Thursday, 24 May 2018

FIDReC JUDICIAL PREJUDICES ADJUDICATION – PROF ASHRAF vs. RBS Posted on May 31, 2011


ORIGINATED Source: https://be4gen.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/fidrec-judicial-prejudices-adjudication-%E2%80%93-prof-ashraf-vs-rbs-3/

FIDReC JUDICIAL PREJUDICES ADJUDICATION – PROF ASHRAF vs. RBS

Posted on May 31, 2011by 
This is for Action Research Forum rendering services for promotion of knowledge
FIDReC JUDICIAL PREJUDICES ADJUDICATION – PROF ASHRAF vs. RBS
[Website: http://www.fidrec.com.sg Tel: 6327 8878, Fax: 6327 8488, 112 Robinson Road, #13-03, Singapore 068902]
(Posted May 31, 2011)
Be cognizant of false trust on Singapore Banking Control System against smartly trapping of novices by ABNAMRO/RBS and FIDReC hand-in-hand.
The Objective of this dissemination is public cognizance, the person who had trust in MAS (Singapore), how brutally has been shattered in the hands of FIDReC (Singapore). In-fact, the offshore financial investors who are non-resident of Singapore are smartly trapped by marketing gimmick of bankers under the Banking banner, and are fallen victim of financial scams of ABN/RBS.
A mentor human skill development who is senior citizen and Professor of Computer Science with reputed citations appears in various bibliographies including Marquis WHO’S Who of Science and Technology (US). Since 1986, he maintained his accounts with ABNAMRO to mount his savings for comfortable retirement. Fraudly, ABNAMRO marketing agencies trapped his liquid cash into foced shareholdings which ended up on RBS fraudulent redemption to protect their losses under FIDReC conspiring shield.
The rundown is split into components;
A). Judgment Global Characteristic as bench mark to compare with FIDReC
arbitrary practices as cooling down disputes,
B). Complain Details with ABNAMRO/RBS for case awareness,
C). FIDReC one word judgment violating global standards reasoning and right-to-
know of the complainant why and how, appeal discarded.
A. ABOUT JUDGMENT GLOBAL CHARACTERISTICS
• Tardy and conspired judgments are Kangaroo judgment.
• Judgment – the legal document stating the reasons for a judicial decision; “opinions are usually written by a single judge” (Free Dictionary)
• A decision by a court or other tribunal that resolves a controversy and determines the rights and obligations of the parties.
• A judgment is the final part of a court case. A valid judgment resolves all the contested issues and terminates the lawsuit, since it is regarded as the court’s official pronouncement of the law on the action that was pending before it. It states who wins the case and what remedies the winner is awarded. Remedies may include money damages, injunctive relief, or both. A judgment also signifies the end of the court’s jurisdiction in the case.
• A judgment on the merits is a decision arrived at after the facts have been presented and the court has reached a final determination of which party is correct and why?
• A judgment must be in writing and must clearly show that all the issues have been adjudicated. It must specifically indicate the parties for and against whom it is given. Monetary judgments must be definite, specified with certainty, and expressed in words rather than figures. Judgments affecting real property must contain an explicit description of the realty so that the land can easily be identified.
• Once a court makes a judgment, it must be dated and docketed with the court administrator’s office. Most courts now record their judgments electronically and maintain computer docketing and index information. Though the means of storing the information are different, the basic process remains the same.
• Different types of judgments are made, based on the process the court uses to make the final decision. A judgment on the merits is a decision arrived at after the facts have been presented and the court has reached a final determination of which party is correct.
• Once, a judgment has been paid by the losing party in a lawsuit, that party is entitled to a formal discharge of the obligation, known as a satisfaction of judgment. This satisfaction is acknowledged or certified on the judgment docket.
B. DETAILS OF COMPLAIN FILED BEFORE FIDReC Case # 2009/1002
The details are available with Prof. Ashraf on contact sun_education at yahoo.com may be with support of clippings and footages of the Adjudication hearing at FIDReC office – truth. The extracts of case history and secret adjudication of FIDReC to protect ABN/RBS are endorsed below which elucidate conspiracy to shield illict redemption.
