"HOUSTON V. HOUSTON ET AL." CONTINUED
|
CIBC IS ENLISTED INTO CRA'S FRAUD WAR
After nailing me at Royal Bank CRA stalked me to yet another financial institution, Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce, and ripped off even more cash from me. CRA watched me say
goodbye to Royal Bank and then it shadowed me up the street to CIBC. CRA is starting to
establish quite a reputation for itself as lawless gangsters operating in the bank robbery business.
CIBC is just as screwed up as the other banks. About fifteen years ago I opened an account at a
South Surrey, BC branch of CIBC. After opening the account I noticed debits occurring from my
account that weren't made by me. I inquired at the branch and found out that a local business, a
popular meat shop in White Rock, was writing cheques against my account. CIBC refunded the
money and I left, relocating my account at another financial institution.
In 2006 I opened an account at a Powell River, BC branch of CIBC. For some unknown reason
CIBC stipulated that any cheques I deposit into the account would be subject to a five-day hold
before I could access the cash. Supposedly this was a security measure that would prevent me from
scamming the bank with bad cheques. CIBC had taken the position that it needed to protect itself
from me, that I might be some kind of a fraud threat to the bank. In actual fact it's the customers
who need protection from CIBC. Nonetheless, I agreed to CIBC's terms and opened the account.
A few months later I deposited $500 cash into the account through the ATM at the branch. A day
or two later I electronically transferred the $500 to another CIBC account. The transfer was
approved and processed by CIBC. CIBC approved and executed the transaction. The day after
that I logged onto the web and saw that CIBC had canceled the transaction and had debited $35
from my account as an insufficient funds penalty. Insufficient funds? What are they talking about?
I deposited five hundred dollars cash into the account and the transfer had been APPROVED and
PROCESSED by the bank. What's going on here?
I cautiously went into the branch to find out why the transfer had been canceled. I was told my
$500 deposit was subject to a five-day hold till the funds cleared. But I deposited cash into the
account, I told the teller. Why would you put a hold on a cash deposit? Oh. The cash was
released from the hold and paid out to me. However, I still had to eat CIBC's $35 insufficient funds
penalty.
In July 2008 I went on a small vacation. When I got home I found a June 26, 2008 letter in my
mailbox from Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce informing me that a general "Hold Funds"
directive had been placed on my bank account restricting my access to the account. The document
explained that the funds on deposit in the account, funds amounting to $18.82, were removed from
the account and sent to the Receiver General. A photocopy of a transaction slip showing the
removal of every last penny of the cash in my account was attached to the letter. Every cent ripped
off. CIBC didn't charge me for the envelope, the postage or the manpower required to deliver the
$18.82 to the federal government. Like suckers, CIBC threw all that in free for the Government of
Canada. CIBC ate the costs to remit the payment - an illegal payment of course - to the
government. Are these bank employees or government employees?
The CIBC document I received said that any "applicable" (an undefined CIBC term) funds
subsequently deposited into my account would also be taken and remitted to the government. CIBC
warned that if I'd written any cheques against my account or if I have pre-authorized debits drawn
on the account the transactions would be illegally blocked by the bank. CIBC had effectively
confiscated my account from me and was doing everything it possibly could to harass me.
CIBC claimed it was served a Requirement to Pay from Canada Revenue Agency that instructed it
to take these gonzo actions against me. CIBC claimed Canada Revenue Agency ordered it to place
a hold on my bank account and remit the funds the account contains to the Receiver General.
CIBC was lying obviously. A CRA Requirement to Pay form doesn't instruct a bank to take action
pursuant to an individual's bank account. CIBC had no lawful authority to place a hold on the
account and remove all the cash from the account. This activity is bank fraud. This is yet another
bank robbery. This is theft.
And neither CRA nor CIBC disclosed to me this Requirement to Pay document CIBC claims
instructs it to tamper with my personal bank account. Both CRA and CIBC withheld disclosure of
the CRA document. I have not yet seen the document. This is extremely suspicious. Where's the
paperwork for the seizure of my account? Doesn't the federal government have an obligation to
serve me with a copy of the document it claims allows it to access my private bank account?
Doesn't the bank have an obligation to produce the document as well? I guess not. What's with
these clandestine, behind-my-back maneuvers? Why so secretive? How come the bankers get to
see the government document but I don't? Why am I, the one who's supposedly being sued by
CRA, not in line for disclosure of the Requirement to Pay document? The government hasn't said
I'm last in line for disclosure, the government has said forget it pal, you're not in line at all. Period.
The reason they're withholding the document is because a Requirement to Pay form doesn't grant a
third party (CRA or CIBC) access to a bank account. This is a CRA-CIBC scam. They're
withholding disclosure of the document because it's evidence of fraud. Maybe CIBC received a
direct and secret order from the federal government to confiscate my account. On the other hand,
it's very possible there actually isn't any CRA Requirement to Pay document and CIBC is acting
unilaterally. CIBC could simply be lying about the existence of the missing CRA form like they're
lying about everything else they claim the government told them to do with my bank account.
Why would a financial services company attack a customer like this?
