“Money Laundering” by APRA

The Government has promised compensation to any member of a regulated superannuation fund who suffers a loss due to theft or fraudulent conduct by the Trustee or Trustees of their superannuation fund.

However what the Government fails to tell Australian citizens is that corrupt Public Servants will prevent them from receiving that compensation.

The Courts established under Chapter III of the Australian Constitution have an inherent jurisdiction in the administration of all trusts including superannuation trusts. APRA is a Chapter II agency and only has limited “regulatory” oversight over superannuation trusts and APRA cannot subvert the role of the Courts under the Separation of Powers doctrine as confirmed by the High Court of Australia.

If a substantial amount of money has been stolen from a fund and this has been covered up by the Trustee, APRA will allow the Trustee to arrange a “successor fund transfer” to another “friendly” trustee so that the members and beneficiaries will be prevent from gaining access to the “trust documents” of their original fund so as to confirm the fraud.

To protect members when one fund is amalgamated with another fund the Parliament of Australia has legislated that a formal procedure is required when members are transferred from their current fund without their consent.

Members of one registered fund can only be transferred to another registered fund and the transfer is supposed to be approved by APRA as required by Section 146 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 {SIS Act} {Link}.

.

The new fund is referred to as the “successor fund”.

In order to obtain approval pursuant to Section 146, both the Trustee of the original Fund and the Trustee of the “successor fund” have to submit an “approved form” to APRA pursuant Subsection 145(2) if the SIS Act. Included with the application should be a copy of all the documents that comprise the “governing rules” of the original fund.

Regulation 6.27 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 state:

(1) Except as otherwise provided by the Act, the Corporations Act 2001 , the Corporations Regulations 2001 or these regulations, a member’s benefits in a fund must not be transferred from the fund unless:

(a) the member has given to the trustee the member’s consent to the transfer; or

…….

(c) the transfer is to a successor fund;

Therefore Regulation 6.27 confirms that if a member has not not given his or her consent to be transferred to another fund, then the transfer can only take place to a “successor fund”.

However Regulation 6.27 does not state that compliance with the provisions of Section 145 and Section 146 of the SIS Act is not required.

Regulation 1.3 if the SIS Regulations defines “Successor fund” as follows:

“successor fund , in relation to a transfer of benefits of a member from a fund (called the original fund), means a fund which satisfies the following conditions:

(a) the fund confers on the member equivalent rights to the rights that the member had under the original fund in respect of the benefits;

(b) before the transfer, the trustee of the fund has agreed with the trustee of the original fund that the fund will confer on the member equivalent rights to the rights that the member had under the original fund in respect of the benefits.

However to confirm that these requirements have actually been met requires both trustees to submit the “approved form” with APRA along with supporting documentation.

A copy of the “approved form” can be found here.

APRA grants exceptions in the case of Fraud!

The Parliament of Australia has enacted laws to protect what the High Court of Australia has confirmed to be the most valuable asset many people will acquire in their working lifetime. However laws are not worth the paper they are written on if there is no will to enforce these laws.

So in a case where well known white-collar criminals have executed fraudulent instruments of variation APRA simply ignores the laws made by our elected representatives in Parliament and puts APRA’s own interpretation on these laws.

The following document confirms that in the case where the transfer of members to another fund is being used as a cloak for fraud, APRA will assist the white collar criminals and not their victims.

It should also be noted that there was no compliance with “The Voting Rule” {SIS Regulation 4.08(3)} {Link}. , since there have been no compliance with the “equal representation rule” since 2010.

The APRA Officer falsely states in the following letter where the transfer of benefits from the AusBev Superannuation Fund {established on the 23 December 1913} is occurring by way of successor fund transfer.

The APRA Officer was acting under the direction of the APRA “minder” who had been assigned to “monitor” one of Australia’s oldest superannuation funds.

“An application to APRA for approval of the transfer is not required in this circumstance.”

SFT FOI


facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

This tab updated on 16 August 2015