Brown Paper Bag

W

WebBoard

Guest
From: Mike TheBloodyIdiot


Please refer to the ‘Alarm Bells Ringing’ thread, if you do not get what I am rumbling about.

Thing is that I received overwhelming number of responses to my posts on the abovementioned thread directly to my mailbox. My apologies to those who expected me to answer them personally. As I always say I am not bright enough, and I am extremely lazy, so I could not think of anything better than starting brand new thread to answer those of you who wrote me, and those of you who wanted to know the answers, but hesitated to write.

Special thanks to Ross and Waverly for revealing my ignorance in valuations.

Thank you people who wrote me, I absolutely agree that if:

1. Purchaser receives rebate from the vendor on settlement and does NOT disclose rebate to a lender – it is illegal.

2. Purchaser receives rebate from the vendor on settlement and does disclose rebate to a lender – it is 100% legal, but easily detectible by valuer, lender’s solicitor and in fact anybody who bothers to read the bloody contract

3. Rebate in a form of ‘Brown paper bag’ if passed under the table is a form of undisclosed rebate, and is illegal. Moreover, one of the respondents absolutely correctly pointed out, that if content of a bag is in a form of cash, and you try to deposit the cash the next day, the lender and various “fraud squads” will be the least of your concern. This will be Federal Police or/and ASIO who will be knocking on your door after just a few days. Gail mentioned the other day that it will guarantee you free government accommodation and free meals up to 5 years.

4. Rebate in a form of ‘Brown paper bag’ if included in contract, makes paper bag itself legal, but not what is inside.

However, who can restrict purchaser to perform dealings with the vendor which are unrelated to the contract of the sale of property? Who will argue that the deferred payments ("I will pay you the very moment I get paid myself") do happen every day?
Who will argue that bank will have troubles requiring parties to disclose each and every dealing they ever had?

So the message is: Never ever break the LAW. "It is only crime when you get caught" approach sometimes works, but predominantly in cases when you kill all the witnesses. (Given shortage of skilled professionals in this country, this is not patriotic thing to do.) However, there is ALWAYS way around any restriction imposed on you. The only thing you need to figure out how to structure your deal is using your own brain.

Ok on the subject where AL was wrong:

1. Notion that purchaser (me) will threaten vendor (AL) to sue him, and his donkey (I do not get this donkey stuff, must be some kind of a Japanese sexual hint ;-)). Right, I know that I am a bloody idiot, but it seems a bit premature to suggest that I am an imbecile. Ok, I sue, and what exactly will I be telling the court? “Your Honour, look, me and AL decided to play Robin Hood and devised fishy strategy with a purpose to screw up the bank. Bloody AL confused everything and screwed me up instead of Bank... Pleaaaaase explain him that it is not Robin Hoody thing to do and make him to pay…”. If you after a good laugh, try to say it in front of a mirror.

2. Notion that dog is settled AFTER property settlement… I wonder if it was really that hard to notice that at the time of property settlement purchaser’s solicitor already holds in his hands instruction from the vendor to vendor’s solicitor to pay for a dog? Do I really need not only give a food for thought, but to chew, digest it and put the stuff directly down somebody’s stomach? Yes, bloody dog gets settled and exchanges hands well before contracts on property even drawn. Bloody payment for bloody dog is deferred to the bloody moment when vendor has bloody money. Do I need to say that by actual property settlement date dog well may be run over by a bus, abducted by aliens or simply commit suicide because new owner’s level of intelligence does not live to dog’s expectations?

3. Notion that Mr Bank is present in the room and will not allow anything fishy to happen. If that was the case, would we have this stupid discussion in the first place? This would make existence of the rebates totally impossible, would not it?
Ok, lets imagine Mr Bank is present and looking over the shoulders of our representatives. When time comes to pay for a dog Mr Bank asks: “And what exactly are you doing?” Answer: “Acting according to instructions from our clients to finalise deferred payment on other contract”. Q: “What kind of contract?” and the only right answer to the question is “None of your business. We are forbidden by the privacy laws to disclose details of our clients’ dealings to unrelated parties”.

I think you see it clear that the example in this post is purely for a purpose of demonstration, and in no event constitutes any kind of advice. Mike TheBloodyIdiot expressly denies any direct or indirect responsibility, liability, permeability, feasibility (in fact, anything that ends with "ility")especially in the event this "strategy" will be taught by "property investment gurus" in their seminars. In fact, Mike TheBloodyIdiot never used it, and never will use it. Why? Because this strategy is fundamentally, monumentally and detrimentally stupid. Why? Involving vendor in a "creative" deal automatically deprives you from negotiating power on price and longevity of settlement, this is why. There are number of far smarter, simpler and more straightforward strategies to get your deal financed at 100%.

