williambanzai7's picture

As alert Zero Hedge readers are aware, this week the EURO Politburo is busy debating the dodgy subject of deposit "bail-ins."

The following article very succinctly explains this odious mode of fractal fractional reserve end-game chicanery.

The author encourages all of you to share it with others.




By Matthias Chang Esq, (with author's permission)


I challenge anyone to prove me wrong that confiscation of bank deposits is legalized daylight robbery

Bank depositors in the UK and USA may think that their bank deposits would not be confiscated as they are insured and no government would dare embark on such a drastic action to bail out insolvent banks.

Before I explain why confiscation of bank deposits in the UK and US is a certainty and absolutely legal, I need all readers of this article to do the following:

Ask your local police, sheriffs, lawyers, judges the following questions:

1) If I place my money with a lawyer as a stake-holder and he uses the money without my consent, has the lawyer committed a crime?

2) If I store a bushel of wheat or cotton in a warehouse and the owner of the warehouse sold my wheat/cotton without my consent or authority, has the warehouse owner committed a crime?

3) If I place monies with my broker (stock or commodity) and the broker uses my monies for other purposes and or contrary to my instructions, has the broker committed a crime?

I am confident that the answer to the above questions is a Yes!

However, for the purposes of this article, I would like to first highlight the situation of the deposit / storage of wheat with a warehouse owner in relation to the deposit of money / storage with a banker.

First, you will notice that all wheat is the same i.e. the wheat in one bushel is no different from the wheat in another bushel. Likewise with cotton, it is indistinguishable. The deposit of a bushel of wheat with the warehouse owner in law constitutes a bailment. Ownership of the bushel of wheat remains with you and there is no transfer of ownership at all to the warehouse owner.

And as stated above, if the owner sells the bushel of wheat without your consent or authority, he has committed a crime as well as having committed a civil wrong (a tort) of conversion – converting your property to his own use and he can be sued.

Let me use another analogy. If a cashier in a supermarket removes $100 from the till on Friday to have a frolic on Saturday, he has committed theft, even though he may replace the $100 on Monday without the knowledge of the owner / manager of the supermarket. The $100 the cashier stole on Friday is also indistinguishable from the $100 he put back in the till on Monday. In both situations – the wheat in the warehouse and the $100 dollar bill in the till, which have been unlawfully misappropriated would constitute a crime.

Keep this principle and issue at the back of your mind.

Now we shall proceed with the money that you have deposited with your banker.

I am sure that most of you have little or no knowledge about banking, specifically fractional reserve banking.

Since you were a little kid, your parents have encouraged you to save some money to instil in you the good habit of money management.

And when you grew up and got married, you in turn instilled the same discipline in your children. Your faith in the integrity of the bank is almost absolute. Your money in the bank would earn an interest income.

And when you want your money back, all you needed to do is to withdraw the money together with the accumulated interest. Never for a moment did you think that you had transferred ownership of your money to the bank. Your belief was grounded in like manner as the owner of the bushel of wheat stored in the warehouse.

However, this belief is and has always been a lie. You were led to believe this lie because of savvy advertisements by the banks and government assurances that your money is safe and is protected by deposit insurance.

But, the insurance does not cover all the monies that you have deposited in the bank, but to a limited amount e.g. $250,000 in the US by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Germany €100,000, UK £85,000 etc.

But, unlike the owner of the bushel of wheat who has deposited the wheat with the warehouse owner, your ownership of the monies that you have deposited with the bank is transferred to the bank and all you have is the right to demand its repayment. And, if the bank fails to repay your monies (e.g. $100), your only remedy is to sue the bank and if the bank is insolvent you get nothing.

You may recover some of your money if your deposit is covered by an insurance scheme as referred to earlier but in a fixed amount. But, there is a catch here. Most insurance schemes whether backed by the government or not do not have sufficient monies to cover all the deposits in the banking system.

So, in the worst case scenario – a systemic collapse, there is no way for you to get your money back.

In fact, and as illustrated in the Cyprus banking fiasco, the authorities went to the extent of confiscating your deposits to pay the banks’ creditors. When that happened, ordinary citizens and financial analysts cried out that such confiscation was daylight robbery. But, is it?

Surprise, surprise!

It will come as a shock to all of you to know that such daylight robbery is perfectly legal and this has been so for hundreds of years.

Let me explain.

