It is only a few days ago when we read a story of an ailing 80-year-old diagnosed with Alzheimer and dementia, who had been sold €18,000 worth of… worthless financial products from CAM bank. The gentleman in particular had an officially recognized 80% disability, impaired vision and a history of strokes, and yet, he was persuaded by his branch manager into buying CAM shares for €9,000 and a further €9,000 on deposit, until year…3000!

This example of disgraceful behaviour, far from being an isolated case, adds on to a long list of what we could call “bankers´ most despicable actions” (we would completely miss the point if we thought that these are not man-made) and illustrates the utter disrespect and greed of certain individuals working for some banks.

So listed below are Top 7 Banks’ questionable at best, despicable at worst practices I have come across both in the exercise of the legal profession, and exemplifies the declining ethical standards within the industry.

1. Equity Release: a scam that was operated by a number of Scandinavian and British banks where pensioners were asked to gamble away their lifetime savings on two main pretexts: that by registering a mortgage on their property, they could eliminate Inheritance Taxes for their children, legally, and that by investing the loan obtained from the mortgage they would obtain an additional income to their limited pension. A few criminal ongoing court actions, and an avalanche of soon to come civil suits will determine how ethical it was for Rothschild Bank offer a 90-year old a 90% loan on her property…
2. Clip or Swap clauses on mortgages: financial products wrongly sold to mortgage-loan customers as insurance against increasing interest rates. The bona-fide insurance policy was in reality a complex derivative instrument. Most Spanish banks indulged in this awful practice and court cases are being resolved in favour of customers. Bankinter, Popular Bank and a few other culprits have lost 523 Court cases versus 90 ruled in their favour…
3. Bad-advice provided by Deutsche Bank to its customers when advising them that Lehman Brothers and some Icelandic banks, which ultimately went bust, were, nevertheless, the investment of choice. Court number 57 in Madrid is currently dealing with the matter.
4. Awful advice by Santander Bank when offering customers to invest with “world’s biggest conman” Bernie Madoff, despite knowing since 2006 the dangers of investing with him, according to the press.
5. Deceitful advice given to long-standing clients by La Caixa, CAM, BBVA and many other banks to sign up “preferential shares”, when they thought they were depositing their savings on a fixed-deposit. Whereas one would think that younger, dynamic and financial-savvy investors would take on these products, this meeting held by very upset customers seems to suggest otherwise.
6. Abusive use of the extra-judicial foreclosures by some banks. This repossession mechanism is generally (and inadvertently) agreed to by the borrower when signing the mortgage loan deed, is conducted by Notary Publics and can lead the bank keeping a property for €1. An association is fighting to expose this practice.
7. And lastly, a shocking photographic report of Jyske Bank’s not-so-exquisite treatment of an evicted property owner, his belongings and the property itself, following a bizarre dispute lasting 18 years. The Gibraltar-based bank managed to regain possession of an offshore-company-owned property although not ownership, that was retained by the ultimate owner (our client), as confirmed by a  number of quirky court rulings that nevertheless allowed Jyske to put their hands on this property with one sole purpose: destroy as much as they could!

Clients Appreciate our Nordic Values. They differentiate us from our competitors.

Anne-Lise Zahl Sørensen, NORDEA BANK.

This supremacist statement embedded in Nordea’s INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE BANKING in LUXEMBOURG prospectus is not only an insult to Nordic people, but also probably the last straw for many close to losing everything (everything as in the Oxford English Dictionary), to the bank in question. Not even the Nigerian scam has wreaked so much havoc on one single individual as has the Nordic “in-house specialist and experienced portfolio managers”.

But the infamy of this statement and the severity of the insult it projects over the victims of the Nordea Bank Equity Release could be insignificant compared with what could happen if the Spanish authorities (Spanish Anticorruption Prosecutor and the National Tax Office) picks up on one aspect of the programme that the US Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS), in a case brought against the promoters of a similar scheme, identified as being

“conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering and tax evasion, by promoting fraudulent scheme…additionally the Hirmers attempted to strip the equity out of one of their homes by granting a bogus mortgage to a Panamanian nominee entity they controlled…the use of abusive trust schemes and fraudulent debt elimination tactics intended to conceal income from the IRS isn’t tax planning; it’s criminal activity. There is no secret formula that can eliminate a person’s tax obligations…today’s verdict reinforces our commitment to every American taxpayer that we will identify and prosecute those who promote illegal financial transactions designed to evade the payment of taxes.”