Apologies to all whom I shocked by my arrogance and derogatory remarks. Just keep in mind, that I:
- Never agree with what I say
- Do not trust anybody, first of all myself
- Hurt only people I like. This is for your own good – if you got cheesed off and planning your revenge on me, you have no choice but to start thinking way I think (bitter and twisted).

Regards,

Mike - self deluded idiot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sim

Administrator
Reply: 1
From: Sim' Hampel


Umm... Mike TBI - you must have done something wrong - I almost understood your post !

Some well constructed arguments there - personally it certainly makes it easier to consider them when you take the time to explain and expand on your arguments as you have here, rather than your usual bluster and testosterone driven posts. Each to their own I guess. Well done - good post.

Oh, that's right. Anyone who compliments you gets their head bitten off. Oops. ;-)

sim.gif
 
Last edited:
Reply: 2
From: Always Learning


On 5/20/02 3:47:00 PM, Mike TheBloodyIdiot wrote:
>Please refer to the ‘Alarm
>Bells Ringing’ thread, if you
>do not get what I am rumbling
>about.
>
>Thing is that I received overwhelming
>number of responses to my posts on the
>abovementioned thread directly to my
>mailbox. My apologies to those who
>expected me to answer them personally.
>As I always say I am not bright enough,
>and I am extremely lazy, so I could not
>think of anything better than starting
>brand new thread to answer those of you
>who wrote me, and those of you who
>wanted to know the answers, but
>hesitated to write.
>
>Special thanks to Ross and Waverly for
>revealing my ignorance in valuations.
>
>Thank you people who wrote me, I
>absolutely agree that if:
>
>1. Purchaser receives rebate from the
>vendor on settlement and does NOT
>disclose rebate to a lender – it is
>illegal.

OK, if you believe you are Robin Hood, it doesn't mean that acting illegally must be is in everyone's benefit!
<p>
>
>2. Purchaser receives rebate from the
>vendor on settlement and does disclose
>rebate to a lender – it is 100% legal,
>but easily detectible by valuer,
>lender’s solicitor and in fact anybody
>who bothers to read the bloody contract

That's business, sometimes I can buy a car with $3000 discount and sometimes I can buy a car with $3000 cash back. No difference really I suppose, unless you are using a novated lease agreement. <p>
>3. Rebate in a form of ‘Brown paper bag’
>if passed under the table is a form of
>undisclosed rebate, and is illegal.
>Moreover, one of the respondents
>absolutely correctly pointed out, that
>if content of a bag is in a form of
>cash, and you try to deposit the cash
>the next day, the lender and various
>“fraud squads” will be the least of your
>concern. This will be Federal Police
>or/and ASIO who will be knocking on your
>door after just a few days. Gail
>mentioned the other day that it will
>guarantee you free government
>accommodation and free meals up to 5
>years.


That was my point with the "lipstick on a pig", you can dress what you doing up as something it isn't, but at the end of the day, if it is deceiving, deceptive and illegal then you should expect early one morning for ASIO to be knocking down your neighbours door by mistake!

>
>4. Rebate in a form of ‘Brown paper bag’
>if included in contract, makes paper bag
>itself legal, but not what is inside.
>
>However, who can restrict purchaser to
>perform dealings with the vendor which
>are unrelated to the contract of the
>sale of property? Who will argue that
>the deferred payments ("I will pay you
>the very moment I get paid myself") do
>happen every day?
>Who will argue that bank will have
>troubles requiring parties to disclose
>each and every dealing they ever had?
>
>So the message is: Never ever break the
>LAW. "It is only crime when you get
>caught" approach sometimes works, but
>predominantly in cases when you kill all
>the witnesses. (Given shortage of
>skilled professionals in this country,
>this is not patriotic thing to do.)
>However, there is ALWAYS way around any
>restriction imposed on you. The only
>thing you need to figure out how to
>structure your deal is using your own
>brain.
>
>Ok on the subject where AL was wrong:
>
>1. Notion that purchaser (me) will
>threaten vendor (AL) to sue him, and his
>donkey (I do not get this donkey stuff,
>must be some kind of a Japanese sexual
>hint ;-)). Right, I know that I am a
>bloody idiot, but it seems a bit
>premature to suggest that I am an
>imbecile. Ok, I sue, and what exactly
>will I be telling the court? “Your
>Honour, look, me and AL decided to play
>Robin Hood and devised fishy strategy
>with a purpose to screw up the bank.
>Bloody AL confused everything and
>screwed me up instead of Bank...
>Pleaaaaase explain him that it is not
>Robin Hoody thing to do and make him to
>pay…”. If you after a good laugh, try to
>say it in front of a mirror.

