info@263stgb.com
+49 551 209120

Quellen

Am kommenden Donnerstag, den 30.07.15, tagt der Aufsichtsrat der Deutschen Bank in New York.
Wir gehen davon aus, dass der auf 263StGB ausführlich beschriebene und im Detail belegte, hundertfache Prozessbetrug der Deutschen Bank dort thematisiert wird.

Um ganz sicher zu gehen, hatten wir bereits mehrfach alle Mitglieder des Aufsichtsrates und des Vorstandes der Deutschen Bank informiert. Seit gut einer Woche wissen nun auch die Managing Directors im Detail Bescheid.

Kürzlich ergab sich ein ganz zufälliges Treffen in einem ICE mit einem Mitglied des Aufsichtsrates der Deutschen Bank, Frank Bsirske. Ein sehr sympathischer Mann. Herr Bsirske zeigte sich überaus freundlich und offen. Dennoch verblieb der Eindruck, dass er oberflächlich zwar informiert, aber die Brisanz des betrügerischen Verhaltens der Deutschen Bank nicht erkannt hat. Leider musste Bsirske als bald den ICE verlassen und so war nicht genug Zeit, ihm die Details nochmalig im Gespräch zu erläutern.

Wie sieht es dann erst bei den Aufsichtsratsmitgliedern der Deutschen Bank aus, die ihren ständigen Wohnsitz z.B. in den USA haben, kein deutsch sprechen und ausschließlich auf die gefilterten Informationen der Bank und ihrer Rechtsabteilung angewiesen sind? Selbstverständlich liegt es in der Verantwortung der Deutschen Bank, gegenüber ihrem Aufsichtsrat für Transparenz zu sorgen.

Wir wollen dennoch kein Risiko eingehen und informieren weiter den Aufsichtsrat mit persönlichen Anschreiben.

So haben wir gestern Louise M. Parent angeschrieben. Sie ist seit 01.07.2014 Mitglied des Aufsichtsrates bei der Deutschen Bank und lebt in den USA.

Louise M. Parent hat Rechtswissenschaften studiert. Sie ist zweifellos vom Fach, eine Expertin.
Frau Parent hat viele Jahre ihrer Karriere als Rechtsanwältin gearbeitet und ist noch heute als beratende Anwältin in einer der weltweit größten internationalen Anwaltskanzleien, nämlich bei Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, tätig.

Wir sind davon überzeugt, dass eine US-amerikanische Anwältin, die zudem im Banken- und Finanzwesen eine solch ausgewiesene Expertise hat, nicht leichtfertig mit diesem Thema umgehen wird.
Immerhin, als Mitglied in dem wichtigsten Aufsichtsgremium der Deutschen Bank ist ihre Compliance-Pflicht indiskutabel.

Es folgt der Inhalt der an Louise M. Parent gerichteten E-Mail:
 
 

Dear Mrs. Parent:

my law firm has tried numerous times to inform you about yet another Deutsche Bank scandal that is currently making its way through the German courts.

On May 12th the German television show “Report Mainz” (comparable to CBS´”60 minutes”) reported on this mass fraud comitted by DB´s legal department in German courts in hundreds of cases of junk real estate loans that were sold through DB agents that pretended to be trustees of our clients/DB´s customers.
We believe that both the chairman of DB´s supervisory board, Mr. Achleitner and the legal department is trying to keep this information from reaching you:

My background is as follows:
During the early 1990’s I worked in the Tokyo branch of Deutsche Bank under Jürgen Fitschen. As a former employee, legal counsel, of Deutsche Bank, and now as an attorney specializing in consumer protection, I believe that it is imperative to draw your attention to the fact that DB´s criminal dealings which you are aweare of, e.g., manipulating libor interest rates, manipulating the price of gold, lying to American authorities in order to receive public guarantees for junk real estate loans made into ABS (the list goes on, as you probably know), don´t stop outside the courts of law:

What is not so well known is the fact that DB has been lying to German courts in hundreds of cases involving junk real estate loans.
In these cases real estate (small condominiums) was sold through DB´s agents at two to three times its fair market value as shown in internal DB evaluations that we have in our posession.
DB had its agents mislead DB´s future customers (now our clients) by pretending to be independent trustees whose sole obligation would be our clients´ best interests: If our clients would only give them an all encompassing power of attorney, they would conclude the sales contracts, loan contracts, rental contracts, etc, etc. on their behalf.

This multiple misrepresentation (both with respect to the value of the real estate and the quality of the person our clients were to give a power of attorney to), even though it is crucial, is not what is now bringing DB down in the courts:

A decisive factor in these cases is the question as to when DB entered into the loan contracts.
These contracts are only valid if, in each individual case, all relevant documents were in the possession of DB at the time the particular contract was entered into. Of special importance are, of course, the powers of attorney (which – this cannot be stressed enough – DB agents posing as trustees of our clients, only managed to obtain from them because these DB agents misled our clients with respect to the fact that they really were DB´s agents).
However, as DB, in many cases, did not have these powers of attorney at the time the contracts were concluded, DB, therefore, chose to lie to the German courts (and continues to do so) by claiming that the dates on the written documents sent to their customers were, unfortunately, incorrect.
They maintained instead that the time of conclusion of the contracts was not the date duly noted on theloan contracts, but was the time at which the customers themselves received copies of the loan contracts months later (at a time, of course, when DB had finally recieved the powers of attorney).

DB had, however, in direct contradiction to this depiction, already accepted the trustees’ offers on the original date as confirmed by the fact that they had begun disbursing each loan and had started collecting interest on each.
In reality, mailing copies of the contracts to their customers served the sole purpose of informing individual customers of the fact that their trustee had done what he was supposed to do, namely, conclude the contract with DB. A significant number of German high courts (the equivalent of American district courts) have already made it very clear in final judgments that they do not believe a word of DB´s argumentation; these courts have come to the conclusion that DB is patently lying.

Still, the odd court, such as the District Court of Frankfurt (as you know, the site of DB´s headquarters) has, thus far, written a number of judgments which are, at best, questionable, but which, in fact, defy logic.
These judgements state that even though it was proven that loans were disbursed and interest was collected on those very loans as of the original dates, it cannot be assumed that a contract had been concluded.

Through a special website we continue to inform both the media and the general public about the details of this mass fraud which has played out in German courts: www.263stgb.com.

If you are interested in learning more, please feel free to request further information.
One case in particular requires your attention. It is that of our client Robert Fell who is now in his 70ies and suffers from severe heart problems. His case is pending before the German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof). It is not just your your compiance duty, but, of course, also your moral duty to stop DB from destroying not just this man´s financial existence, but his health and life.

If you are interested in further, more detailed information, please feel free to ask.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, LL.M.
– attorney at law –

 
 
 

0 Comments

Mit der Nutzung unserer Dienste erklären Sie sich mit der Verwendung von Cookies einverstanden. weitere Informationen

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close