amount to prevent a run on the bank. Has this situation altered? I can quite believe the mendacity of the kleptocracy but I would like to understand and maybe stay one step ahead of the thieves.

  2. James Higham
    April 3, 2013 at 12:40 pm

    Going over my head too in a way. I scoured that document and the HSBC one and I can’t see how else it can be taken. It’s always been that if we deposit with them, it’s given they have to make money, pay salaries etc. That’s fair enough.

    So the principle of taking from the sum total of deposits and investing [speculating] is something we knew the bank did but as it didn’t seem to affect us, we went along with it.

    This is new. This is not taking from the sum total but clandestinely asserting the right to take from individual depositors. And that’s one step too far in anyone’s book.

    At least this is what they’re trying on. There’s a lot of kiteflying done – testing the savage reactions or not and if not, going the next step. If there are, retiring from that, renaming it and trying it a different way.

    I don’t think it’s too much to say that these people are our enemy and crims to boot. When a bank has no concept of private property, then it’s a slippery slope.

    Going further and feel free to come this far and no further, one has to look at the big game. What is the vision for society the PTB want? Gordon Brown mooted it – a new financial paradigm, run by the state.

    And what are we now heading for? If this gets out what’s in this post and those everyone’s doing, if the concept reaches the people, the people will “demand something be done”. Hegel. So the PTB withdraw the supporting devices and let the banks fall, citing the will of the people.

    A new statutory instrument takes its place, controlled by the govt.

  3. April 3, 2013 at 5:51 pm

    What this is teaching us is that there is now a very distinct premium to the value of hard cash over electronic cash.

    Debts, debts and more debts, mostly run up and controlled by banks and governments, debts so large that they can never be repayed. But by the same token there are now more bank deposits than there is real cash available to service those deposits.

    It is all down to the miracle of Fractional Reserve Banking. In other words it is all electronic, it doesn’t really exist, so as far as the banks and the Eurocrats are concerned, to confiscate them alleviates the debt, but also alleviates the need to print more money with all the inflationary risks associated with that in order to service all the electronic deposits, and remember a bank in the EU needs to keep in reserve no more than 1% of all of its liabilities (deposits).

    There is a very good visual to show exactly what I mean at Zero Hedge.

    I shall in future be doing more and more in cold hard cash.

  4. Mudplugger
    April 3, 2013 at 8:56 pm

    The banking model is quite simple…

    I lend my money to a bank.
    That bank promises to keep it safe and pays me an agreed amount of interest.
    The bank then lends out my money, charging the borrower a greater rate of interest than it pays me, making a profit in the process from that difference.
    The bank covers its operating costs out of this profit, any excess becomes dividends for the bank’s shareholders.

    At no point does the title to my money transfer to the bank – I still own it, the bank is merely storing it and using it under license from me.
    Any change to that status is unacceptable.

    • Andrew Duffin
      April 4, 2013 at 7:53 am

      @Mudplugger, you’re mistaken. Check the legalities, the situation is quite clear and always has been.

      John Bolton has it correct: “money deposited in a bank account belong[s] to the bank and the depositor was[becomes merely] a creditor of the bank”.

      If the bank fails, it’s HMRC first (as always), then any other secured creditors, then you. Just like any other business.

      Get used to it.

      We’ll be back to burying gold sovereigns underneath the kitchen floor before long – until the State makes private ownership of gold illegal.

      • Mudplugger
        April 4, 2013 at 8:47 am

        Andrew – thanks for the clarification.
        Just goes to show how my innocent perception could differ from the perfidious legalities.
        Sovereigns here we come…..

  5. Greg Tingey
    April 5, 2013 at 9:09 am

    Mr Duffin is correct
    If you deposit money in a bank – it becomes the Bank’s money – they just “happen” to owe you the amount you have deposited with them ….
    If it’s gone, when you want it (back) then tough titty, I’m afraid.

    Always has been that way.
    That’s what shocked me when Northern Rock went down – I mean a “bank run”?
    What’s one of those?

    That was then ….

Comments are closed.