Regardless, whether there's a CRA document or not is immaterial. To confiscate a bank account
legally a government employee or a bank employee requires a court order with specific instructions
the bank can act upon. A Requirement to Pay form doesn't give a bank employee power over a
client's bank account. The only way CRA or a bank can legally confiscate an account belonging to
a bank client in good standing with the bank (which I am - I don't owe CIBC any money) is with a
court judgment. If CIBC wants to seize the money in my bank account it has to go to court and
convince a judge to render a judgment that allows it to take possession of my funds.
I learned my lesson with RBC. Like I've stated previously, the bank bridge was burned to the
ground when Royal Bank left me high and dry with no funds last Christmas Eve. No new money
goes into a bank, it only comes out from now on. At the time of the confiscation the CIBC account
held a mere $18.82. Eighteen dollars! There is no legal reason for CIBC to confiscate a client's
account for eighteen dollars. And the $18.82 CIBC lifted from my account had already been
cleared by Canada Revenue Agency. The money was untouchable. The funds in the account were
derived from a cheque I cashed through the account which had already been dealt with by CRA's
collections department. The cash had already been approved by CRA. The funds in the account
were derived from a pension payment I receive every month which is garnisheed by CRA when it's
remitted. The payment is already garnisheed at the source. A thirty percent deduction had already
been rendered against the payment by CRA's collections division. The federal government did not
instruct CIBC to seize the remaining seventy percent of my pension payment. CIBC's seizure of
the funds in my bank account is tantamount to jimmying into my mailbox to rip off a paycheque
from me.
Canada Revenue Agency's participation in recurring thefts from my personal bank accounts has
absolutely no bearing to paying off a tax debt. It's vexatious. This activity amounts to conspiracy to
harass and defraud a bank customer. CRA and CIBC have colluded to harass me. The motive?
Retaliation for reporting CRA's criminal misconduct to the police and to the various other authorities.
Bankers are socially inept misfits. They don't know how to say goodbye. After taking that kind of
freakish action against me, why wouldn't CIBC simply close the account and say see ya later?
Instead CIBC kept the account open and expected me to continue to pay service fees for the
account. It's not my account any more, CIBC. When I opened the account I entered into a signed
agreement with CIBC that stated I would have access to a private personal bank account and in
return I would pay service fees to the bank. Yet here was the bank announcing that my account
had been taken from me and it would now function only as a place to remit payments to the federal
government. My bank account was no longer a bank account, it had become a drop box for
payments to the government. Yet CIBC still expects to collect a monthly fee from me? For an
account I can't access? Why would CIBC expect me to pay fees for a service I'm no longer
receiving? It's the same as having your telephone service cut off then having the telephone
company charge you for the phone service you're not receiving. What kind of industry would deny
the customer a service then expect the customer to pay for the service being denied? They're
morons. Why does CIBC think a bank account that can no longer be accessed by the customer is
still a bona fide bank account the customer should pay for? RBC was the same. Royal Bank kept
my account open even after it had seized the account and taken all the money that was in it.
So I sent a July 21, 2008 letter attention the CIBC branch manager explaining that the bank has no
obligations pursuant to a Requirement to Pay form. See for yourself, I explained. All you have to
do is read the terms of the form to see that it can't be complied with. Attached was a copy of a
criminal complaint filed with the Vancouver police detailing CRA's latest interference with a personal
bank account of mine. I asked that CIBC close the compromised account immediately and remit a
cash refund of the money removed form the account.
No reply was received from the branch manager. All I got from CIBC was a monthly account
statement showing CIBC's internal June 26, 2008 theft from my account in the amount of $18.82.
I sent out another letter on August 1, 2008 warning that if CIBC failed to close the account and
remit a refund by the date of August 15, 2008 I would escalate my grievance with a complaint to
CIBC's dispute resolution office. Attached was another criminal complaint lodged with the police
with the account statement as further proof of a robbery from my bank account.
Still no reply from CIBC. A complaint was then lodged with CIBC's Customer Care Centre in
Toronto, Ontario and with CIBC's president and C.E.O., Gerald T. McCaughey. CIBC isn't any
different from the other Canadian banks faced with customer complaints. It's obfuscation all the
way.
The relationship the Canadian government has with the financial services industry is becoming
clearer every year. Although the law requires it, the British Columbia government, through its
receiver PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc., was able to confiscate all of my family's privately-owned
capital from BMO Nesbitt Burns without applying for court judgments. No court orders required to
funnel all your capital from BMO to the Vancouver office of PwC, said the government of BC.
Now I've seen the same thing with the federal government. The federal government too has a tacit
agreement with the Canadian banks. The federal government and the banking industry are in
agreement that they both can and will bypass the necessary formality of a court judgment if the
government (in this case CRA, the taxation arm of the government) wants to unlawfully lift money
from a private bank account. The federal government throws these Requirement to Pay forms at
the banks like they're tossing bones at a pack of mangy dogs. Which banks bite? They all do.
Ravenously. It's part of a Fraud Jihad, a holy war of financial crime undertaken by the
establishment of Canada; a crusade by the banks, the lawyers and the government against those
with assets who can't fight back.
The financial services industry is so accustomed to foreclosing on people confiscation is in their
blood, seizing assets is instinctual to them. It's seize first, ask questions never, lie and deny when
caught. It's the attack of the puppet people. They seem perfectly civil until they get caught, then
you see that they're automatons doing what their government asks of them whether it's legal or not.