Peter of England: He's going to be in REal trouble

[AndyPandy]

i paid my council tax of just under £1700 and non-domestic rates of £7700 to my council at the end of May. i paid a finance company £22000 and admittedly had a battle with them to get their bank to accept the cheque and lastly i paid HMCTs £1600 in June. ALL were paid with WeRe Bank cheques!

Smelling a rat here. The GOOFy poster above hasn't previously mentioned these massive successes, so I'm guessing they're just lies to keep up morale in the trenches.

8 hours to lock down the thread, they're not really on the ball over there on Goodf are they

[Bones]

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 20#p390603



Yep you guessed it, much like his other claims of success !1!!!!!! he has never posted the evidence he said he would

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 20#p390988



peaceful_warrior, is one of the idiots that posts a fake success to make himself feel part of the group.

[littleFred]

Smelling a rat here. ...

Please cite sources. This GOODF post, I suppose.

This sounds like the 20 June private forum post on the "Where is Peter" thread:

i paid my council tax of some £1600 and my non-domestic business rates of close to £8000 using WeRe Bank Cheques and that was end of May and have heard nothing since, i had already received summons for their illegal hearings in Magistrates court for early June but have heard nothing since sending the cheques so i can only assume my cheques have cleared.

It's cryptic, but I think it means he had a summons, paid the council tax with a WeRe cheque, didn't bother going to court, didn't hear from the court or council, so assumes that no news is good news.

The same poster wrote on 8 July:

i sent a cheque to Siemens Financial Services who bank with Barclays Bank. After two weeks i received a letter saying the cheque was invalid ...

[AndyPandy]

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 20#p390988

These people are dangerous, this thread's now been locked so his lies stand unchallenged and could encourage desperate people to take this route rather than negotiate a way out of their serious financial difficulties.

[wanglepin]

he's rumoured to be in Ireland according to this post on P of E youtube vid

1
Reply

TOMAS DE TORQUEMADA3:30 PM
+Peter OfEngland RAN OFF TO IRELAND , BUT THEY WILL JAIL YOU SOON CONMAN SCAM TWAT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KREMZZdbTo8

[Bones]

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 20#p390988

These people are dangerous, this thread's now been locked so his lies stand unchallenged and could encourage desperate people to take this route rather than negotiate a way out of their serious financial difficulties.

I think the mods at GOODF were waiting or dare I say encouraged such a post to be made, so that they could lock the thread but still leave it in the latest news section rather than moving it to the werebank section so that people could see this success !1!!!!!!

It is almost as if GOODF has a vested, dare I say financial interest in people joining Werebank.

GOODF has a habit of promoting these chargeable schemes

[Skeleton]

Quantum3d
My thoughts on Were bank thus far hasn't really changed from day one, ive seen little evidence that any cheques have actually cleared so far, or stayed clear as some have reported balances going back to the original sum owed. However the strength I do see so far is that it seems to make these so called creditors go quiet and at the very least seems to be buying people valuable time.

Ive seen a fake letter saying that the cheques are getting people into trouble, ive seen no evidence of this, ive seen people blame court action on were cheques again in all cases the court action was already in process or about to proceed and nothing to do with the issuing of were cheques.

I know of no arrests for fraud as of yet (troll tactic number 1)....I know of no adverse consequences for issuing a were cheque as of yet (troll tactic number 2)....

So far it looks to me that this should work but is experiencing great resistance from the criminal banks, this is not a failure of the were method but an indication of its potential.

I still feel it is better to have the defense that you made payment with lawful method of payment than to not have done so...

quantum3d
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Posts: 1086
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 1:22 pm

He is really up there with Jimmy and Chong when it comes to posting the ridiculous. I actually look for the morons posts now as they always make me chuckle, he is forever contradicting himself.

[LightinDarkness]

What I seriously do not understand is why don't the banks just tell people the checks are bad because the bank doesn't exist. They end up saying something like "we only take checks with banks registered through the Bank of England" or some such language. Over here in reality land, we know that is because only real banks are registered through the Bank of England. But the idiots really need it spelled out for them: "We cannot accept the check because it is drawn on a bank and account which does not exist."

[Jeffrey]

"We cannot accept the check because it is drawn on a bank and account which does not exist."

That explanation isn't technically accurate.

[littleFred]

According to members on the private forum, that is exactly what some banks say.