The reason is that unlike the owner of the bushel of wheat whose ownership of the wheat WAS NEVER TRANSFERRED to the warehouse owner when the same was deposited, the moment you deposited your money with the bank, the ownership is transferred to the bank.

Your status is that of A CREDITOR TO THE BANK and the BANK IS IN LAW A DEBTOR to you. You are deemed to have “lent” your money to the bank for the bank to apply to its banking business (even to gamble in the biggest casino in the world – the global derivatives casino).

You have become a creditor, AN UNSECURED CREDITOR. Therefore, by law, in the insolvency of a bank, you as an unsecured creditor stand last in the queue of creditors to be paid out of any funds and or assets which the bank has to pay its creditors. The secured creditors are always first in line to be paid. It is only after secured creditors have been paid and there are still some funds left (usually, not much, more often zilch!) that unsecured creditors are paid and the sums pro-rated among all the unsecured creditors.

This is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The law has been in existence for hundreds of years and was established in England by the House of Lords in the case Foley v Hill in 1848.

When a customer deposits money with his banker, the relationship that arises is one of creditor and debtor, with the banker liable to repay the money deposited when demanded by the customer. Once money has been paid to the banker, it belongs to the banker and he is free to use the money for his own purpose.

I will now quote the relevant portion of the judgment of the House of Lords handed down by Lord Cottenham, the Lord Chancellor. He stated thus:

Money when paid into a bank, ceases altogether to be the money of the principal… it is then the money of the banker, who is bound to return an equivalent by paying a similar sum to that deposited with him when he is asked for it.

The money paid into the banker’s, is money known by the principal to be placed there for the purpose of being under the control of the banker; it is then the banker’s money; he is known to deal with it as his own; he makes what profit of it he can, which profit he retains himself,…

The money placed in the custody of the banker is, to all intent and purposes, the money of the banker, to do with it as he pleases; he is guilty of no breach of trust in employing it; he is not answerable TO THE PRINCIPAL IF HE PUTS IT INTO JEOPARDY, IF HE ENGAGES IN A HAZARDOUS SPECULATION; he is not bound to keep it or deal with it as the property of the principal, but he is of course answerable for the amount, because he has contracted, having received that money, to repay to the principal, when demanded, a sum equivalent to that paid into his hands.” (quoted in UK Law Essays,  Relationship Between A Banker And Customer,That Of A Creditor/Debtor, emphasis added,)

Holding that the relationship between a banker and his customer was one of debtor and creditor and not one of trusteeship, Lord Brougham said: 

“This trade of a banker is to receive money, and use it as if it were his own, he becoming debtor to the person who has lent or deposited with him the money to use as his own, and for which money he is accountable as a debtor. I cannot at all confound the situation of a banker with that of a trustee, and conclude that the banker is a debtor with a fiduciary character.”

In plain simple English – bankers cannot be prosecuted for breach of trust, because it owes no fiduciary duty to the depositor / customer, as he is deemed to be using his own money to speculate etc. There is absolutely no criminal liability.

The trillion dollar question is, Why has no one in the Justice Department or other government agencies mentioned this legal principle?

The reason why no one dare speak this legal truth is because there would be a run on the banks when all the Joe Six-Packs wise up to the fact that their deposits with the bankers CONSTITUTE IN LAW A LOAN TO THE BANK and the bank can do whatever it likes even to indulge in hazardous speculation such as gambling in the global derivative casino.

The Joe Six-Packs always consider the bank the creditor even when he deposits money in the bank. No depositor ever considers himself as the creditor!

Yes, Eric Holder, the US Attorney-General is right when he said that bankers cannot be prosecuted for the losses suffered by the bank. This is because a banker cannot be prosecuted for losing his “own money” as stated by the House of Lords. This is because when money is deposited with the bank, that money belongs to the banker.

The reason that if a banker is prosecuted it would collapse the entire banking system is a big lie.

The US Attorney-General could not and would not state the legal principle because it would cause a run on the banks when people discover that their monies are not safe with bankers as they can in law use the monies deposited as their own even to speculate.

What is worrisome is that your right to be repaid arises only when you demand payment.

Obviously, when you demand payment, the bank must pay you. But, if you demand payment after the bank has collapsed and is insolvent, it is too late. Your entitlement to be repaid is that of a lonely unsecured creditor and only if there are funds left after liquidation to be paid out to all the unsecured creditors and the remaining funds to be pro-rated. You would be lucky to get ten cents on the dollar.