Again and again, I receive requests for help from property owners struggling to pay the loan with whom I can only sympathize with, and, to the extent of my capabilities, offer my help. The problem is there is not much more one can do apart from trying to negotiate with the bank, in the manner I have previously written about.

And so, if everything else fails, it is then crucial to adopt what I call the “controlled foreclosure mood”, which is when you know you are being kicked out but you remain calm and think strategically. At the end of the day, you know that you have, at least, anything between 12 and 24 months to find new accommodation and, until the eviction order gets effectively carried out, there is plenty of time to weigh different options. I have listed pros and cons of this situation:

For

• You stop paying the mortgage, the community fees, the Council Tax and any other payments not related to your essential supplies, and actually start saving! Whereas the above outgoings can run up to €1,500/month on, say, a 2-bed apartment, the same apartment you can rent for €500/month.
• You have the answer to the endless dilemma of trying to save a property that is in substantial negative equity vs. walking away from it. You don’t have a choice and thus, it brings a sense of closure to an unsettling predicament.
• You have time to look for rental accommodation, without the rush of an impending eviction order.
• You benefit from newly enacted laws that would preclude the lender, if you still end up owing them after repossession, from seizing anything under 1,5 times the minimum wage (€641), or €961, plus an additional €200 per dependent family member earning less than the minimum wage. Also, the property will not be auctioned for less than 60% of the valuation.
• You know that, whatever happens in the future, it is quite likely that you are en route to get rid of the dreaded negative-equity because banks’ lawyers, who tend to be posted far away from where you are and who are pretty laid-back (i.e., CAM lawyers are in Alicante, Sabadell-Atlantico in Barcelona etc.), are not going to send private investigators to find out exactly where you derive your income from, as an ex would! Their business is banking, not debt-collection.
• It is quite possible that the next government, hopefully the PP (Partido Popular), will improve dramatically the economic state of the country and implement effective rules to ensure that the so-called “right to a second opportunity” is carried forward.

Against

• The bank can repossess the property for less than it’s owed on it, which would entitle them to pursue you for the balance.
• You need to disappear for a while from land registries, car registries, etc., if you know what I mean, whether you have assets in Spain or abroad (particularly in the EU, cannot see Caja Extremadura chasing after a beach front apartment in Thailand but conversely, can see Banco de Santander targeting a 3-bed detached house in Woodford Green).
• You need to be careful with having bank account in your name, as occasionally the bank could request from the court the issue of a “sweeping” information order, on all banks, to know if you have any cash in them. This means that you need to operate through a company or a friend/family member.
• You may feel an element of stigma, but, hey, nothing wrong with that, you now live in stigma land…this is Spain!

In my opinion, it is vital to view this situation as a business that has gone wrong and little more, working around the problem as it comes to you but more importantly, not allowing it to engulf your being or weaken your spirit till you give up.

I have an American client, Ray, who happens to be a CAM Bank client. Several months ago, Ray got caught up by this bank’s disastrous decision-making processes and stuck in what seems an unresolvable legal quagmire.

Ray bought from a developer off-plan, back in 2005. In 2008 the properties were finished and licensed but, because the developer was running into problems, there were court cases being filed, and potentially embargoes being registered against the units, including his. So to protect him, on our advice he chose to complete on the property assuming the existing mortgage, without qualifying with the CAM as the application had not been submitted.

On a property valued at €900,000, he had paid more than half of it, during the course of the construction.

The situation was that he owned the property but the mortgage was in the developer’s name, although he kept his payments up to date. Twelve months ago, his loan fell behind by €300 during 3 days, and the CAM, because it coincided in time that they had just foreclosed on the loans on the other unsold units, seized the opportunity and did the same with his. Two days after this he had €20k in his account to cover several installments, but CAM refused point blank to reinstate. No other bank will lend him now, even though is not in a bad creditors list, because of this unusual situation.

This is an example that shows that some banks choose to be where they are: they are just bad banks with bad people running them, no more, and the CAM, the fourth largest savings bank in Spain, epitomises this.

Ray is not alone, as there seems to be a large number of clients who have had to deal with branch managers lacking the minimum common sense you expect from someone in their position. If you are one of those affected, we would love to here you story.

Today on Talk Radio Europe

For those of you interested, I will be today around 4.00 PM on the Life At Five with Allan Tee Show on Talk Radio Europe, to discuss this matter.

You can tune in directly through their website (internet stream), or through the FM frequency assigned in your area.

