How Your Bank Account WILL Disappear

A little less than three years ago; a commentary was published which drew considerable attention: How Your Bank Account Could Disappear. The subject matter behind that piece was the institutionalized financial crime being committed at that time based upon the totally incomprehensible crime-euphemism “rehypothecation”.

The supposed justification, and precedent being established with this financial crime was to enable financial institutions to “convert” (i.e. steal) any financial assets in their possession, in order to cover their own (large) financial losses – losses generally arising from the reckless gambling in our “markets” which is now endemic amongst all such institutions.

In the case of rehypothecation; the legal justification for the crime was contractual in nature: account-holders who (unwittingly) entered into accounts where (in the legal, fine print) the institution holding these accounts was allowed to steal their assets, after it suffered financial losses in transactions to which these account-holders were not connected in any way.

As was noted in the original commentary; it would have required nothing more than the insertion of such “fine print” into the bankers’ contracts for their bank deposits to have (technically) allowed this banking crime syndicate to begin stealing peoples’ bank accounts, to indemnify it from any/all financial losses.

As it turned out; rehypothecation did not end up being a vehicle for the mass-theft of bank deposits, or any other financial assets, but this was only because these banksters had already turned their thoughts to even larger schemes for institutionalized, financial theft. Rehypothecation was ultimately a clumsy tool for mass, financial theft. It required one crime (i.e. “rehypothecation”) for each, supposed “financial loss” which the bank in question was claiming to have suffered.

The One Bank was looking for some much more efficient means of mass-confiscation of paper assets. With rehypothecation; the corrupt, kangaroo courts of the U.S. judicial system had already rubber-stamped the proposition that it was acceptable for financial institutions to steal any/all financial assets to cover their own losses, merely because they controlled those financial assets. What the One Bank wanted was a form of financial crime which offered all of the stealing potential of “rehypothecation”, but was systemic in nature, rather than requiring the bankers to steal on a loss-by-loss basis. Enter the “bail in”.

Once again; the banksters were/are endeavouring to cover-up their naked stealing of financial assets with an utterly meaningless euphemism. However, in the case of “the bail in”; the One Bank is simply combining two forms of its previous frauds: the abominable “rehypothecation”, and the banksters’ legendary/infamous “bail-outs”.

The inherent fraud of rehypothecation is obvious. However, the same, inherent fraud behind all of the endless (phony/absurd) “bail-outs” may be less obvious to readers. The Crash of ’08 provided the ultimate example of such fraud, and thus provides the best means of explaining/demonstrating it.

Let us put aside, for the moment, that all of the “losses” which the Big Banks claimed (in pseudo panic) were about to destroy them in 2008, were illusory and imaginary. With all of these Big Banks under the control of a single puppet-master (the One Bank), and with all these “losses” owed between its various tentacles; these supposed financial losses were never anything but a financial sham – of unprecedented proportions. However, even if we assumed that all of these faux “losses” actually existed; the bail-outs which our corrupt governments rubber-stamped following that manufactured “crash” were fundamentally fraudulent at a far more basic level.