CASE EXTRACTS: CASE 2009/1002, FIDReC Tel: 6327 8878, Fax: 6327 8488
Website: http://www.fidrec.com.sg, 112 Robinson Road, #13-03, Singapore 068902
The adjudication at FIDReC ended up in Feb 2011 on discrete judgment (Discarded), in one word, why and how were clandestine.
At the closing the FIDReC and RBS by arrangement of the adjudication mystery passed the judgment the appeal Discarded without publishing reasoning.
The complainant experience aims to publish for all concerned that the FIDReC objectivity ranking is not unto the mark and shady to resolve evident disputes, which has extra-ordinary soft corner for Singapore Financial entities. Their banking system is rolling at the expense of clients, without due control of MAS and sister platform FIDReC.
SUBMISSION OF JULY 2010 IS REPRODUCED HERE;
QUOTE…
For Redressing ABNAMRO/RBS Institutional Misconduct and Illicit redemption of clients’ ABNAMRO STAR MUTUAL FUND, and Aftermath Depression Syndrome Agony, appeal submitted to FIDReC
ANNALS OF CLIENTS’ EXPERIENCES WITH ABNAMRO/RBS 25 Yrs SPAN
INDUCTION:
Long back, we the then prospective customers ascertained that the Singapore financial authority is reputed for their clients’ safeguard cognizance better in contrast to others where victim face all sorts of extra judicial risks, and so their finances. In view of the robust monetary shells; MAS and others, we maintained our funds on long term in Singapore Banks.
“As the financial sector regulator, MAS’ role is to ensure that financial institutions conduct their businesses in an appropriate manner and in accordance with the law. These include violations of our rules and regulations, and breaches of other relevant codes of practice and guidelines.”
UNDENIABLE FACTS:
This run down comprises relevant contents of discourse, encircling merciless planned deceiving and their inverted management and control abuses, the ABNAMRO/RBS.
We the nit of three family members opened and maintained a joint account for their savings with ABN AMRO Singapore since April 1986 Client/ Account# 15-61-604 (non-professional and limited operational transaction), (Att-1, 1-sheet), aiming at protected retirement custom financial plans. The joint account members comprise; Professor Ashraf at el and others full names indicated at signatories.
The joint account lastly had the liquid balance was GBP108056.73 as at August 31, 2000 on monthly term deposit average earning (Att-2, 1 sheet). Besides, the clients’ objectives were accrual of saving on long term basis for protection on retirements.
ABNAMRO Destructive Enticement Campaign:
At one stage, on the ABNAMRO initiatives, Relational Managers (RMs) were assigned for preferred banking to this account (Att-3, 1 sht) for holistic approach of clients’ relationship.
Nevertheless, the assigned RMs were granted unusual access to financial and personal attributes, provided to the ABNAMRO by clients in confidence, that incubated ethical abuse and misconduct in the MAS ethics above quoted. Some of them were smart enough to jab clients frequently on voice contact, using official state-of-the art means for gathering more information of account holders activities and business interest in the name of profile updates, causing anxiety of daemon apprehensions.
Orderly Harassment:
The aggressive so-called marketing campaign of certain RMs fostered systematic harassment, pursuing their hidden objectives for the ABNAMRO investment strategy on arbitrary norms and ethics. While their frequent voice initiatives were consuming the personal data stores cropped up with the bank, beyond forbearance of the clients, involving variety of risks of telephone cross talks and traps by miscreants.
Moreover, the RMs were not skillful for offshore clients’ perceptive interactions due to illusion clumsiness, and so triggered anxiety and security risks by unprotected voice contacts to clients’ family, who were in Karachi, Pakistan a turbulence city. Often, protests were lodged in this respect for delivery loss of bank mails, but the ABNAMRO did not provide remedy and they continued dispatching bank mails thru opaque outsource, (Att-4, 7 sheets).
Maligned Persuasion:
Ruby Leong (RM) their financial expert was a hot chaser on the plea that the ABNAMRO wants to promote mutual funds selling, she engineered an alibi of happy retirement package deal absolutely risk free to clients.