My client has had a narrow escape: having been notified in early March by the courts that his property was to be auctioned by Danske Bank, at 11:00h of the 8^th of June 2011, we managed to obtain from the same court a ruling suspending the auction exactly…24 hours before (just like that one last call from the Alabama Governor…)

And prior to this, on the 27^th of May 2011, that is, just a few days before the auction, we are advised, through the courts (Document in PDF), that, unbeknownst to him, my client did indeed have €126,946.64 with Danske Bank, in some account in Luxembourg, which is what he had been wiring to them, over the years, to attempt to placate them and avoid being kicked out of his retirement home bought with his life-savings. One can only imagine the topnotch service Danske bank provided my client once they had abandoned Spain, not before trying to repossess a few homes in its wake. Danske Bank had all but forgotten about this money until the very end, and they have the cheek to say that the debtor had paid up this sum when, as a matter of fact, it had been blocked for years.

So if it was not enough stress, we added that extra bit to it by, unwillingly, choosing the latest of the possible dates (other than tomorrow) to set aside the sale at public auction instigated by Danske Bank against a 73 year-old retired mariner victim of an equity-release, who had been conned into believing that, by going with the biggest Bank in Denmark and contracting what is effectively a tax-evading financial product on his unencumbered retirement home, he would have a monthly payment coming his way, pretty much all the inheritance tax his daughters would be hit with waived or wiped out and all of it, without risking anything (apart from his home, his health and, potentially, his two beautiful daughters’ freedom, as they would have been eligible for prison sentences to be served at Alhaurin prison, 10 minutes’ drive from the foreclosed home, had they followed Danske Bank’s careful tax planning).

The Judge had no choice but to suspend the auction as, alongside these foreclosure proceedings claiming approximately €845,000 (which is what Danske Bank’s clever and optimized investing has lost, or rather, in my opinion, allegedly misappropriated), a criminal complaint had been lodged in Mijas against CEO Peter Staarup and his sales guys once based on the Costa del Sol, including an unregulated IFA hired by the bank.

These are some the promises made by Danske Bank on its prospectus:

• Exempt from Spanish Inheritance Tax : if the beneficiaries, on the death of the insured, are not residents in Spain, the capital will not be liable to Spanish inheritance tax.
• Investment Strategy: CAUTIOUS

If this is what the HMRC thinks about tax-avoidance schemes, what would they say about the Danske Bank Tax-Evasion Capital Assurance product?

Documents

• 21-03-2011 – Danske Bank Equity Release Lawbird Client Case – Auction Notice (PDF – 70Kb)
• 07-06-2011 – Danske Bank Equity Release Lawbird Client Case – Auction Judge Suspension Order (PDF – 72Kb)

Convicted conman John Doust was right in one thing, when reflecting on the reasons why he had become exposed as one of the longest-serving crooks around: “internet is a terrible thing”. It definetely proved awful to him, to the point that even a  relative of his found out about his latest scam via the cyberspace!

For Nykredit and Sydbank, Internet can administer the coup de grace for equity release contracts, signed with otherwise happy British unencumbered property owners, that invariably failed to achieve what was intended from them, leaving the supposedly happy beneficiaries in dire financial ruin.

It is not known how many people actually signed with them but what is clear is that Nykredit and Sydbank, in the process of recruiting their clients and getting them to sign up for their losing financial product, broke every existing law, regulation, norm, code of conduct, you name it. So since my previous post was boring enough with all the laws that these guys infringed, I will just outline 2 decisive aspects of their actions that would define their activities:

• They arrived in Spain through the back door: if the first stop for any entity or person who wishes to legally and properly advise on financial products or services in Spain is the CNMV (Spanish regulator), then the duet Nykredit/Sydbank must have swam in from Mediterranean to reach the Costa del Sol, or perhaps used the vehicle of the photo. If you go to the CNMV website you will not find trace of any of the two Danish banks…

• They arrived in Spain through the back door and actually knew they were doing so. You see, the WayBackMachine.org site tells us that back in 2007, Nykredit was selling equity release in Spain but were aware that they could not do so, and to warn people they actually posted a warning on their website that read:

“Please note that due to legal barriers, we currently only offer mortgage loans in France and Spain to Scandinavian retail customers.”

Because once you get into the habit of breaking the laws and other inconvenient regulations implemented by a different country , you end up doing the same with self-imposed prohibitions like the one above. Nykredit and Sydbank were just never allowed/authorised/cleared/legally entitled offer or sell equity release programmes to anyone in Spain, whether Scandis or not.

