Contacted:

  1. ACCC, Australian Competition and Consumers Commission, a consumer watchdog, reply page 1  reply page 2

  2. ASIC, Australian Securities and Investments Commission, a corporate watchdog, reply page

  3. APRA, Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, a licensing body for lenders business, reply page

  4. ATO, Australian Taxation Office, reply page

  5. Reserve bank of Australia on rbainfo@rba.gov.au

Attached correspondence are so humorous. The law (forgot?) has not made any of the body responsible to regulate lenders.

ATO is the single largest looser in this game. Compound interest is NOT deductible under tax law and its interpretations.

Allowing the interest shown in the bank statement as tax deduction means that our tax department bears the cost of loans of business and tax payers with investment properties.

Out of the income banks earn, ATO gets 30% as tax.

Few letters to:         27Nov2006

                               Compound interest

                                13 Dec 2006

                                2 Mar 2007

                                31 Mar 2007

                                16 Aug 2007

ATO’s responses:    1Dec2006

                               Greg's reply

                               27 Mar 2007

                               10 Aug 2007

Emails to Governor General, Reply1, Reply2  & Queen,

Sent to Queen Lender's fraud borrowers over 20years or @PMT failure, got Queen's reply

Cover Ups by Departments & Politicians:

1.ACCC.  Followed by Minutes of telephone conversation with ACCC (Australian Consumer & Competition Commission) raising their hands up saying they are NOT responsible for Banks!!! Asked me to go to ASIC.

   I taught Trade Practices Act for 2 year in Victoria, that ACCC is responsible for any supplier of goods and services, if they do False, misleading and deceptive conduct or advertisement!

   As per ACCC's website, they will act on anonymous complaint itself, against offenders.

   This time they chose to get in touch with me, after I sent 2 complaints with one month gap (they did nothing on first complaint).  Page 1, Page 2.

2.ASIC My response (Australian Securities and Investments Commission, a watchdog for companies in Australia).  Emails between Alya, staff of ASIC, and myself. ASIC didn't want to take any available action due to regulatory impact!!! Asked me to go to Treasurer.

   But I already went to Mr Peter Costello, then Treasurer and the then prime minister Mr John Howard and got this below. Response from Special Advisor to Federal Treasurer then Mr Peter Costello, asking me to go back to ASIC. Page 1, Page 2.

   Either Peter Costello's special advisor is crazy or the ASIC representative has gone crazy, or both together tried to drive me crazy! Another letter from Treasurer Page 1, Page 2.

   Prime Minister of Australia Mr Kevin Rudd, carefully helping Australians in his 'attempt' to manage 'grocery prices and petrol prices' has left it (to me??) to manage the bank compound interest issue.

   I didn't write a letter to Kevin, i sent email via his website requesting him to look into my website (where i already have these letters in the website). They wrote to me this reply here.

3. Licensing requirements by APRA for a bank. So went to APRA (Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, a licensing body for banks in Australia).

My first email correspondence, they say they are responsible ONLY for Deposit side (have you ever heard of dentist only for bottom row of tooth??) of licensing and NOT lending side!!. Their reply and my gratitude that highlights that my claim regarding compound interest on loans, "raises several issues"

4. Letter 27 nov 06 to ATO regarding ID 298/2006 where the commissioner, after the Hart V FCT case that went in favour of the tax payer, brought a new terminology of 'FURTHER INTEREST' (to mean interest on interest not to be allowed as tax deduction. Clearly he was aware 'interest on interest' is NOT tax deductible, but what he didn't want to consider  that ALL lenders in Australia charge compound interest ONLY).

ATO's withdrawal 1 dec 06 of ID 298/2006

letter to ATO regarding revenue loss to Government and losing say $100 as interest expense deduction and related tax offset and taxing the lender at 30% of such income.

Letter 13dec06, Letter 02March07, Letter 31 mar 07 (this letter I sent as registered post person to person option but till 7th Aug 07 I didn't receive any acknowledgement from the commissioner, so I wrote the next letter and sent only by ordinary mail)

Letter 8 aug 07,(i received a reply for this in 2 days reply from ATO...reply regarding client framing up Letter 16 aug 07. ATO reply 10 aug 07.

ATO's officials Jason (tried to threaten me for sending letters to commissioner). Then Paul (since Jason's threat did not work tried to persuade not to bother about this interest matter any more, he went in shame when I asked him if he has not been provided with a rubbish bin).

Kathy spoke very highly appreciating my research. I asked her to send a written acknowledgement for whatever I communicated, listing the dates of my letters and basic message of compound interest and 'interest only loan as attracting anti- avoidance provisions of Income Tax Act. She agreed to send a reply and requested me to stop sending any further letters. So I told her to make 'tax fraud as legal' than telling me to stop sending letters (she laughed) and this is what she sent!. Kathy's letter (there is no reference number to track, no details from where this letter came, no address as to from which section or branch office of which state this letter is generated from and I could not, (could anyone make out) that this reply is in relation to my complaints about banks charging compound interest and all tax agents claiming compound interest as tax deduction and that the government is losing billions of dollars each year by this, and that 'interest only loan' promoted by banks is satisfying the Part IVA (anti avoidance provisions) of Income Tax Act, that it is a 'scheme' and it is 'solely or predominantly' promoted to avoid paying tax or gain a tax benefit. (you can see that ATO is capable of sending such anonymous letter to me when I reported such a serious tax fraud). ATO's reply on 27 March 07.

Letter from Queensland fraud and Corporate crime group, in response to my complaint of non disclosure of compound interest, the department saying non disclosure is not a crime!!!.

Letter from South Australia Police department in response to my complaint about the interest.

Lodged a few written complaints with Sunshine Police station and Malvern Police station that Westpac and National have taken money out of my loan account and that they be charged for fraudulently taking money from me, recover that money and offered my assistance in framing charges and proving in the court.

Till date I never received acknowledgement of registering such complaints, but I have the postal acknowledgement for the complaint having been delivered by Australia post!

Letter 281106s,

Letter to crime stoppers,

Letter 04dec06s

Letter 04dec06m,

Letter 181206s,

Letter 181206m,

Letter 020107s,

Letter 020107m,

Letter 090107s,

Letter 090107m,

Letter090107s1,

Letter 090107m1,

Letter 010207s,

Letter 010207m,

Letter 070307s,

Letter 070307m.

So the moral of the story is when banks do fraud, NO LAW on this land.

   As part of ‘framing me up’ operation (perhaps the way they would have thought the Judge would be influenced not to allow me to speak in my case against Westpac), a large client of my accounting practice,  in collusion with Mr Peter Beatie of ATO (he is a farmer manager of Westpac Bank) caused a courier driver to forge my signature, as if he delivered a parcel of my client documents to me.

   He used the correct spelling of my name as 'Hari', confessed to me he did sign without my authority on my behalf. I asked him to reveal the person who advised him to do so, which he didn't want to disclose. I told him I would go to court for that. Went to Malvern police station, faxed details of the case.

   Their reply that no criminal offence. Letter from Police Commissioner, Ms Christine Nixon's office, as I escalated the matter to the commissioner (later confirmed Malvern police decision is correct). Please note Malvern is the constituency of Mr Peter Costello and some prominent senior members of Victorian Parliament too, so it is not that easy to get police support in such environment.