01-08-2020. Her finder du link der forklare Jyske Bank A/S brug af Mandatsvig, Dokumentfalsk, Udnyttelse og Tvang, Vildledning, Bedrageri. Overtrådt tinglysningsloven, fuldmagtsloven, Straffeloven.

Her finder du link der forklare Jyske Bank A/S brug af

Mandatsvig, Dokumentfalsk, Udnyttelse og Tvang, Vildledning, Bedrageri.

Overtrådt tinglysningsloven, fuldmagtsloven, Straffeloven. Vi gennem går de forhold der er fremlagt bevis for i retten.

Det er altså disse beviser Jyske Bank ikke kan benægte. men som  Jyske Banks advokater i Lund Elmer Sandager LES.dk mindst ved Kristian Ambjørn Buus-Nielsen og Philip Baruch kæmper for at få forældet.

I Jyske Bank handler det om at få flest penge ud af bankens kunder, dette vidner vores sag om.

 

Under teksten til billede kommer link til understøttende forklaring og beviser på de lovovertrædelser som Jyske bank A/S hvis ansatte og ledelsen står bag.

 

Main suspect in Danish bank fraud case Jyske BANK Anders Dam, Jyske Bank suspected of million scams and corruption. Philip Baruch Advokat og Partner I Lund Elmer Sandager Les.dk Thomas Schioldan Sørensen rodstenen.dk - Lundgrens advokater. Dan Terkildsen. Rødstenen advokater. bestyrelsen Jyske Bank Sven Buhrækall. Kurt Bligaard Pedersen. Rina Asmussen. Philip Baruch. Jens Borup. Keld Norup. Christina Lykke Munk. Johnny Christensen. Marianne Lillevang. Anders Christian Dam. Niels Erik Jakobsen. Per Skovhus. Peter Schleidt. #Bank #AnderChristianDam #Financial #News #Press #Share #Pol #Recommendation #Sale #Firesale #AndersDam #JyskeBank #ATP #PFA #MortenUlrikGade #GF Maresk #PhilipBaruch #LES #LundElmerSandager #Nykredit #MetteEgholmNielsen #Loan #Fraud #CasperDamOlsen #NicolaiHansen #JeanettKofoed-Hansen #AnetteKirkeby #SørenWoergaaed #BirgitBushThuesen #Gangcrimes #Crimes #Koncernledelse #jyskebank #Koncernbestyrelsen #SvenBuhrkall #KurtBligaardPedersen #RinaAsmussen #PhilipBaruch #JensABorup #KeldNorup #Chri

The CEO of Anders Christian Dam is probably very scared, for the small customer who accuses Anders Dam of complicity in Jyske Bank’s continuing million fraud
Klik and Read 30-09-2019


Klik and Read 03-10-2019
Why does the customer suspect that Jyske Bank uses Bribery to disappoint in legal matters?


The customer himself has to make the final reply on 28-10-2019 and submit their claims to the court.


Why else does Anders Dam meet as the mighty manager and talk about the evidence against Jyske Bank for gross fraud or fraudulent conduct, which is now presented by the customer himself in the case.

If Anders Christian Dam is just a lousy coward who leads a criminal organization, or has the client misunderstood something, that is what we have been trying to figure out since May 2016.


Dear Anders Christian Dam
Call us on 004522227713
And tell us if we have been wrong, we do not want the case against Jyske Bank for fraud if we have misunderstood the group’s reasonable intentions, and there is no talk at all and neither fraud nor false.

Then you should not wake up Anders Dam and answer us.
And if we are right in that, Jyske Bank exposes us to fraud, and you Anders Dam as manager of Jyske Bank are aware of it, without wanting to stop it, then you should leave the board Anders Dam, along with the rest of the board of Jyske Bank.


If the customer is right Anders Dam, then admit, and give a public apology for the entire group management, and sorry for Jyske Bank’s fraud.


The fact that Dan Terkildsen told Lundgrens, that Philip Baruch would agree that Jyske Bank would not complain
:-(.
Did you think that was enough, when we talk about scams? Anders Dam.


We do not want the case agents the Jyske Bank management like you Anders Dam want it, but we also know, that it is an apparent criminal organization that we are up against.

