Unsecured cheque from South Africa

 

WHETHER NOTED THAT ALL VIDEOS, AND/OR PHOTOS, UNLESS OTHERWISE
STATED, WHICH ARE LINKED FROM YOUTube
= GOOGLE = HEARTFELT AND GASTROINTESTINAL FOUNDATION AND THEIR THEREFORE, IN ITS ENTIRETY, ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PRIVACY REASON THERE ARE, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, NO NAMES MENTIONED, AND ONLY INITALEN PLACED.
Copying, dissemination and any other use of these materials is not permitted without the written consent of J. Ger van den Hurk, except and only to the extent otherwise provided in arrangements of mandatory law (such as right of quotation), unless otherwise specified in specific
materials.
at the express request of my wife and son, no photos and dates were posted in my autobiography.




































J. G. van den
Hurk, Kloklaan
204, 5231
BC 's-Hertogenbosch.
04-07-1999, 30-08-1999, 04-10-1999, 03-01-2000,

We received a bank statement, by post, from F. Van Lanschot Bankiers N.V. (hereinafter named from Lanschot) on 08-07-1999, on which they mentioned that they have a cheque, in our name, for US$650,000. =, received, we did not offer it ourselves and therefore did not graft it, (van Lanschot had grafted it without our express consent, neither written nor oral) our agent had informed us that this could happen, nevertheless it wasasurprise.

(#)Van Lanschot immediately converted the dollar amount into guilders and settled various costs with it, during the discussion in which we asked them why they had not contacted us first, (because then we had asked them not to do this because we had to make payments in dollars with the amount), it was said that you pay just from the golden account. (*) we had a loss at the exchange rate, Dfl. 9,965.74.
#) In our opinion, during the first mentioned "(*)under

ordinary reservation" was lifted when we had a discussion with The Lord B. who was very presumptuous, about the exchange rate, he did not mention the reservation(*), then van Lanschot opened a dollar account for us.
Subsequently, at our request, payments were made as agreed with our agent, Ashok L., in Tanzania, these were not made subject to
change?
(On not a copy of of Lanschot Bankers is ever mentioned under ordinary reservation !?)
(*)Never, if ever we have been told, see above, that the payments made by van Lanschot from the cheque/payment were subject to normal reservation, it does say for the amount on the first payment (*subject to normal reservation), but firstly we did not notice this immediately and secondly this abbreviation as such is not known to
us.
- Furthermore, from history, we have never, ever received a letter from Van Lanschot, in previous payments made to us from Letter of Credit, cheques, etc., that the "(*)subject to normal reservation"* had been lifted and we therefore did not know this statement (condition).

In the requests for payments on the other hand, to Banks overseas, van Lanschot never informed that one was going to pay from an unconfirmed cheque/payment!!, otherwise, of course, we would never have made these requests (4 overseas of about US$ 613,000. =!!), of course we went to the professionalism of Lanschot's

employees.
But since van Lanschot continued to make all payments(*) we were still convinced that everything was normal, why
not?
After about six weeks (!!) from Lanschot, through the Hr. De B., that the cheque was not paid by the paying bank!!!, to my comment how is it possible that you have made all the requests for payment I received in
response; We still have to find out here internally.
I myself once received a cheque from Nigeria, then I had this check checked before I would do anything, see accompanying copy of a newspaper clipping..

At the same time, without knowing us in it, they sent telexes to the overseas banks to give the deposited
funds!?!
Either noted that the time for any repayments is up to 1-2 weeks and so from Lanschot knew that the repayments were virtually impossible, only to announce after plus-minus 6 weeks that the cheque was not paid by the Canadian Imperial
Bank.
But van Lanschot had made all the payments, when asked by us, by my wife, about information about questions about our relations overseas, we have been in discussion with various employees of van Lanschot, of various backgrounds in the company, among
others; -} Foreign
payments, -} Domestic payments,

Fiat-age (2-3 x !!)
-} Hr. J., Mrs. A L. A.,
Hr. De B., Hr.B., Mrs. S.,

Mej. F. - etc. Nimmer was and was told that the payment/payments were made from a cheque/payment (*)subject to normal reservation.
(If we had given a payment request from Dfl. 50,000, to Van Lanschot six months earlier, they would have refused it, with the notice; how do you intend to cover it?)

