It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Suspicious-deaths-of-bankers-are-now-classified-as-“trade-secrets”-by-federal-regulator

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Don't know which category to put this in, mods feel free to move it.

Thought is was worth posting. Now there is a tie-in at the federal level to this mysterious series of deaths. Why and how could the circumstances surrounding a banker's death be constituted as a "trade secret?" Have fun with this new development.

ht tp://wallstreetonparade.com/2014/04/suspicious-deaths-of-bankers-are-now-classified-as-%E2%80%9Ctrade-secrets%E2%80%9D-by-federal-regulator/



It doesn’t get any more Orwellian than this: Wall Street mega banks crash the U.S. financial system in 2008. Hundreds of thousands of financial industry workers lose their jobs. Then, beginning late last year, a rash of suspicious deaths start to occur among current and former bank employees. Next we learn that four of the Wall Street mega banks likely hold over $680 billion face amount of life insurance on their workers, payable to the banks, not the families. We ask their Federal regulator for the details of this life insurance under a Freedom of Information Act request and we’re told the information constitutes “trade secrets.”




edit on 30-4-2014 by th3dudeabides because: grammar




posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   
It is not the deaths that are a trade secret, it is the amount of insurance the banks carry on some of their employees that are critical to their business.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: MinangATS

Doesn't that beg the question. Are banks offing their employees for the life insurance? Cui Bono?



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: th3dudeabides

Don't suicides negate death policy rewards?



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   
double post- sorry stupid mouse is dying.
edit on 110000001811amb14America/Chicago by Hushabye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Hushabye

Good question, I'm sure finding out whether the bankers deaths in question have the suicide clause is probably a trade secret as well.
edit on 30-4-2014 by th3dudeabides because: grammar



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I've heard about banks having insurance policies on their employees payable to the companies and that seems to me to be a HUGE conflict of interest. Why is this acceptable?



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
It really said the insurance information is private.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Investors make money for the bank. They are protecting a source of income just like the family who insure a the bread winner. a reply to: Krazysh0t



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   
The bankers knew to much, they couldn't be trusted to keep their mouth shut.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   
[censored]... 2000x lifetimes amount of ammonium-nitrate.

Buy in bulk, invest in growth.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Lots of companies do this (WAL-MART for example.)



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
The phrase trade secret is not the focus of their response only a part of it. It said privileged, or financial or confidential or trade secrets or private which I would have to agree. Who's business is it regarding insurance policies? You guys are being led again by a website that is focusing on a single term in the response just to get you all to visit their page which gets them advertising dollars. You are actually feeding this corporate machine. tsce reply to: th3dudeabides




posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Investors make money for the bank. They are protecting a source of income just like the family who insure a the bread winner. a reply to: Krazysh0t



I dunno... Still seems shady to me. If an investor dies, they can (and will) just hire another without much lost profits. At least with a family, the family is emotionally invested in the person being insured. But a bank just views its employees as warm bodies they are paying to fulfill a task. As long as the people have the right skills for the job, they are interchangeable. There should be no need to insure an employee's life.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   


Next we learn that four of the Wall Street mega banks likely hold over $680 billion face amount of life insurance on their workers, payable to the banks, not the families.


i wonder if they got this idea from walmart or did walmart get the idea from them.

many other companies did the same, just google it. i've known about walmart since early 2000's doing it there were also reports of a couple of other companies doing it and Michal Moore did a piece about it in one of his films. the practice is or was called Dead Peasants" life insurance. now the federal government requires the companies get written consent from the employee. also i've heard that banks were required prior to the laws being passed that they had to reveal there existence. been a long time since i've read up on it so i can't say this is gospel.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: th3dudeabides

I always thought when some "commits suicide" it negates the life insurance policy. If this was what was going on Id be more apt to believe it if these bankers were to die by accidents or "natural causes."

However, banks aren't the only company's to take out life insurance policies in their employees, Walmart does too. This article is a couple years old:

Then, last year, the Lake Worth woman got a letter, alerting her that Walmart benefited richly from her husband’s death.
Like hundreds of thousands of its other employees, the Arkansas-based discount giant had secretly taken out a life insurance policy on her husband when he worked as a department head in the garden center of its store on Forest Hill Boulevard, her attorneys said. Ronald Gaub’s death, they said, put between $75,000 and $150,000 in its pockets.
source

I don't buy that this is what's going on, bankers aren't getting suicides or "commuting suicide" for life insurance.

Also, I think it's crazy that someone can take a life insurance policy out on someone with out their knowledge or consent. Shouldn't that person have a say in who benefits from their death??



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

just a quick little article.




And it's pervasive, said Mike Myers, an attorney who has uncovered many of these cases and helped angry relatives sue. "Life insurance is traditionally used to guard against the death of breadwinners. This is an investment scheme," he said. Dozens of blue chip companies have these policies, according to Myers. But only banks are forced to reveal them, and several have billions of dollars worth of policies. "The driving force behind it is the tax deductions," he said.
Are 'Dead Peasant' Life Insurance Policies Fair?



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hushabye
a reply to: th3dudeabides

Don't suicides negate death policy rewards?
most do not but have restrictions like the policy has to be at least two years old to pay a suicide.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hushabye
a reply to: th3dudeabides

Don't suicides negate death policy rewards?


Not necessarily, check and see how long he was employed by the bank, if it was 2 years or more chances are death by suicide are still payable. Actually, might be a good idea to see if all of the bankers were employed for more than 2 years and how close they were to that 2 year marker.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 4/30.2014 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9

log in

join