In 2008/2009 a former employee and thief was milking the plaintiff’s company, then the plaintiff suffered a major brain haemorrhage, epilepsy, depression, and then exposed to exploitation and fraud by the Jyske Bank Group, which would take everything from the plaintiff who some time considered whether life was worth living.
!
Since 2009, the plaintiff has been struggling to get his life back, and to have Jyske Bank stop the bank’s continued fraud. “Fraud” which today is the fight against fraud the bank is all about.

BS-402/2015-VIB
It is about the fraud in Jyske Bank against the bank’s customers.
That Jyske Bank so chooses the sick and weak to expose fraud is just low. 🙁

The client himself has had to make, and submit his claims against Jyske Bank and the management of the court 28/10/2019, after suspecting that their lawyer, Lundgrens may have been bribed by Jyske Bank’s group, not to submit any of the client’s fraud allegations against Jyske Bank’s group.

When Anders Dam, together with the other Group Board of Directors, chooses to stick his head in the ground, rather than engage in dialogue with the customer, it can only be because Jyske Bank is dishonest in Jyske Bank’s words and actions.

Banks are called greedy scammers and therefore, even the Executive Board, at Anders Dam has chosen not to say.

So when the President of Jyske Bank A/S Anders Christian Dam is personally accused of being involved in gross fraud against a customer in Jyske Bank, it is the responsibility of the Board of Directors, as they jointly stand behind Jyske Bank’s continuing fraudulent business.

Anders Dam is accused of being behind Jyske Bank’s deliberate fraud against the bank’s customer will continue.


Customers also believe that Jyske Bank has paid Lundgren’s lawyers return commission.
And that it is Anders Dam personally who is responsible for Jyske Bank A/S bribing the client’s lawyers LUNDGRENS, for not submitting the client’s fraud charges against the Jyske Bank group.
Anyway this is what the customer sad that its looks like.


BS-402/2015-VIB
It is about the fraud in Jyske Bank against the bank’s customers.

The customer himself has to make the final reply on 28-10-2019 and submit their claims to the court.

Since Lundgren’s attorneys, who have been bought and paid for by Jyske Bank, work for Jyske Bank, and therefore certainly do not present the client’s fraud allegations against the Jyske Bank Group.


If Lundgrens has not received a return commission “bribing”, for failing to present their client’s claims against Jyske Bank.
Lundgrens then call us on 004522227713
And explain to us what word in our many letters, emails, sms that you may have misunderstood.

We can see that Lundgrens will only summon the witnesses Jyske Bank’s board itself wanted.
🙁
Is this something Lundgren’s lawyers have been paid for?
Just ask
?

In answer writing 28/10/2019, as the customer has give to the court, in addition to Nicolai Hansen and Casper Dam Olsen, from Jyske Bank in Hillerød, which Jyske Bank A / S has wanted to call.
Written, among other things, these witnesses from Jyske Bank on.
Anders Christian Dam, Philip Baruch, Morten Ulrik Gade, Birgit Bush Thuesen.
These witnesses must confirm the evidence presented as genuine, and in addition, witnesses must be heard in court.


We have not initially written Anette Kirkeby, the manager of Jyske Bank Helsingor.
Although Anette Kirkeby contributed to Jyske Bank Helsingor’s client being subjected to massive fraud, and this fraud was not stopped by Anette Kirkeby, who instead chooses to send the client for settlement, when the customer asks Anette Kirkeby to delete SWAP Appendix 1. This was denied by Anette Kirkeby, who insted chose that Jyske Bank can kill the customer.


After our closing reply, we also think about convening Lundgren’s attorneys with partner Dan Terkildsen.

For Dan Terkildsen to testify, under witness responsibility, whether plaintiff has continuously asked Lundgren’s attorneys to present fraud and false allegations against Jyske Bank.

And to get Lundgren’s lawyers to confirm whether or not this has happened.
Then you, as a court member, can even assess whether it may be due to Bribery.

When we want to hear Lundgren’s lawyers confirm whether Lundgren’s lawyers have been employed by Jyske Bank for a million jobs.

And about Lundgren’s lawyers, first contacted by Jyske Banks, after we assumed Lundgrens.
And of course we would like to know if it was Anders Christian Dam personally behind.

