HUGE SCANDAL IN BANK ACCOUNTING: THE INVISIBLE ENTRIES

 HUGE SCANDAL IN BANK ACCOUNTING: THE INVISIBLE ENTRIES

By Omar Monzeglio (CTU at the Court of Genoa)
1 March 2022 at 20:25 -


Source: https://www.facebook.com/omar.monzeglio/posts/10225450140495825


"We enter, at last, a bank's head office with two Court Technical Consultants, commissioned by a Magistrate.
I, another Consultant, the client and his lawyer take part in this access, as well as a lawyer of the enforced bank, accompanied, in turn, by another consultant of the bank.
3 - let's say 3 - bank executives were waiting for us in a room as big as a school gymnasium.


"Amongst all, there were four court-appointed technical consultants from two courts, two lawyers, another technical consultant, this time from the bank, and the 3 executives of this important and leading Italian credit institution.
The three bank managers are soon joined by a fourth, connected by videoconference.


Access is gained to the general computer archive of this bank to extract the raw data of the bank's ledger, the HEART of it all. Almost four hours of battle, amidst "you can't", "you can't", "this is", and so on, a series of objections, attempts at misrepresentation, deliberate caciara.
The two CTUs, however, carry out, as far as possible, the order of the courageous Magistrate, and, therefore, a fuss of insane dimensions comes out.


"In practice, the same documents come out - in part - "passed off" as a ledger to 6 - let's say 6 - different Magistrates, in which it was ascertained, through another court-appointed technical consultant in a "parallel" case, that the current account statements received by the customers of this bank DO NOT CORRESPOND with the data, with the numbers, with the currencies, with what this bank, theoretically, would have recorded internally.
This gave rise to the need for another magistrate (and here we come to the 7th Magistrate) who had to understand what the bank ACTUALLY has in its accounts, what it should keep and then, after that, to see if it was correct, or not, what would come out of the general computer archive of the bank.
But, I would like to remind all of you, the starting point of these accesses was precisely the demonstration, by production and admission of the bank itself, that the current account statements are what they are, i.e. sheets of paper that are not worth a damn.
This alone would deserve to make everyone stand up, especially that irregular army of lawyers and self-styled bank experts who slaughter the subject by working only on current account statements, thinking that they are useful stuff for lawsuits.
I repeat: CURRENT ACCOUNT STATEMENTS ARE NOT GOOD FOR ANYTHING OR ANYTHING.
Be wary of anyone who tells you that current account statements should be checked, because they don't know a fucking thing. Get rid of these storytellers immediately.


But that's not all.


In addition to having once again highlighted that the bank's internal pseudo-accounting does not conform to what the bank declares externally, another HUGE piece of accounting was not found during that access to query the general computer archive.
That's right, you have understood correctly.


In those four hours of extracting and analysing how that bank's ledger was kept, stored and managed, not even 10% of what they should have had was found.


The platoon of bank executives, joined by one in a video conference from I don't know where, explained to us that for cost reasons, those accounting records are not online.


ARE NOT ONLINE????


Yes. In fact, they would be "filed" outside the bank, but with "outside" in the true sense of the word, and, therefore, if one wanted to see the data of today, not of 20 years ago, one would not find them INSIDE THE BANK.
Not even a copy. Not even a pinch, a pdf file, an excel file, a csv file. NOTHING AT ALL.
Nothing, zero, x, negash.

So, we will be back in two months, because the bank in question would not be able to try to recover its ODIERENT and CURRENT accounts first, with, I imagine, the great joy of the Magistrate who will have to receive an application for postponement of the terms in order to give the bank time to look for what it says it has somewhere else, outside the bank, and not on the computer network, and, in any case, not on paper.


I want to be clear: what I am doing alone, and for years now, and which has led me to these results, will constitute a new ENRON scandal squared, and beware of the self-styled experts and specialists in this field, because I tell you this from the heart.
Believe a hard-headed person like me, these people I see circulating on the Internet acting as phenomena, DON'T KNOW A THING, and this is coming from someone who continues to study, study and study like crazy, without ever stopping.

It will still take months, perhaps, if someone doesn't intervene sooner to help me, but this case will reach judgement anyway, and then THE VALANCE THAT I HAVE SCENARIOED CANNOT STOP.


I want to thank the lawyer and the other Consultant of the client, who is also, like me, a court-appointed technical consultant, for supporting me and helping me in this purpose, besides a special thanks to the client, and without whom I would not have been able to proceed to an access with two CTUs in forced execution of acquisition of the ledger of a main bank.


I ask you, very kindly, to circulate this post as much as you can, so that it will be known not so much about me (and I do not hide from you the personal satisfaction as a reward for the merit I attribute to myself) as about what is happening, and has already happened, as there has NEVER been a precedent of this kind in the history of this Republic.

 
Thank you all.


Omar Monzeglio