Does ASIC Play A Role In Determining What Is Considered To Be Irresponsible Lending

steven made this Freedom of Information request to Australian Securities and Investments Commission

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Waiting for an internal review by Australian Securities and Investments Commission of their handling of this request.

Dear Australian Securities and Investments Commission,

It is my understanding that ASIC leaves it to the banks resolution department to determine what would be considered irresponsible/unconscionable lending, can someone clarify this?

If a bank was to lend large amount of money to foreigner who is married to an Australian citizen and the foreigner had there permanent visa refused with only 1 email as notification, complete lack of procedural fairness all this happens 4 months before the settlement of the property and the foreigner had paid $3000 to the bank for the application and a further $6000 to a migration lawyer is the foreigner expected to become an expert in banking and immigration along with psychic ability to know that a no work condition had been imposed on the foreigners visa and if the immigration department didn't accidentally send visa documentation to the foreigners p.o box 2.5 years later the foreigner wouldn't have been aware of the no work condition imposed, and the foreigner risks a ban from re-entering if they continue to work.

Is it normal protocol for AFCA to ask the husband of the foreigner why he wasn't present when the foreigner was told to sign on the dotted line and the bank neglected to use a qualified translator to ensure the foreigner understands the product disclosure statement , If I was AFCA I would be inclined the ask where the diligent prudent banker was rather than where the husband was.

AFCA would have preferred the that husband be present so he could ? translate in Vinglish , I mean most couples never need to communicate using the technical jargon in a loan contract but AFCA isn't interested in whether the foreigner understood the PDS as long as the husband was there so he could be made liable later, but he wasn't and AFCA still choose to blame the foreigner.

Is it standard Protocol for AFCA to suggest that people who can't speak English shouldn't borrow money ? is it standard protocol to disallow recording of a phone conciliation and then use racist remarks and bullying tactics in order to coerce the complainant into admission of AFCA's fabricated delusions.

Is it standard protocol for the banks EDR staff and AFCA staff to ignore emails and avoid replying to emails and to put into writing what they had conveyed during a phone conciliation?

is it standard protocol for EDR staff and AFCA staff to ignore obvious altering of the loan application which has no initials next to the alterations.

Is it standard protocol for Bank staff to send a pre-approval sms and encourage the payment of a deposit on a property and then coerce the customers into creating a lease for a property that they do not even own yet ,a lease that is missing the disclosure statement signatures and has not been fully executed, is this a valid lease ? obtained under duress due to the possible loss of $42500 deposit , does AFCA and ASIC consider this valid income even though it was never entered into loan application and the banks notes clearly state possibility of lease

The extra $70,000 of assets scribbled in along with the words husband owns own home (complete lie) and the permanent resident check box ticked yes by the bank staff member even though the bank staff neglected to ask that question and AFCA later claiming that the foreigner who's English is limited was responsible for the loan application when the ANZ staff was the one who completed it after ditching the application that the foreigner had supplied which her husband completed and that version of for didn't even contains the PR visa question , is this what ASIC would consider to be responsible or irresponsible, if would nice if we had some transparency so the people of Australia know what to expect, does the fact that the foreigner is not able to work suggest that the already exaggerated income (by $700 a month) and the measly $1100 a month for all expenses constitute irresponsible lending ? what about the fact that its actually $0 income - $1100 expenses = -$1100 and a in valid lease = $0

is it standard protocol for AFCA to state that the bank would have needed to filling a F.I.R.B application for a foreigner not realizing that the foreigner actually did make an application to F.I.R.B and the bank staff member even called the foreigner some 1-2 weeks after settlement

bank staff " ok you don't have your permanent residency "
foreigner " no"
bank staff " when do you think you will get PR"
foreigner " my husband has applied for a review and he has also made a complaint to the commonwealth ombudsman and the immigration department, we also have a immigration lawyer working on it , hopefully as possible (obviously naive as to the fraud taking place in the immigration department)"

Would it be unconscionable if the bank and AFCA ignored the fact that the foreigners husband spent 12 months moving everything to the purchased property and a further 12 and $$$$ setting up inside the property after suffering a heart attack and hindered with a bad back, when the husband still had the use of another property for 14 months and all this could have been avoided if the bank conducted the proper checks that they are required to do and the foreigner and the husband could have departed Australia and re-applied for the partner visa and re-entered within the 14 months while the husbands items remained at the property that he still had the use of, negating the unnecessary quadruple handling and the massive task of dismantling and setting everything up, which will more than likely end up killing the husband.

The extremes that the banks go to in recovering currency (not money) that is drawn from the property title s equity held in trust purported to be a bank asset all the while the foreigners name is listed as the propitiatory owner on that title.

Is it standard protocol for the bank to be so kind and understanding in giving customer 3 months to vacate the property even though the bank staff has created this entire mess and is it standard protocol for AFCA to be such narcissistic psychopaths while attempting to railroad 2 people that have done absolute nothing wrong except trust the bank staff ?

considering the husbands father just passed away do you think that the bank staff and AFCA would show some empathy and behave like honest human beings and resolve the problems they have caused?

I understand it is a very complex question but could you please answer whether all the above is normal protocol it be much appreciated.

Just one last question, do the banks , AFCA and ASIC really believe that the consumer has any choice in today's property market (intentionally inflated bubble) ? what do you suggest people do ? borrow less? not borrow? sleep in a gutter ? jump off a bridge ? the views of the righteous staff that look down upon those who they have caused harm to and the reason why they are in harms we because they would never treat people the way they are being treated.

Use as much time as you need to address these concerns.

Yours faithfully,


FOIrequest, Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Dear Sir,

As indicated in my response to your email dated 8 April 2019 titled Australian Financial Complaints Authority - Where does funding originate from, The FOI Act does not provide a right to access information or to have questions answered, it provides a right to access documents in the possession of Commonwealth government agencies.

For a request to be a valid FOI request it must:

• be in writing
• state that a request is an application for the purposes of the FOI Act;
• provide such information concerning the document as is reasonably necessary for the agency to identify it; and
• give details of how FOI Act notices may be sent to you.

Your below email does not constitute a valid request under the FOI Act as it does not address the second and third items above. If you wish to make an FOI request please address these matters and in particular, identify the documents to which you seek access.

Kind regards

Mirijana Soldatic
Senior Manager, FOI, Chief Legal Office
Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Level 7, 120 Collins Street, Melbourne, 3000
Tel: +61 3 9280 3205 | Mob: +61 0478 325 073
[email address]

show quoted sections

Dear FOIrequest,

Sorry I was under the Impression that ASIC is the named regulator for the banks.

So if ASIC is not bank regulator then who is ?

Yours sincerely,


Dear FOIrequest,

As a legal practitioner you would know that acquiescence is admission by default.

You might consider trying to perfect the law rather than just merely practice it.

Yours sincerely,