This case is purely about Jyske Bank’s credibility.

 



Altså det er faktum

AT DE ANSATTE I JYSKE BANK HAR VÆRET I OND TRO.

At Jyske Bank Lyver og manipulere med aftale bilag for at bedrage os.

Link til understående påstande er samlet her.

Nå Jyske Banks venner i Lund Elmer Sandager i processkrift D. 14-08-2020.

Skriver at Carstens sygdomsforløb er ligegyldig, og vil have vores fremlagte beviser mod Jyske Bank A/S for svindel afvist, og i øvirgt henviser til de 2 domme i andre sager. 

Så kan det ikke komme bag på Jyske bank hjælper, at disse 2 dommen ingen relevans har til vores sag.

Da der i disse sager ikke er lavet svig, ikke er lavet dokument falsk, ikke er lavet manipulering af aftale bilag, ikke er løjet over for retten, og at der der i disse sager findes et underliggende lån til en aftalt rente swap på samme beløb.

I disse 2 sager som Jyske Bank henviser til, er kunde heller ikke tvunget til at afvikle en del af det underliggende lån for rentesikring, OG DET UDEN det at lade rentesikring følge nedbringelsen.

 

🙂

 

Lidt af de forhold vi lige her tænker over.

 

Forhold 1.

 

Har Jyske bank A/S ved den fuldmægtige Jeanett Kofoed-Hansen, uden aftale, uden gyldig fuldmagt den 15-04-2009 underskrevet som vitterlighedsvidne, for at sagsøgers underskrift på et bilag 10-07-2008. er ægte uden at have set sagsøger underskrive. JA.

Lige for at understrege Jeanett Kofoed-Hansen vælger 15-04-2009 efter 279 dage, at underskrive som vitterlighedsvidne

Velvidende det det er sket uden gyldig fuldmagt, til et pantebrev der var bortfaldet 146 dage tidligre, for at sikre Jyske Bank A/S omkring 2.500.000 kr. i renter.

Dette skjuler Jyske Bank ved at påstå kunde har lånt 4.328.000 kr.

Og med påstande at kunde har omlagt lånet, der i øvrigt den 16-07-2008 er rentebyttet med Jyske Bank A/S    

 

🙂

 

Forhold 2.

 

Har Jyske bank A/S ved den fuldmægtige Jeanett Kofoed-Hansen, uden aftale, uden gyldig fuldmagt den 15-04-2009 ladet Jyske Banks A/S tinglyse et bortfaldet pantebrev på 4.328.000 kr. JA.

 

For lige at slå fast Jeanett Kofoed-Hansen tinglyser et pant 146 dage efter bortfald og udløb af tilbud og fuldmagt.

 

Så var de ansatte i Jyske Bank A/S alle i ond tro, eftersom de alle var bevidste om at tilbuddet til lånet på de 4.328.000 kr. fra 20-05-2008 var udløbet 20-11-2008. altså hele 146 dage tidligre, og at den begranset fuldmagt hertil var udløbet 20-11-2008.

Derfor var Jyske bank A/S i ond tro da Jeanett Kofoed-Hansen 146 dage efter udløb af fuldmagt, udløb tilbud, samt udløb af pantebrev, alligevel uden fuldmagt tinglyser et pant på 4.328.000 kr. 

  

🙂

 

Forhold 3.

 

Har Jyske bank A/S ved Nicolai Hansen i 2010 løjet for kunde omkring et underliggende lån på 4.328.000 kr. JA.

Se bilag 134. side 16.

 

🙂

 

Forhold 4.

 

Har Jyske bank ved Casper Dam Olsen i 2012 løjet for kunde omkring et underliggende lån på 4.328.000 kr. skulle være blevet omlagt. JA.

Se bilag 134. side 13.

 

🙂

 

Forhold 5.

 

Har Nykredit Mette Marie Nielsen sagt at Nykredit ikke ville levere skyts imod Jyske Bank JA.

Se Bilag 214. 05-09-2017. til Rødstenen og Bilag 217. 05-09-2017. til Mette Marie Nielsen Nykredit.

 

🙂

 

Forhold 6.

 

Har Nykredit Mette Marie Nielsen, efter Nykredit blev stævnet indrømmet at det ikke findes noget Lån på 4.328.000 kr. JA.