Shortly after realizing  how wrong they were, they removed the equity release page…

And my clients, all over 60, British, and retired, have had to rent their property, start working (a lady in particular is now cleaning other people’s homes) and suffer untold levels of stress since having the misfortune of crossing paths with the chap on the picture…

Two posts ago, in my post titled Spanish Property Auction Horror, I mentioned a very innovative court ruling that allowed someone in Navarra to walk away from their property (a process called in Spanish Dacion en Pago) without the risk of going through what the Wiltshire couple mentioned in the post went through.

Some notes on the ruling (PDF, Spanish) so that an opinion can be formed on it:

• A bank forecloses and repossesses, given that bidders (that species in extreme danger of extinction) fail yet again to turn up. The value given to the property, on application of the mortgage foreclosure archaic provisions, is of approximately €20,000 under the debt.
• The Court of First Instance rules that it would not be equitable and fair for the bank to charge this amount and reject enforcing collection of this debt.
• The Court of Appeal, deciding on the legal challenge brought by the bank, does not consider its entitlement to claim a further €20,000, after the property has been repossessed, to be an “abuse of discretion“, from a formal point of view, for the law has been applied in its own terms.
• The court does consider, conversely, that since the bank allocated a value of €75,000 to the property when the mortgage deeds were signed, this specific aspect of the initial agreement cannot be glossed over and requires further understanding.
• The court goes on to say that, when appealing the initial ruling, the bank conveys a morally  alarming reflection, it being the known fact that the property is now worth far less due to adverse economic circumstances, adding that such situation is not attributable to the property ex-owner but to international economic crisis reasons, an opinion the Court says is shared by the Spanish Prime Minister as well as Mr. Barack Obama.
• As a consequence of this, continues the Court of Appeal, the bank, being an integral part of the economic system and therefore not aloof from the above considerations, is partly responsible for their -irresponsible- role in the most savage crisis since 1929.
• The court then invokes that laws have to be interpreted according to the reality of the time when they are to be applied (article 3 of the Spanish Civil Code) and, to the surprise of many, and in spite of repeating that it would it not be abuse of discretion to enforce the €20,000, reckons it morally reproachable for the bank to pursue borrowers for a fictitious sum when, at the time of granting the loan, the value of the property was more than enough to cover the loan and that this situation has not been occasioned through any fault of their own, nor that of the bank, although the reality is that the latter is a protagonist of the collapsed financial system. It also then adds that bank’s reason for pursuing the borrowers (economic crisis) is a highly sensitive issue that have made a lot of people “hot under the collar”.
• Finally, the court rules that in respect of the reduced value of the repossessed property, for which the bank showed no documentary evidence, the formal adjudication (repossession) of it, given its initial bank-accepted initial valuation of €75,000, is enough to cancel the debt.

So what have the reactions been to this?

• Spanish Consumers Associations are understandably over the moon and hail the ruling as very brave. FACUA, one of them, has its reservations as it, they say, the Government that now needs to make a legal move to change the laws. If not, they claim, they will lobby for the laws to be reviewed to accommodate this very consumer-friendly ruling. Finally, they insist that a law-change is necessary to break once and for all with the harrowing consequences that the price-inflating conspiracy plotted by banks and valuation companies has had on consumers.
• Spanish Bankers Association are understandably mad at it as they claim, if it becomes rule then lending markets may go through turmoil, lenders will increase interest rates, investors would not trust a system where contracts can be broken (yeah, tell this to the victims of the  Spanish off-plan property fiasco, or are they not investors?) and some consideration or other. They encourage banks to fight this new trend.
• Someone called Moody’s claims that it is an isolated case and that it should not be made rule, given that it would encourage borrowers to default when they feel that the property is in negative equity. It also says that it goes against Spanish laws and warns that, if it sets a precedent, they will have to put the Spanish mortgage market under scrutiny and perhaps, have it revised.

As tempting as it may look, “handing over the keys” to the bank (dacion en pago in Spanish) , without pre-arranging this via a Notary Public and disappearing, has to be done with care, for being pretty dangerous, unless you have the right figures. Or you happen to have been lucky enough to have been judged by the court in Navarra that has ruled that the bank is not entitled to not accept the “handing” in of the keys, in a very relevant decision.

This ruling (to be discussed on a next post), however important it may seem, does not take away the horror of our mortgage foreclosure legislation. The reason for this happening is that Spanish provisions in respect of foreclosures, unlike other countries, stipulate that auctions will be valid so long as the minimum bid is over 50% of the auction start price (the latter value generally being pre-agreed when signing the mortgage deeds and equivalent to the valuation), irrespective of the current outstanding debt with the bank.