On Monday Donna wrote again to say Barclays claims Were Bank does not exist and i was to make payment by an alternative method within 3 days, so i wrote to Donna and asked the name of the person alleging fraud, also pointing out that my council tax had been paid using a Were bank cheque

Perhaps banks initially say, "We don't accept them because we don't have to and we don't want to." Then the sucker quotes junk law and insists the bank answer the question why they don't accept WeRe cheques? The bank says WeRe isn't a real bank and they won't get paid, so the sucker says ... and so it goes on.

Debtors and their banks want to get paid. They know Peter won't pay, and that's an end to it.

[LightinDarkness]

"We cannot accept the check because it is drawn on a bank and account which does not exist."

That explanation isn't technically accurate.

Doesn't being a bank have an official meaning in the law? I don't know the UK law, but I'm guessing it requires a charter similar to US banks. And obviously Peter of England doesn't have any of that. There is no WeRe bank, it is all made up and exists only in PoE's mind.

Here is what the marks here when they get told some variation of "We only accept checks cleared with the Bank of England" or some variant: "We COULD accept your checks, but as members of the Dark Cabal we refuse to do so! Take that!" The people they are trying to pass off these fake checks to just need to tell the marks bluntly: this is a scam.

[LightinDarkness]

According to members on the private forum, that is exactly what some banks say.

On Monday Donna wrote again to say Barclays claims Were Bank does not exist and i was to make payment by an alternative method within 3 days, so i wrote to Donna and asked the name of the person alleging fraud, also pointing out that my council tax had been paid using a Were bank cheque

Perhaps banks initially say, "We don't accept them because we don't have to and we don't want to." Then the sucker quotes junk law and insists the bank answer the question why they don't accept WeRe cheques? The bank says WeRe isn't a real bank and they won't get paid, so the sucker says ... and so it goes on.

Debtors and their banks want to get paid. They know Peter won't pay, and that's an end to it.

Ah, well maybe some of them ARE coming out and saying it. Because the "we don't have to accept these checks" line is something PoE uses to obfuscate and act like its a choice by the bank. As if they simply chose to there would be actual money for them to take by cashing the checks..when we all know there is no money because PoE has made the entire thing up.

[Jeffrey]

Well I mean, it's a bank, but it's not a real bank. Obviously WeRe Bank exists, it just isn't legitimate.

Barclays claims Were Bank does not exist

Not accurate.

The bank says WeRe isn't a real bank and they won't get paid

Correct.

[LightinDarkness]

I guess technically anyone can claim they've made up a bank, but in the US the term is highly regulated. Being a bank has a certain meaning, with required asset amounts and federal reserve licenses, and anyone not meeting that cannot call themselves a bank. Guess not the case in the UK?

We should start a Bank of Quatloos and start selling fake checks for 80% of what PoE does, we'd make a good chunk of change.

[Burnaby49]

I guess technically anyone can claim they've made up a bank, but in the US the term is highly regulated. Being a bank has a certain meaning, with required asset amounts and federal reserve licenses, and anyone not meeting that cannot call themselves a bank. Guess not the case in the UK?

We should start a Bank of Quatloos and start selling fake checks for 80% of what PoE does, we'd make a good chunk of change.

Same in Canada. Banks exist at the pleasure of the Federal Government of Canada by meeting the rules of the Bank Act;

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... lText.html

The Bank Act defines a bank as;

bank”

« banque »

“bank” means a bank listed in Schedule I or II;

Schedules I and II give a comprehensive list of the financial institutions that are allowed to operate in Canada as banks. If an institution is not in the list it is not a Canadian bank any more than a payday loanshark is a Canadian bank. The schedules are below. You will look in vain for WeRe.

SCHEDULE I
(Section 14)
As at December 31, 2014

Name of Bank Head Office
B2B Bank Ontario
Bank of Montreal Quebec
Bank of Nova Scotia (The) Nova Scotia
Bridgewater Bank Alberta
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Ontario
Canadian Tire Bank Ontario
Canadian Western Bank Alberta
CFF Bank Alberta
Citizens Bank of Canada British Columbia
Continental Bank of Canada Ontario
CS Alterna Bank Ontario
DirectCash Bank Alberta
Equitable Bank Ontario
First Nations Bank of Canada Saskatchewan
General Bank of Canada Alberta
Hollis Canadian Bank Ontario
HomEquity Bank Ontario
Laurentian Bank of Canada Quebec
Manulife Bank of Canada Ontario
National Bank of Canada Quebec
Pacific & Western Bank of Canada Ontario
President’s Choice Bank Ontario
RedBrick Bank Ontario
Rogers Bank Ontario
Royal Bank of Canada Quebec
Tangerine Bank Ontario
Toronto-Dominion Bank (The) Ontario
Zag Bank Alberta

