Copy and paste http://www.nhc.net.nz/index/bnz-better-off.htm to share about the BNZ.

Correction notices, re BNZ better off, to web@nhc.net.nz

BNZ - Bank of New Zealand - Better Off?

Was New Zealand's biggest bank robbery, committed by the BNZ bank? Who came better off?

In December 2005 the co-director of my company, which I was a 50% shareholder and director of, writes these notes. They are a plan to cause serious to total loss, to my share values, of the company I co-developed from its infancy. It was a devious plan to become better off.

On the 16th March 2006 the BNZ bank opened a new bank account in the personal name of the co-director. The BNZ's internal e-mail shows this. See here. That bank account with no legal connection to the company was styled as that of the company's bank account (False identity on deposit book etc) to intercept and receive all the money belonging to the company. This is seen in the BNZ's report prepared by its internal investigator. See here. A letter was then faxed to all customers of the company presenting the company as hers and advising of the new bank account. Brazen theft of a whole company and its money. BNZ Better off? Most definitely not.

The action the BNZ bank took alienated me from my company in need of my protection. The action the BNZ bank took alienated me from my current account of significant size trapped in my hijacked company. Money in the legal BNZ bank account was transferred to the 3rd party BNZ account that was given the false identity by the bank, so I never saw it again. I was left with $4.70. I lost my ability to be remunerated for work performed, historical and ongoing, without notice. It impacted on my ability to fund accountancy and legal support to extract the documents showing where the money went. BNZ Better off? Not at all.

When I rang the BNZ bank manager, at the time the BNZ was giving a 3rd party bank account the false identity of my company's, he advised that a meeting was to take place in two hours, and that the changes to the bank accounts were to be discussed. I advised him that there were written threats to cause sever to total loss to the company and that I wished to attend that meeting. See here. I objected to any changes being made without my consent. I pointed out I was a director and shareholder entitled to be present to represent my conmpany suffering written threats of attack. He then failed to respond to my written request for information in relation to what actions had arbitarily been taken by the BNZ. Notes found indicate the BNZ bank manager was closely managing the affairs of the company's banking during the hijacking and had attempted broker a transaction between the largest department store chain in the Southern Hemisphere and the co-director in which a meeting took place. Someone hoped to get better off.

In June & July 2006 the BNZ bank manager responded to my legal counsel, stating at that meeting I wished to attend, the bank accounts were not discussed. See here. Compare the date of the internal bank e-mails to and from the bank manager relating to that meeting and the date the BNZ bank's internal investigator confirms the 3rd party account was given the false identity of the company's. The account were on the agenda and discussed by the BNZ. The legal accounts had been stopped. The BNZ bank's internal investigator didn't let me know those internal e-mails existed, in the findings of his report that took 6 months to prepare, and found the BNZ bank to be without fault. It seems the BNZ bank didn't want it known that they were party to what what seems to be defined by the Law Encyclopaedia as" theft; A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent". The BNZ bank did not have consent, I was objecting, which is the opposite of consent.

I was told the bank manager left the employment of the BNZ bank, shortly after my formal complaint. As a result he was unable to be questioned. I learned September 2008 a staff member of the same name still works for the BNZ bank , in Auckland. The insident happened at the Bussiness service center Riccarton Branch of the BNZ bank. The money was intercepted at the Lyttelton Branch of the BNZ bank.

About 1.5 million, several hundred thousand of which was placed into the 3rd party BNZ bank account, has never been accounted for to me except on the advice of the accountant. BDO Spicer's current advice is that where the money went cannot be traced and there is a black hole during a period of phenominal crash in performance. BDO Spicers now claim that they did not have copies of basic documents such as the bank statements and proposed they were being withheld. See here

A massive reduction in the performance and value of the company seems to have occurred as threatened. It would eventually have been seen on the bank statements. The bank would not let me see losses occurring as they occurred. We then sold our bay at about $200,000 under valuation and marketing report at a one bidder auction, to avoid the mortgage to the BNZ bank. BNZ Better off?

The BNZ bank manager and the BNZ's internal investigator, both claimed the legal accounts of the company had been stopped here and here respectively. How did small sums sporadically flow to and from the legal BNZ accounts they advised had been stopped as standard procedure? Like this perhaps? It seems then that the BNZ bank gave Gordon's Office & Point of Sale Supplies Ltd (Chapter 2) access to my company's bank accounts they had given advise had been "stopped".

In August 2006 I instructed the Lyttelton Branch of the BNZ bank to comply with a memorandum of the court, in the banks possession, being that company funds cease to be placed into the 3rd party account the BNZ gave the false identity of the company's account to. The money belonging to the company continued to be intercepted by the branch into the 3rd party account. Better off?

The Banking Ombudsman's findings of April 2008 state "The actions by (Mr...) on behalf of the bank are inexplicable." The Ombudsman advised me in writing that the BNZ accepts the findings. The Banking Ombudsman's Office is described by Judge Anand Satyanand in his report of March 2006 as "... a tailor made response from the Banking Industry to dealing with consumer's issues". The Ombudsman's Office did not have access to the documents required to establish were the money went. Did the bank manager take some? Better off?

It was reported that in the order of $1500 weekly was being stolen from retail sales alone and this is supported by a written plan of the co-director's to steal from retail sales to repay a loan and interest. The secondary loss to share values of a company experiencing shrinkage is more significant than the sum of shrinkage itself. This is what cash sale envelops look like. Note the price is $90 yet rrp is $200. The staff of the BNZ (Bank of New Zealand) may be wearing clothes stolen from my company. The BNZ still fails at October 2008 to assist establish where the money went. They have the required images of transactions held on file. This may cause them a complication.

If you are a BNZ bank (Bank of New Zealand) customer will you be better off?

Ask if it happened to me what guarantee is there it will not happen to you.

Ask if it is ok if you take some of their money without their consent, what they will call it and what they will do.

The National Australia Bank "Our New Zealand region operates under the Bank of New Zealand ('BNZ') brand. The National acquired BNZ in 1992" & "BNZ has a strong brand position in the New Zealand market".