So, when the Bank of England, the FED and the BIS issued the guidelines which became the template for the Cyprus “bail-in” (which was endorsed by the G-20 Cannes Summit in 2011), it was merely a circuitous way of stating the legal position without arousing the wrath of the people, as they well knew that if the truth was out, there would be a revolution and blood on the streets. It is therefore not surprising that the global central bankers came out with this nonsensical advisory:

“The objective of an effective resolution regime is to make feasible the resolution of financial institutions without severe systemic disruption and without exposing taxpayers to losses, while protecting vital economic functions through mechanisms which make it possible for shareholders and unsecured and uninsured creditors to absorb losses in a manner that respects the hierarchy of claims in liquidation.”(quoted in  FSB Consultative Document: Effective Resolution of Systemically …)

This is the kind of complex technical jargon used by bankers to confuse the people, especially depositors and to cover up what I have stated in plain and simple English in the foregoing paragraphs.

The key words of the BIS guideline are:

“without severe systemic disruptions” (i.e. bank runs),

“while protecting vital economic functions” (i.e. protecting vested interests – bankers),

“unsecured creditors” (i.e. your monies, you are the dummy),

“respects the hierarchy of claims in liquidation” (i.e. you are last in the queue to be paid, after all secured creditors have been paid).

This means all depositors are losers!

Please read this article carefully and spread it far and wide.

You will be doing a favour to all your fellow country men and women and more importantly, your family and relatives.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
PT's picture

"Why do the people put up with this?"  Most have no choice.

Is there any benefit to claiming that one was forced to have a bank account under duress?  As in, no-one will hire you if you don't accept direct-deposit, so the bank gets my money before I do, pays me NEGATIVE interest (fees > interest paid), and all banks offer the same deal (so much for de-regulation and "competition")?  Until such time as I can find a boss (or sufficient customers) that pay me direct cash, I will argue that all banking is supported by extortion.


Rory_Breaker's picture

Brilliant artwork WB7! And thanks a million for posting that article. Cheers.

fuckitall's picture

Ok, so how to play it?  Keep minimum deposit in a bank (reducing your risk of loss)?  Always owe a bank more than you loaned them (deposited)?  

Sheep will merely be outraged.  They won't think beyond their outrage.  

Smart people accept the reality of it and figure out how to play it in their favor. 

That's how you survive in a corrupt system.  Don't just get angry at the corruption like sheep do.  Think beyond it, how to play it in your favor.

That's the smart thing to do until gun-owning cowards do their so-called "revolution" to end the systemic corruption. 

(But don't put any eggs in that basket.  They're cowards, they'll never do their so-callled "revolution".)

williambanzai7's picture

They are keeping the cause a big mystery.

Sid James's picture

"I challenge anyone to prove me wrong that confiscation of bank deposits is legalized daylight robbery".


Well, I challenge that statement. Robbery, at any time of the day or night, has never been legalized.

dognamedabu's picture

You owe the bank a $1000 and it's your problem, you owe the bank $1 million and it's the banks problem, the bank owes the EU  $10 billion and it's back to being your problem.

Bass-o-matic's picture

This article comes the same day Scottrade notifies me that any uninvested cash will be magically swept into the "Bank of Scottrade".  This is good news I hear, because these deposits will now be FDIC Insured!  They also notify me that I will not pay any fees in this bank deposit program, however Scottrade does receive a financial benefit from this program.  Hmm, I wonder if that financial benefit includes leveraging my balances 30:1?

W T F II's picture

Mario Draghi cast as "Lucifer" in any movie simply has to show up in the liom and pop onto the set. No make up of wardrobe needed...!!

celticgold's picture

thanks WB , i learned something today

williambanzai7's picture

That is really what this is about, explaining something that TPTB prefer to keep some kind of mystical law of the universe for the common man.

Parisnights's picture

Does that include sperm banks?  "cause you know these cum guzzeling luciferians  love all bank deposits


williambanzai7's picture

You will notice that someon has has run down this thread and junked virtually every comment. Here is who that someone is...