Hmmm, I have been alive 35 years. And to the best of my understanding there are a group people do things knowingly and unknowingly just to screw you. Strange thing is that you would expect them to act in there own best interests, but sometimes they are too stupid or just to vindictive to help you or help themselves. <p>
The only way I can "tag" them is to look at their behaviour over time. Always work with and look for people who act with integrity (no signs of vindictiveness in their characters) to all people at all times!


<p>
>2. Notion that dog is settled AFTER
>property settlement… I wonder if it was
>really that hard to notice that at the
>time of property settlement purchaser’s
>solicitor already holds in his hands
>instruction from the vendor to vendor’s
>solicitor to pay for a dog? Do I really
>need not only give a food for thought,
>but to chew, digest it and put the stuff
>directly down somebody’s stomach? Yes,
>bloody dog gets settled and exchanges
>hands well before contracts on property
>even drawn. Bloody payment for bloody
>dog is deferred to the bloody moment
>when vendor has bloody money. Do I need
>to say that by actual property
>settlement date dog well may be run over
>by a bus, abducted by aliens or simply
>commit suicide because new owner’s level
>of intelligence does not live to dog’s
>expectations?
>
>3. Notion that Mr Bank is present in the
>room and will not allow anything fishy
>to happen. If that was the case, would
>we have this stupid discussion in the
>first place? This would make existence
>of the rebates totally impossible, would
>not it?
>Ok, lets imagine Mr Bank is present and
>looking over the shoulders of our
>representatives. When time comes to pay
>for a dog Mr Bank asks: “And what
>exactly are you doing?” Answer: “Acting
>according to instructions from our
>clients to finalise deferred payment on
>other contract”. Q: “What kind of
>contract?” and the only right answer to
>the question is “None of your business.
>We are forbidden by the privacy laws to
>disclose details of our clients’
>dealings to unrelated parties”.
>
>I think you see it clear that the
>example in this post is purely for a
>purpose of demonstration, and in no
>event constitutes any kind of advice.
>Mike TheBloodyIdiot expressly denies any
>direct or indirect responsibility,
>liability, permeability, feasibility (in
>fact, anything that ends with
>"ility")especially in the event this
>"strategy" will be taught by "property
>investment gurus" in their seminars. In
>fact, Mike TheBloodyIdiot never used it,
>and never will use it. Why? Because this
>strategy is fundamentally, monumentally
>and detrimentally stupid. Why?
>Involving vendor in a "creative" deal
>automatically deprives you from
>negotiating power on price and longevity
>of settlement, this is why. There are
>number of far smarter, simpler and more
>straightforward strategies to get your
>deal financed at 100%.
>
>Apologies to all whom I shocked by my
>arrogance and derogatory remarks. Just
>keep in mind, that I:
>- Never agree with what I say
>- Do not trust anybody, first of all
>myself
>- Hurt only people I like. This is for
>your own good – if you got cheesed off
>and planning your revenge on me, you
>have no choice but to start thinking way
>I think (bitter and twisted).
>
>Regards,
>
>Mike - self deluded idiot.
<p>
Interesting comments I understand more your opinions
<p>
My point was that illegal activities dressed up as something else remain illegal activities. If you are going down the path of illegal activities, then just do it the easy way, such as a brown paper bag slid under the table! Anything else is window dressing.
<p>
My example with the settlements for a dog and a property was just really my poor expression of a simple idea, which I am sure there is a mathematical law about it. Surely two events are either connected/dependant on each other or they are not dependant on each other!
<p>
Settlement of the property and the doggie are dependant legally on each other or they are not! The bank has a signed legal statement from the applicant to the effect that the legal event (house settlement) has no other events (side contracts) associated with it! Thus IMO if you actually do have other legal events dependant on settlement then I imagine you must be breaking the law!
<p>
Now if you set up the legal framework where you have two distinct disassociated legal events (thus the other one is none of the banks business), then you have a problem! If one legal event happens (ie doggie settles) and the other doesn't (ie property) then one or the other party is going to be burnt! I have no idea's of all the possible things that can stop settlement or stop the cash back payment, but I am sure there are many. Bankruptcy was my example.
<p>
Anyway I was trying to be humorous, not derogatory, please accept my apologies if I offended you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top