Se bilag 134. side 18.

 

🙂

 

Forhold 7.

FAKTUM

 

Har Jyske Bank misbrugt nogle fuldmagter. JA.

 

🙂

 

Forhold 8.

 

Har Jyske Bank lavet dokumentfalsk. JA.

 

🙂

 

Forhold 9.

 

Har Jyske bank lavet mandatsvig. JA.

 

🙂

 

Forhold 10.

 

Har Jyske Bank lavet bedrageri. JA.

 

🙂

 

Forhold 11.

 

Har jyske Bank lavet svig. JA.

 

🙂

 

Forhold 12.

 

Har Jyske bank forsøgt at skuffe i retsforhold ved at fremlægge falske beviser. JA.

 

🙂

 

Forhold 13.

 

Har Jyske Bank rettet i nogle bilag efter dokumentet af sagsøger er blevet underskrevet. JA.

 

🙂

 

Forhold 14.

 

Har Jyske bank ved Morten Ulrik Gade fremlagt usandheder over for Ankenævnet i 2013/2014. JA.

 

🙂

 

Forhold 15.

 

 

Har Jyske bank ved deres advokat og bestyrelses medlem Philip Baruch løjet i retsforhold. i 2015. JA.

Se bilag 134. side 7.

 

Dels findes der ikke noget underliggende lån, og omtalte swap der er fra 15-07-2008. er den på side 11.

🙂

 

Forhold 16.

 

Har Jyske bank ved deres advokat og bestyrelses medlem Philip Baruch løjet i retsforhold. i 2016. JA.

 

Philip Baruch svare på Se bilag 134. side 14. henviser til sagens Bilag 1. som er lavet 16-07-2008, og skriver på side 15. at side 11. bare er byttet ud med side 8. samtidig med at Philip Baruch dækker over at der findes et bilag som 30-12-2008 lukker swappen fra 15-07-2008. se side 17.

Så det kan ikke lade sig gøre at bytte noget ud den 16-07-2008, som først aftaleretligt lukkes 30-12-2008 Se side 17.

 

🙂

 

Forhold 17.

 

Har Jyske Banks Bestyrelse mindst siden maj 2016 kunne stoppe bankens bredrageri mod kunde. JA.

 

🙂

 

Forhold 18.

 

Har Jyske Bank fjernet bevismateriale, så som aftale af 15-07-2008. samt at denne lukkes 30-12-2008. JA.

Se bilag 134. side 11. og 17. samt års opgørelsen 2008. Side 10.

 

🙂

 

Forhold 19.

 

Har Jyske banks bestyrelse i forening mellem maj 2016 og august 2020 valgt at lade Jyske bank A/S fortsætte bankens bedrageri mod kunde. JA.

 

🙂

 

Forhold 20.

 

Har Jyske Banks koncern ledelse alle i forening mindste siden maj 2016. været bekendt med at Jyske bank har lavet dokumentfalsk og bedrageri mod bankens kunde, uden at ville stoppe dette. JA.

 

🙂

 

Forhold 21.

 

Var Det Lundgrens hensigt, at Partner Dan Terkildsen skulle møde op i retten Viborg  30-09-2019. uden at have fremlagt nogle af klientens påstande mod Jyske Bank. JA.

 

🙂

 

Forhold 22.

 

Var Det Lundgrens hensigt, at Partner Dan Terkildsen kun skulle fremlægge en sag om dårlig rådgivning, uden at fremlægge brug af svig og falsk. JA.

 

🙂

 

Har Lundgrens advokater fremlagt nogle af klientens påstande mod Jyske bank som her er beskrevet 27-08-2019.

 

🙂

 

Var Det Lundgrens hensigt, at Partner Dan Terkildsen at klienten skulle tabe sagen mod Jyske Bank, ved ikke at fremlægge klientens påstande, grundet at Jyske Bank marts / april 2018 indgik et million samarbejde med Lundgrens advokater.

JA det tror vi.

 

 

MEN DETTE HER ER EN SAG FOR BAGMANDSPOLITIET AT EFTERFORSKE

DET ER IKKE OFFERET SELV DET SKAL BEKÆMPE BANKENS ØKONOMISKE FORBRYDELSER.