Just who owns our deposits?

This is going to involve some recycling. Please let’s do it without jumping down each others’ throats. I’m going to run this at OoL and at my site.

OK, I posted on the Santander biz, via material from IPJ and this was what it was about:

’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.’

Others have mentioned HSBC doing the same thing. A commenter, John Bolton, came in at OoL:

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.

Now John, that’s an interesting one. You assumed the money was the banks’ when you deposited? I never did. I was lending it to them. My money, lending it to them. At no stage did I assume they could restrict what I take. Hence runs on banks. In order to prevent runs on banks, there was a deposit protection mechanism. My bank allows £2000 a day to come out.

Naturally, I assumed the bank took from the sum total of the deposits of everyone and invested or speculated with it. Naturally I assumed they knew what they were doing and it seemed they did in that there was no crisis on the whole – I could withdraw when I wanted, deposit when I wanted.

This Santander/HSBC biz seems to be something altogether different. It seems to be that they’re taking John’s line that each depositor’s money with the bank belongs to the bank. No way, Jose. If I’d thought it was that way, I’d not have put anything into the bank whatever. There are other investments.

However, methinks we need to look at the big picture. There’s a hell of a lot of theatre going on in Cyprus and Spain and if you watch the PTB when they try to bring in some new measure, they always fly kites, i.e. try it on and await the reaction. That is – the onus is on us to complain. They just sit back.

If we do, organize protests, petitions etc., they calmly note that from their glassy offices, gauge the severity of the reaction, stroke their chins and rename the scheme, repackage it and introduce it again somewhere down the line. The EU treaty/constitution was one such. The one about ID cards was another.

They also want atrocities in order to bring in measures but of course, they never cause them, as everyone knows there was never anything called MK Ultra or hypnotic techniques. Selwyn Leeks and Ewen Cameron were never charged with crimes against humanity, the CIA never said they no longer do this in 1973.

This is the point where I cross the line – here it is:


Gordon Brown wanted to be the one to bring in the new financial paradigm. But to do it, people must first of all be disgusted by the banks. That is, not only are JPM and GS made the whipping boys [deservedly] but the whole bankster system is roundly condemned.

But it still doesn’t motivate people to demand the banking system be allowed to fail. Sure there’s a lot of moaning but they need a catalyst when the sheeple finally demand action. This will only ever be when the sheeple feel it in the hip pocket.

This scheme to bail out the banksters by taking from our bank deposits is the straw that broke the camel’s back IMHO. When our own money is 10% less tomorrow because of a levy and that money is to pay off “our” debt we caused by the banks and government speculating our money away and paying fatcat salaries to bureaucrats, finally the sheeple might get up off their backsides and demand.

Fine, say the PTB – they pull the pin on the banks, kick away the supports and the banks crash. In the ensuing chaos, people at the doors of the banks etc., pre-depression if you like, someone has to do something to “protect the people”.

In come the government, our saviours. The new hardmen leaders [waiting now in the wings] then punish the banksters and introduce a “temporary” financial scheme to “protect deposits”. However, there are rules. You need to sign away freedoms to do it. You’ll need to pledge your loyalty and agree to play along with these new rules, on pain of losing your all.

It’s Europe-wide and so narrow considerations of sovereignty must be put on hold – referenda etc. and the EU “temporarily” runs this show so everyone is guaranteed bread and milk, if not milk and honey.

The government metes out to us fortnightly – we must travel there to sign on.

Now, compare that with what Svali wrote in 2000 and that year – 2000 – is highly significant here. I quote:

There will be continued conflict in the Middle East, with a severe threat of nuclear war being the culmination of these hostilities. An economic collapse that will devastate the economy of the US and Europe, much like the great depression.

One reason that our economy continues limping along is the artificial support that the Federal Reserve had given it, manipulating interest rates, etc. But one day, this won’t work (or this leverage will be withdrawn on purpose) and the next great depression will hit.