I have taken a real-life example, on a property at Jardines de Casares, and to understand this have attached the following:

• The print out we got from the bank after the property had been repossessed, showing the existing debt and the value the property achieved at auction.
• The value given to the property, in 2006, for auction purposes (coincidental with the valuation).

So we have then that property was valued, for auction purposes, at €350,700 (the auction start price), the outstanding mortgage was of €243,217 and, as usual, nobody of interest turned up (only retired law-lovers and the occasional passers-by) .

The auction kicked off with only the bank being present -and a few curious skinned time wasters -rapidly skipped the 70% ASP mark and ended being repossessed for 50% of this value. And the “summarily executed” debtor ended up, as a consequence of these unfair laws, without a property but still owing €67,867 plus a further €100,000 approximately in legal costs and arrears interest (19% p.a.).

In the above case-study, from the debtors perspective (which is the one we are interested in here), the following scenarios and consequences were possible (although only scenario 5 was probable, considering the value of the property and the area):

1. Bidder(s) turn up and bid over the debt (being over 70% of the start price): we walk away with no property but no debt and probably some spare cash.
2. Bidder(s) turn up and match the bank debt (between 50% and 70% of the start price): we walk away with no property but no debt. In this case we would have the right, within 10 days, to bring a third party to improve the bid.
3. No bidder(s) turn up but the bank repossesses for the debt value: we walk away with no property but, luckily, no debt.
4. No bidder(s) turn up and bank repossess at over 70% of the start price but under the debt: we walk away with no property and the horrific auction negative-equity.
5. As point 4 but bank repossess at under 70% of the ASP (sometimes at 50% of start price or the value of the debt): we walk away with no property and a larger auction negative-equity, worst than 4. However, albeit illusory, we still have 10 days to bring a third party to improve the bid, up to 70% or the debt.

Under the current Spanish foreclosure system, if we find ourselves in the scenarios of points 4 and 5 we can end up being chased for the difference (which is fictitious although becomes very real once the Judge’s gavel goes down!), calculated by subtracting what article 670 of the LEC (civil Procedural Act) allows the bank to keep the property for, from what we owe them, just as the couple from Wiltshire are experiencing, to their sorrow.

And so, what options do we have? Not many, but I can propose two:

• Stop paying your mortgage and try to convince the bank that it is silly to go to Court and clever to take the property back, because a) you have no property in Europe and b) you are going to live in Peru for the rest of your life (don’t be shy here, concoct a proper story, set them up!)
• If you are not in any of those scenarios, or are too honest to lie, find a friend who will be happy to put in a dummy bid to push the auction value up to the debt you have with the bank. Your friend will have to put down, as a deposit, 30% of the starting price (just over €100,000), and needs to get the bank to make a first bid equivalent to the debt. This will free you from the negative equity, and your friend will be free to get the deposit back, job done satisfactorily! Careful though: the bank’s representative may push his bid short of the debt, making your friend put a higher bid only for the bank to then…pull out. Now your friend has a problem!

And bear in mind the following:

• Most auctions end up with the bank repossessing as they will not -yet- settle for anything less than the outstanding mortgage capital (even if it is way over the market value). We should see a change happening towards mid-2011, as the Bank of Spain has already warned.
• Bidders currently discard 95% of the auctions happening in Spanish courts.

Banks must have done something really dodgy in respect of these Russian-roulette swap contracts, because, besides the deluge of rulings tagging these instruments as the epitome of banking misrepresentation, one particular court in Madrid has now issued, at the request of the Banking Services’ Consumers Association, a search warrant in the central offices of the BBVA bank, the second biggest in Spain.

The execution of the measure was set for the 21st of December, since the bank was refusing to provide the court with a list of consumers that had signed up to the protection provided by these contracts against interest rate fluctuations, thinking this was the case. To avoid further embarrassment, BBVA decided to hand in the paperwork a few days before the deadline.

Statistically, I would say that 3 courts out of 4 are now rendering these contracts as null and void since they were sold as an insurance cover in the event of heavy interest rate fluctuations (upwards obviously) but craftily concealed the scenario where, if they went down, the bank would be cashing in. Courts understand that these contracts hid a complex financial-speculative derivative product that has caused thousands to lose millions in favour of banks.