Bernankenstein's picture

Malfeasance's best friend, How cute. (WB, I junked you as a joke.)

noob's picture

**Austin Powers, Goldmember** Beyonce - Goldmember. HQ

MrBoompi's picture

They knew the banking system was corrupt when they began the fractional reserve system with physical gold. They learned on average they could issue 10X in paper notes vs. the amount of actual gold they kept in their vaults, and they could collect interest on it. Bank runs were rare, but they did happen. But since the monarchs/governments were always partners with the bankers, this system was never really questioned let alone changed. In fact, instead of 10 to 1 leverage, god only knows what the leverage is today, especially when you consider the derivatives. I hear stories of 100 to 1, but I would bet this isn't even close.

andrewp111's picture

The real question is would Congress make good on the FDIC guarantee in the event of a systemic collapse. I used to think so, but now I am not so sure. When a US bank fails, all its assets are seized by the FDIC so the FDIC can pay depositors. If that failure is part of a systemic collapse, those assets aren't going to be worth diddly squat, since there will be no buyers with liquid funds to buy. The Fed is now much more limited than it was before Dodd-Frank, and may not have the discretion to buy those assets from the FDIC. The FDIC is allowed to borrow vast sums from the Treasury, but the Treasury itself is limited by the US debt limit. Recent history says that getting the debt limit raised in Congress is very difficult, and if the Treasury asked for a sudden increase of a few trillion, Congress could say no or simply stall forever. Congress could order the issuance of trillion dollar coins to cover the shortfall, but I doubt they would, and Obama would veto anyway if they did. Obama would ask for some big tax increase and social spending plan as part of any bill to fund the FDIC, and the House would tell him to go to hell. So, I have my doubts that Congress will fund the FDIC in a systemic collapse as long as Obama is in office.

Steel Magnolia's picture

You will get nothing & like it... The powers that be will be safely out of sight..

pndr4495's picture

There must be a rift between the OIL laden Rockefellers ( sic ) and the GOLD laden Rothschilds ( sic ).  It is because I am an American citizen , and blessed to have been born here that should this in fact be the case - dissension in the elitist's ranks - I am compelled by love of country to throw my hat behind the American team .  The next decade will be chaos cubed if I am even remotely on the right scent.  After that , willingly or or not , there will be changes made at the top.  What happened in Russia in the early 1900s can just as easily happen in America in the early 2000s.  We don't have immunity against social collapse.

John Sixpack's picture

Pndr, can you please elaborate on your hypothesis-dissention in elitist ranks--?  I have never heard of a NWO type of power split--very interesting .  You have my attention.  Thank you .

cifo's picture

Great article, thank you for enlightening us.

Would be nice to see it published by MSM.

news printer's picture

I'm deeply disappointed only 1 picture; I'll provide U some more:

An Interview With Barack Obama About The IRS Scandal, AP Phone Records And Benghazi


StarTedStackin''s picture

I see a bunch of red exes.......

Peter Pan's picture

And amazingly there is only ONE per post.

nmewn's picture

Great article Banzai...a confidence game (bunco artists) & protection racket all rolled into one.

Theres really not much difference between law & outlaws afterall ;-)

otto skorzeny's picture

Every cop is a criminal and all the sinners- saints.

BeetleBailey's picture

well said nmewn...



Peter Pan's picture


It seems we have a downticker who does not have anything to say in support of his down arrow.

I don't mind down arrows but I do prefer reasoned objections.

Either that or we are hitting a raw nerve.


Peter Pan's picture

There is nothing new under the seems we are headed back to matresses to store our money.

And even then you ain't safe because the government can still haircut your savings by announcing the issue of new currency which will be exchanged at a higher rate. So for every 100 euros you will get only 90, 80, 70, 60, 50, 40, return

Monedas's picture

Is Germany an unsecured creditor .... with the Fed .... for it's own fucking gold .... that's why they have to wait eight fucking years to not get it .... get it ?  Gold isn't backed by anything !   LMAO

DosZap's picture

Is Germany an unsecured creditor .... with the Fed .... for it's own fucking gold .... that's why they have to wait eight fucking years to not get it .... get it ?  Gold isn't backed by anything !   LMAO


Can't be as WE all know Gold is not MONEY./sarc

Peter Pan's picture

There was a cartoon of a Cypriot guy with his head up against the ATM machine.

Apparently he was trying to get a haircut !!!

Monedas's picture

So the Jewish Bankers and the Rothschilds and all the rest are not crimminals .... as we commonly hear around here .... from the schmutzige linkenscheisse .... you depositors are the schmucks !     Monedas    1929     Comedy Jihad Jewish Defense Team World Tour   

otto skorzeny's picture

Classic case of Stockholm Syndrome.

are we there yet's picture

When tyrants are told to eat less, they will always grab other peoples food. Their needs always exceed yours. Always.

diogeneslaertius's picture

UNSECURED CREDITOR from FEMA Region 5 reporting in

nofluer's picture

"The secured creditors are always first in line to be paid."