Violent Allocation:
We, the clients were novice of funds transactions rigmaroles and their Plus and minus. The maligned chase of Ruby Leong created unsustainable pressure to the clients. Consequently, ABNAMRO STAR EUROPE EQUITY FUND shares were furnished undesirably (Att-5, 5 shts) units 121111.17; and the bank earned commission on the deal SGD6975.67, dated Aug 31, 2000 (Att-6, 1 sht).
Flop of ABNAMRO Expertise:
Indiscriminate ups and down of the fund market never got favorable, the ABNAMRO financial expertise was in vain and total flop. Ruby Leong went away from the scene on complaining, while other RMs started new mission of diversification packages deals – for continued entrap latch.
Forced Redemption Terror:
During the period from Aug 31, 2000 till forced redemption on Dec 21, 2009, the clients were on-wait and see strategy; on Dec 21, 2009 the RBS IRM communicated orally the traumatic message concerning unwarranted redemption of clients’ holdings with RBS on instant market price. Later on the review appeal was turned to ashes (Att-7, 3 shts). It is reiterated here that the ABNAMRO were the managers of funds on charges, and not proprietor rights.
Due to this illicit redemption the clients (senior citizens) are pushed inevitably to bear tremendous losses; financial, health hazards, and mental shocks to see failing their retirement dreams.
Redress Appeal:
The forced redemption of clients’ share-holdings by RBS and its consequences are liable for redress or reparation to incumbents on multiple rectitude/ inaptness effects/ institutional misconduct/ illicit redemption. Consequently, the clients are the victim of enforced redemption act of the ABNAMRO/RBS, is a black spot on repute of the MAS regulations, and deliberately/ bitterly ruining retirements plans of senior citizens.
Intrinsically, it has caused traumatic, irreparable depression syndromes to clients and brutally pushed them in harsh penalty.
De-facto Redress:
1. The appellants’ first preference is to keep holdings intact on the same terms and conditions as originally signed by ABNAMRO original buying 6th Dec, 2000.
2. On presumption;
Had this Ruby Leong entrap not happed and the liquid funds had continued to-date on term deposits; prior to the forced majeure RBS allotting of ABNAMRO STAR EUROPE EQUITY FUND the clients’ liquid balance was GBP55889.59 which @ 5.53 monthly term deposit interest quoting the last accrual of GBP 505.14 as on Aug 31, 2000, (Att-3, 1 sht), applying the figure for projection for this Ten Years trap period of a simple computation of compound interest should have accrued straight away in 115 months to date by the formula;
X * (1 + (r/(12*100))^n = 55889.59* (1 + (5.53/1200))^115= 94833.16 GBP
Minus redemption realization ensue nearly 52000/- GBP, as net loss.
3. The estimated cost of traumatic syndrome health hazard and aftermath agony of family health due to abnormal dealings of RBS as disturbance cost is US$120,000/.
4. Either of the following options of Compensation the clients proclaim;
a. Item 1 above original Star Fund holdings PLUS item 3 US$120,000/-
b. Item 2 amounting to GBP52000/- PLUS item 3 US$120,000/-.
NOTES:
i. The voluminous contents of the TOR of funds holding were not perceivable by novice clients, and the IRM Ruby Leong ABNAMRO did not seek emphatically authority on such extraneous unilateral redemption after the TEN years funds entanglement. Thus deprived intrinsic value added gains over these TEN years and subjected depression syndrome to clients, undergone severe medication.
ii. Generally, the IRMs exploitation had trespassed privacy of the data stores with the Bank for agency commission, the clients were waiting for over TEN years for gainful bailout opportunity before the BANK executed forced redemption.
iii. Appeal to the FIDREC was processed during this period the mechanism has not satisfied the clients, as it required physical presence frequently. As per guidance of FIDReC and MAS the clients have freedom to seek redress by alternative justice means.
Appellants
UNQUOTE…
C). ONE WORD JUDGMENT BY FIDReC: REJECTED, NO HOW & WHY DISCLOSED?
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)