Fortunately for lawyers acting on behalf of victims of this misrepresentation, each bank has a standard contract that applies throughout Spain, so, once a ruling is reached by a Court in respect of say, Banco Sabadell or Caja España, it is very difficult for a claim brought under the same grounds to be rejected by a different court (but may happen, after all, it’s the judiciary!).

So what’s the solution to this then? Well, if you ask me with my lawyer’s hat on, I’d say instruct me! But if you want to give it a go yourself, and give me a miss, this is what I propose:

1. Ask your bank for a copy of the swap contract, in case you don’t have it.
2. Go to the extraordinary website of the Asuapedefin and Apymifid associations and try to find the name of your bank among the 100 or so favourable rulings posted there (the column on the right of the screen). If you can find it, print it.
3. Get a letter out to the bank advising them that, due to the swap contract’s absolute nullity, you will not accept any more withdrawals from your bank account.  I have typed up a letter (see below) that will help you address these issues, and which you will need sent via official channels, i.e. “burofax”, irrespective of whether you hand-deliver or fax it, to ensure acknowledgement of content and recorded delivery, for litigation purposes.
4. If you can personally go to the branch to deliver the letter, do it. If you have found a copy of a ruling against your bank, don’t forget to enclose it.
5. The following can happen once they get the letter:
   1. that they bin it (very likely),
   2. that they make you an offer or settlement, which would normally come in a roundabout way so that you don’t notice that what they’re really after is to sting you once again (likely),
   3. or that they accept tearing up the contract and reimbursing you the sums you have lost so far (very unlikely).
6. If they offer you an offer or settlement, analise it carefully. At this point you need to understand one thing: a derivative contract is an agreement that is known, to financiers, as a “zero-sum game”. This means that one party’s loss is equal to its counterparty’s gain and therefore, the only way for you to win is that the bank loses, and vice versa. So when negotiating, do keep this in mind.
7. If you get really tired of trying to get an answer from the financial entity, then your best bet is to hire legal representation and go to court. This will allow you to get on with your life and with more productive matters.

Documents

• Swap Cancellation Letter to Bank Template (PDf – 121Kb)

This is the question I was asked the other day by one of my clients who was about to show me the letter he had just received from his lender, the Danske Bank.

I am appealing to your empathy, and, to that extent, I want you to sit back and think, think how would you feel if after a life of hard work, when you were about to reap the deserved enjoyments of retirement and you had invested all your savings to purchase a hilltop beautiful villa on the Costa del Sol, the following happened (chronologically):

• You landed in Spain having sold your property in the country where you lived the last 60 years, cashed your pension and emptied your local bank accounts.
• You bought your retirement home with your life time savings, mortgage free.
• One sunny Saturday, one bloke, who happened to be a friend of a friend, turned up for lunch with a grin the size of a half-moon.
• After a few glasses of wine and after listening patiently to a rather boring recount of what you think is a vivid lifetime of experiences (might be for you, not for your new friend), this bloke, who you now think is a new friend, reacting with apparent anguish suddenly interrupts you to enquire whether your children are sufficiently protected against Spanish Inheritance Tax, which he conveniently sells as a happiness killer.
• Since by now, owing to the sun and the wine, you trust him, you open your ears and eyes as he explains that you are in serious danger of ruining your future, and that of your children.
• Avid to learn more, you enquire, and because he is in a hurry, he suddenly and quickly offers you a miraculous financial instrument to ensure that not only your unencumbered home is protected but also, you will have a monthly payment for life.
• By now you are well sober, listening to the wonder product that will protect your family plus give you some pocket money. Your friend tells you that he works for Danske Bank and that he can help.

[…]

A few years down the line

• Your friend has disappeared, your property has an embargo on it, Danske Bank is asking you to return €850,000 which you never saw and then you receive, by post, the following letter (click to open in PDF):

• Difficult as it is, you manage to read the letter, and you understand what it implies: your own bank, Danske Bank, without you ever writing to them, and who was entrusted with looking after, investing and providing a return on €1,030,000 (and which they managed to reduce by €850,000 thanks to cautious investing), which they extracted from your home on false pretences has the gall, in spite of it all, to let you know that you happen to have instructed them to debit your  (blocked) account with €23,703, in cover of “LEGAL COSTS” in favour of their own lawyers’ account in Spain so that these lawyers can…errr, sue YOU and repossess YOUR home, after having efficiently lost your life time savings in some volatile very-high-risk Luxembourg bond that was sold to you as cautious.

You have now discovered what the “Danske Bank Kick in the Bollocks” is all about!