Not necessarily in the US - precedent set by GM "bailout."

Also there would be less confusion if more people would learn the meaning and the function of the term "rehypothecation." (Which is why the wheat farmer loses his wheat. The wheat farmer would be Corzined.)

ebworthen's picture

As a tax payer and citizen of the U.S.S.A. I am an unsecured creditor to a corrupt tyrannical regime.

$100's of Millions sent to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria, or blown on dead-end green energy firms.

The answer to question #3 at the beginning of the article is "NO" because Jon Corzine and J.P. Morgan Chase stole investor money and are free and clear; with the "Department of JustUs" complicit.

The TBTF banks were bailed out with Trillion$s of taxpayer money, so it is clear as day that citizens are unsecured creditors who will have their current and future money stolen with impunity by corrupt governments.

RafterManFMJ's picture

Fiat is what compensates you for your lablor; you spend a portion of your finite life laboring for fiat that is constantly devalued or stolen outright.

Be very clear what these creatures are doing is STEALING YOUR VERY LIFE. Killing you slowly.

the grateful unemployed's picture

the explanation is long and overwrought. simply put money in a savings account is money you have loaned to the bank. your deposit is insured, the government is the middle man [representing you the taxpayer] who makes you whole again, and prosecutes the banker for fraud in the event there is some problem. assuming the viability of the printing press there is no possibility that they will run out of cash.

there are, or were other ways to lose money with a bank, another is money market accounts, which are now insured. concerning brokerage houses and pooled assets, this is where you have to be careful. most brokers also have insured banks in which you can sweep money that isn't currently invested. the principle of pooled assets states that paper investements are the [wheat] commodity, they're all the same, and so if you have bought a bond with your broker, and your broker goes bust, all paper assets have claim on the remaining assets, with no preference to the style of investment [and this is pretty much what happened at MF global]

however if you buy a bond and it has a cusip number that product is registered, but stock certificates no longer are, and this is how[online] brokers can buy and short just about any stock at a moments notice, because they carry the risk. full service brokers must actually complete a borrowing transaction before they short, and they follow margin rules, and its all pretty tightly run, believe it or not, including proof of cash used in large transactions. your full service guy is not taking hot money from offshore.

if for some reason you suspect your bank is a hot money bank, get the hell out. paradoxically any bank which pays a high rate of return, and which cannot lend money at a marked up rate in sufficent quantity to cover those deposits is set up for a fall [see S&L crisis]. any really good bank can become a hot money bank if they don't limit deposits.

when that happens [just like when there is no gold for sale at any price] when your bank starts limiting deposits, there's trouble ahead [and certainly the Fed wouldn't want to see this happen so they would probably step in and demand that bank take new deposits]

i worry what happens when vendors refuse to take dollars (or simply hold back their product or service) today its gold tomorrow its bread.

W T F II's picture

funny that your post was long given your subject.

how about the short version.

banks f#@k up...governments can't/won't pay...depositors lose their capital

ebworthen's picture

People like Krugman the Bearded PhD Potato need things spelled out.

Of course people like Krugman could be beaten senseless with a baseball bat and complain of mosquitoes if they didn't want to see the bat.

williambanzai7's picture

I don't think it is too long.

It is a fine piece of writing since it lays everything out clearly and in plain English instead of turgid legalese.

Some people don't need the foundation to be convinced, but many others won't accept a statement unless they can see for themselves what supports it.

If someone gets into a heated discussion about this, all they have to do is slap a print out of that article on the table.

oldschool's picture


"Some people don't need the foundation to be convinced, but many others won't accept a statement unless they can see for themselves what supports it."

Being one who doesn't believe everything he reads on the internet, particularly from unfamiliar sources, I would have preferred the author cite some authority beyond an 1848 British case for his core propostion.  All the comments that this is big secret in America might or might not be accurate.  It might be that it is not the law in America -- I know, for what that's worth, but that is the crux of the author's argument.


Steel Magnolia's picture

They should have named some banks The Mirage because you only think your money is safe & poof its all gone..

New to posting but I have been reading your articles & You Sir are Brilliant!!