SCHEDULE II
(Section 14)
As at December 31, 2014

Name of Bank Head Office
Amex Bank of Canada Ontario
Bank of America Canada Ontario
Bank of China (Canada) Ontario
Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ (Canada) Ontario
Bank One Canada Ontario
BNP Paribas (Canada) Quebec
BofA Canada Bank Ontario
Citco Bank Canada Ontario
Citibank Canada Ontario
CTBC Bank Corp. (Canada) British Columbia
Habib Canadian Bank Ontario
HSBC Bank Canada British Columbia
ICICI Bank Canada Ontario
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Canada) Ontario
J.P. Morgan Bank Canada Ontario
J.P. Morgan Canada Ontario
Korea Exchange Bank of Canada Ontario
Mega International Commercial Bank (Canada) Ontario
Shinhan Bank Canada Ontario
Société Générale (Canada) Quebec
State Bank of India (Canada) Ontario
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation of Canada Ontario
UBS Bank (Canada) Ontario
Walmart Canada Bank Ontario

[Skeleton]

Total guess but maybe the banks are phrasing their refusal to honour Weird bank cheques deliberately in such a manner that allows them room to maneuver in what action they decide to take next. The fact they are in many cases not returning the cheques along with a letter stating your using dud cheques, please use real ones, makes me think they want to leave the legal route open should these cheques really start clogging up the system.

[littleFred]

I think Jeffrey has a valid point. To legally carry out certain banking functions, a bank has to be regulated (essentially to protect customers and the community). If someone doesn't carry out those functions, they don't need to be regulated.

I can't find any law that prevents Peter inventing his own bank, and calling it a bank, provided he doesn't do any of those activities.

I don't accept people's deposits, or lend money, or do any of those activities, so I'm not regulated as a bank. In the same way, neither is Peter.

There are certain other things that people aren't allowed to do, like fraud, but that is incidental to pretending to be a bank. That is fraud law, rather than banking law.

(Mind you, I'm no expert at banking law. Maybe he is breaking a banking law. I am convinced he is committing offences contrary to the Fraud Act 2006. For as long as the suckers don't complain, he'll get away with it.)

[Footloose52]

UK Banking Act 2009 - definition of a 'bank':

(1)In this Part “bank” means a UK institution which has permission under Part 4 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to carry on the regulated activity of accepting deposits (within the meaning of section 22 of that Act, taken with Schedule 2 and any order under section 22).

(2)But “bank” does not include—

(a)a building society (within the meaning of section 119 of the Building Societies Act 1986),

(b)a credit union within the meaning of section 31 of the Credit Unions Act 1979, or

(c)any other class of institution excluded by an order made by the Treasury.

(3)In subsection (1) “UK institution” means an institution which is incorporated in, or formed under the law of any part of, the United Kingdom.

(4)Where a stabilisation power is exercised in respect of a bank, it does not cease to be a bank for the purposes of this Part if it later loses the permission referred to in subsection (1).

(5)An order under subsection (2)(c)—

(a)shall be made by statutory instrument, and

(b)may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(6)Section 84 applies this Part to building societies with modifications.

(7)Section 89 allows the application of this Part to credit unions.

Methinks PFOE may well fall foul of this in some way. Certainly for a limited company or as a business name the use of the word bank is illegal unless authorised by HM Treasury.

[#six]

According to this article the FSA issues banking licences in the UK.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-f ... 64967.html

However, to start a bank I would need a licence from the Financial Services Authority. In fact, without that licence I couldn't even legally use the word bank or take deposits.

And according to the FSA, you need to be regulated if you accept deposits

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/doing/do

What are the regulated activities?
Specified activities are defined in Part II of the RAO and comprise:

accepting deposits
...

Unfortunately I haven't yet found the specific details on the FSA website about calling yourself a bank

[wanglepin]

I can't find any law that prevents Peter inventing his own bank, and calling it a bank, provided he doesn't do any of those activities.

Not sure littleFred. Many may remember Dave Fishwick. One of his obstacles was whether or not he was allowed to call his bank a BANK. He wasn't.
https://www.burnleysavingsandloans.co.uk/

He settled for calling it "Bank On Dave!" and everyone seemed happy.I watched the documentary on Dave Fishwich and the follow up.