by Jeff Nielson, Bullion Bulls Canada:
By now, most informed readers know that another Big Bank (Deutsche Bank) has been refusing to honour customer requests for “delivery” of their gold — i.e. gold which Deutsche Bank GUARANTEED that it was holding on their behalf. I know this item has been mentioned by at least one other Member here, although I can’t remember exactly where the comment/post was made.
I haven’t covered this myself (until now), because we’re already heard this tale-of-woe from other Big Banks, and (of course) these Big Banks have a LONG HISTORY of selling “bullion” to clients supposedly held for them on account — and then (sooner or later) it is discovered that there is no bullion being held.
Pure fraud. A CRIME.
I’m doing a post on this today, because we see the mainstream media attempting to “explain” (i.e. put their own spin on) this fraud/crime. It is precisely the same reason I did a long post on the mainstream media’s efforts to“explain” why the price of gold was not already at/above $2,000/oz.
The principle is the same. Whenever these Liars attempt to “explain” something where there is no good explanation, they end up REVEALING rather thanCONCEALING the particular frauds/crimes in question.
Read through the long article cited below carefully. At first glance, it might appear to be a reasonable and honest effort to provide information on Deutsche Bank’s fraud/crime. Look again!
1) The words “fraud” or “crime” are never mentioned, not once. How do you (accurately) explain a fraud and crime without using those words? You can’t. What we see here is watered down with EUPHEMISMS.
2) There is no mention of the LONG HISTORY of the Big Banks concerning such bullion fraud: selling “bullion”, guaranteeing that it is holding the “bullion” safely/securely — but there is no bullion.
We’re dealing with Big Bank fraud/crime where there is long history of such frauds, yet the explanation here not only doesn’t identify this as the obvious fraud that it is, it also doesn’t mention the PATTERN OF FRAUD.
What do we see instead? This is where it gets very interesting to the careful reader:
First observe the weasel-words above. You own a contract. They control the bullion. NO!!!!
You (supposedly) own BULLION. The Big Bank sold you BULLION, and then promised to hold it for you on trust — to be delivered if/when you ever requested delivery of your bullion.
A contract is just a piece of paper — a paper promise of some sort. We all know what the “promise” of a banker or politician is worth: less-than-nothing — whatever they promise, they will probably do the opposite.
This is different. These bullion-ETF’s are all billed as “custodian relationships” (i.e. trusts). They are not promises, they are GUARANTEES. The difference?
Promise: we will acquire bullion for you (as per the contract) and deliver it upon request.
Custodial guarantee: we have already acquired the bullion, we’re storing it for you, and we will deliver it upon request.
The promise is an assurance of a future action. The custodial guarantee is the assurance that the “action” (acquiring/storing the bullion) has already been completed. What is the legal difference between breaking a promise and violating a CUSTODIAL GUARANTEE?
Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.