by Marco Della Luna
NULLITY – ILLEGALITY – INEXISTENCE OF MORTGAGES AND OTHER BANK LOANS
According to the law, which however the judges refuse to apply, most of the debts to the banks are mostly non-existent, they should be declared null and void, because the banks lend not already existing money, which they have in their deposits, as is made out to be believed. to people, but money that they create at the very moment they lend it, with the act of lending it, with a click of the computer – without a law authorizing them to do so, and without accounting for the operation, therefore without paying taxes on it . Let me explain:
What is disbursed by the bank as a loan, by crediting the current account, and with the denomination of “euro”, in reality cannot lawfully be euro, is not euro, cannot be repaid in euro, and is a concrete nullity for illegality of the object and the cause given by the violation of mandatory rules; all this translates into the nullity-invalidity of the contract. Here the question is whether, in light of the articles. 127 and 128 TFEU and 10 TUB, non-central banks can create money (scriptural or otherwise), if they can create it by calling it “euro”. Whether the contracts referring to this currency are void. This is not electronic money, which can only be issued with a 100% coverage deposit, therefore it does not increase the money supply, but rather scriptural money which increases it and is not covered. The jurisprudence has not yet addressed this issue. He is defending a non-existent right of non-central banks to create open book money in violation not only of the TFEU and the TUB, but even of art. 3 of the Constitution: private bankers can create spendable money from nothing, unlike any other subject: an enormous privilege, and an aberrant violation of the art. 3 Constitution
It usually appears from the easily available bank documents for each loan relationship (contract, account statements) that the disbursement took place by crediting the current account.
In general, in fact, the crediting of the sums that a bank makes available to the customer in a loan consists of this: the bank writes on the customer’s account, as the customer’s asset, a number called “euro”; the customer thereby acquires a credit right towards the bank equal to the amount of the declared “mortgage” (or other contract) – declared in euros, legal currency – towards the bank, which he can transfer to others in various ways. This procedure is illicit and does not give rise to a mortgage or financing, at least in euros, for the regulatory reasons set out below.
According to very recent statements from the Bank of Italy, the ECB and other official sources as well as KPMG, credit banks create money with the act of disbursing loans. That is, they do not lend money by taking it from the collection or reserve, but rather generate it ex nihilo, thereby increasing the money supply and achieving an “extension” of their balance sheet.
As regards the admission by the Bank of Italy, in the person of Carmelo Barbagallo, head of Supervision, it occurred as a written response to a question by the Honorable Alessio Mattia Villarosa, of the Finance Commission of the Chamber, anticipated in the classroom – see the video:
The question from Hon. Villarosa, in the joint House-Senate Finance Committee on 17.01.17, was:
What is the position of the Bank of Italy regarding a possible introduction of a tax on the creation of bank money, as recently proposed in Switzerland (canton of Geneva)? Does the Bank of Italy know the relative data on the importance of legal currency on the total monetary mass?
The Central Bank’s deferred written response to the Senate Finance Committee, with our emphasis, was:
The Hon. Villarosa seems to be referring to an intervention by the deputy lawyer. Patrick Dimier at the Grand Conseil of the Canton of Geneva, in which he proposes to tax the creation of money by the banking system. The deputy recalls that the creation of money is not only that of the central bank, but occurs by all the banks through book money and wonders why, unlike seigniorage, no levy is applied to this money creation in favor of of public finances. Such taxation, he claims, could yield substantial revenue; he calculates that if the Banque Cantonale de Genève were taxed on the 2,700 billion Swiss francs of book money created in 2015, there would be a tax revenue of 475 million Swiss francs.
The point is that banks everywhere are already subjected to taxation of the profits they derive from providing means of payment, together with those they derive from other activities. Regarding the possible introduction of a new tax on the creation of deposits (which represent almost all bank money), it is probable that the greater costs determined by the tax, even if formally borne by the banking system, would still be passed on to bank customers , for example on the costs of opening a current account. The transfer of the amount may not be full depending, for example, on the degree of competitiveness of the banking sector market and the characteristics of the demand for deposits; however, ultimately, it would be the community that contributes to paying part, or the entire amount, of the tax.
It is well known that in an economy based on the fractional reserve system, the money created by the central bank, fiat money, and the monetary instruments created by the banking system, also called bank money and largely made up of deposit accounts, coexist. The central bank directly controls the creation of fiat money and, through instruments such as official rates and reserve requirements, also indirectly influences the creation of monetary instruments by the banking system. In the euro area, fiat money, banknotes and coins in circulation plus central bank reserves, constitutes 15.8% of the monetary mass, considered in its sense which includes instruments more similar to money, M1, i.e. the sum of currency in circulation and current account deposits (data updated in November 2016).
For further details, see the Supplement to the Statistical Bulletin published by the Bank of Italy, “Money and banks in particular Table 1.2.a.”
With so much, it is now incontrovertible (beyond the laughable justification provided by the Bank of Italy – an entity almost entirely owned by foreign private hedge funds – for the failure to tax the creation of capital, which constitutes a net income for the bank), that the bulk of the monetary supply and almost all of the money lent by banks is created by them through purely accounting operations, at the moment of lending, and in the open.
But this creation is not permitted by law, in particular by the TUB, which enables banks only to act as money intermediaries, i.e. to lend or directly use the collection – not to create money or capital.
And there is no doubt that it is precisely creation, and not other types of operations: the BoI itself declares this with the words: “Regarding the possible introduction of a new tax on the creation of deposits…” (see above),
There is no legal provision that authorizes banks to create scriptural money, much less to call it “euro”, that is, as if it were legal tender! If the Bank wants to claim the opposite, prove it!
Therefore we found ourselves faced with a legal trilemma – we repeat: legal, not political:
-or the scriptural “euros” created without legal authorization by the bank and the object of the loan are unreal and non-existent (since they are not money but promises of payment of euros, credit relationships subject to issuer risk), and then the loan is non-existent due to lack of object, data pecuniae, and cause, the contractual relationship underlying the opposing decree (it cannot be said that they are a legal provision of legal money, because -a- the bank does not possess legal money equal to the reserves, but only for about 1/1000 – see “cash” on the balance sheet; and because book money constitutes an aggregate additional to legal currency, i.e. to M0);
-or they are money, therefore they exist in fact, but are created in violation of the reserve of the creation of the euro in favor of the ECB, and then the contract with the opponents is void due to illegality;
-or again they are money and are lawfully created, even without a law authorizing the bank to create them, based on the principle that what is not prohibited or reserved is lawful, and then we can all create scriptural euros, even the State, which therefore it can thus solve its debt and deficit problems; and then the payment made by the exponent with money created by him imitating the banks, that is with scriptural euros, created in the same way and with the same right as those lent to him by the bank, is valid: tantundem ejusdem generis.
The aforementioned issue was resolved by the Bank of Italy itself with the Notice to the public dated 06.06.17, https://www.bancaditalia.it/compiti/vigilanza/avvisi-pub/in which it declares: “The Bank of Italy specifies first of all that on the basis of international and national legislation, the only form of legal currency – i.e. with the power to extinguish obligations in money – is the currency issued by the European Central Bank (ECB)”, which – continues the BoI – is the only one that can extinguish financial obligations.
Do you like this article? Share it on your social profile.