The government will call in its bonds and loans, and credit card debts will be called in. There will be massive bankruptcies nationwide. Europe will stabilize first and then Germany, France and England will have the strongest economies, and will institute, through the UN, an international currency. Japan will also pull out, although their economy will be weakened.

Peacekeeping forces will be sent out by the UN and local bases to prevent riots. The leaders will reveal themselves, and people will be asked to make a pledge of loyalty during a time of chaos and financial devastation.

I’ve previously been savaged for quoting this woman but I ask – what, of what she said, has been shown to be askew? Which part has not come to pass? She was inside, she knows of these things.

The only thing I’d add is Common Purpose. It may or may not be UN connected but this is the driving force, the executive arm of the PTB, at least in Europe. It is through them and their “leading beyond authority” that the nuts and bolts of the new scheme will be administered.

I ask the question again in a slightly different way – which part of that scenario is not indicated by current events?


Now please click out because the remainder of this is only for people who don’t think I’m trying to proselytize them.

There is a section in Revelation which speaks of not being able to buy or sell except by their leave. It’s not a new idea – Joseph in Egypt meted out the grain and that gave the PTB great power. This is not a lot different to that. You do know, don’t you, that in the last few days, Monsanto have tried to have the law changed so no one can come at them should something go wrong with the hybrid grain.

It’s like an elaborate jigsaw puzzle and they’re working tirelessly, step by step, to draw in the reins. The notion of the bank owning our money is just one step along the way.

4 comments for “Just who owns our deposits?

  1. Russep3
    April 3, 2013 at 10:22 pm

    You may like to read Detlev Schlichter’s article at The Daily Reckoning [http://dailyreckoning.com/good-riddance-to-deposit-insurance/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailyreckoning+(The+Daily+Reckoning)]. Here’s a quote:

    Let us start by looking at some of the facts of deposit banking: When you deposit money in a bank, you forfeit ownership of money and gain ownership of a claim against the bank — a claim for instant repayment of money, but a claim nonetheless. In 1848, the House of Lords stated it thusly:

    “Money, when paid into a bank, ceases altogether to be the money of the principal; it is then the money of the banker, who is bound to an equivalent by paying a similar sum to that deposited with him, when he is asked for it… The money placed in the custody of a banker is, to all intents and purposes, the money of the banker, to do with it as he pleases; he is guilty of no breach of trust in employing it; he is not answerable to the principal if he puts it into jeopardy, if he engages in hazardous speculation; he is not bound to keep it or deal with it as the property of his principal, but he is, of course, answerable for the amount, because he has contracted.”

    This is not legal pedantry or just a matter of opinion, but logical necessity. It follows inescapably from how deposit banking has developed, how it was practiced in 1848, and how it is still practiced today.

    Read more: Good Riddance to Deposit “Insurance” http://dailyreckoning.com/good-riddance-to-deposit-insurance/#ixzz2PRCTKylZ

  2. April 4, 2013 at 12:26 am

    In the 1840s an English judge declared that deposits were not bailments (like the things you leave in a furniture repository) but the banks’ own property, subject to an implicit contract to return the deposit to you. Thus was finally legalised the corrupt practice of fractional reserve banking, which was as legal as a furniture repository lending out your three piece suite and hoping to get it back one day.

  3. April 4, 2013 at 1:01 am

    I don’t think we ever made any deposits. Money consists of numbers on pay slips and bank statements, it’s all virtual.
    My employer gives me a bit of paper with numbers, sends the bank a computer message with those numbers aimed at my account and if I go to the bank and withdraw some they give me bits of paper saying they represnt money, or I use a card to pay my way and never see even a representating bit of paper.
    When did you last see or hold any money? (hint:you probably never have)

  4. April 4, 2013 at 11:54 am

    John Bolton is correct, and that has also been the status for many years to my knowledge. Without it, there could be no fractional reserve banking. The real question is, were HMG to start pocket-dipping (as if they weren’t already), is what protection the Deposit Guarantee Scheme would offer. i.e. Is it worth the paper it is written on?

Comments are closed.