So we were still convinced that everything "went well" and, without thinking that it might be any different (why ?), were glad that we now had the chance that it would run
now.
When we knew that another cheque would be offered, by the same client, we asked when we could expect the
payment;
we were informed by the Hr. de B.dat a check for US$ 500,000.
=, first had to be confirmed and a cheque, of this size, would never be paid subject to change, while the first cheque had a value of US$ 650,000. = .
So very big was our surprise that van Lanschot was going to debit our dollar account for US$650,021.91, and have several other payments rebooked!
So here they confirm again that the payment itself was correct ?!?!?
We are absolutely convinced that van Lanschot has put us on the wrong foot by the above mentioned, especially by never notifying the "(*)under ordinary reservation" and they knew and just continued to make all requests for payments further it was well known to them that we do not have sufficient equity at all equal to the amount/amounts
!! so we do not agree with this debit and will of course fight it.
We are convinced that the payments made by van Lanschot, at our request, are entirely on their responsibility, because they were and are well aware that there had to be confirmation first from the other bank (Canadian Imperial Bank) and that they therefore also knew about the
risks! IN OUR view, THE 'PROBLEM' AROSE FROM

MIS-COMMUNICATION AT VAN LANSCHOT FURTHERMORE, it said that according to the Terms and Conditions of Van Lanschot Bankiers Article 2 'Duty of Care of the Bank' of Lanschot Bankers has fallen short of this and we would like to bring the last paragraph to your attention in particular;

DUTY OF CARE
OF THE BANK "None of the following articles may prejudice this principle.


Furthermore, we are busy trying to solve "The Problem" and we do this by telephone and fax, despite the fact that we now receive income from the I.o.a.a. (minimum).
!
On 06-09-1999 we sent a message to van Lanschot by fax with the name and ID
mentioned. number of the person who thinks he received the money from our agent there.
But the cooperation of Van Lanschot with us is clearly not present
?!?




see Article 2 of the General Condition of F. van Lanschot Bankiers
NV: 2. Duty of care of the Bank The bank must take due care in the performance of the client's contracts and in the performance of other agreements with the client, taking into account the interests of the client to the best of his ability.
Moreover, the bank must take due care in the traffic with the client.
The bank shall be liable if shortcomings in the performance of the contracts and other contracts referred to above or a failure to fulfil any other obligation towards the client are due to the bank's
debt. None of the following articles can prejudice this principle.
During our first interview, on 30 August 1999, (at our own request) with the
gentlemen;




J. J. F.M. (Director) B. van der V. (Relationship Manager Special Cases) Hr. van D. (Security) In short, this amounted to this;

It was assumed that good faith was on our side, we personally never saw this cheque and therefore did not offer it ourselves (even now !?) plus we never grafted this cheque and neither did Lanschot give permission or permission for
it.
On the comment of the Hr.M.dat the cheque and cover letter had been signed by two different persons i.e.
Hans and David van der Watt, asked my wife "didn't you ring a bell?"
Furthermore, compared to the abbreviation, I asked them if they knew abbreviation stainless steel (RustFree Steel) or rpm (revs per minute), it was stated that these were box abbreviations, then I asked if they knew what S.E.C. (Salvo Errore Calculi-barred calculation errors) meant they did not know an answer to this either, I stated that this was an abbreviation that they should also know, then the Hr.M.dat they did not hide behind this abbreviation, and he stated that I had prepared well, to which I stated that it was something
anyway.
People would come back to
it.
Next appointment, again at your own request, on 04-October 1999;
With Mr. J. (Legal Advisor to Van Lanschot) and B. van der V..

In short it came down to the following;
The Lord J. stated that it was a fraudulent matter, I said , yes I know that too, NOW, in retrospect, if I had known this in advance we would not be sitting here right
now.
To the question of the Hr. J. why this was done through us, this question was also asked in our first interview on 30 August 1999) I replied that one had done more, (order of Minister of Water from Tanzania, this was also arranged directly by Ashok L., proof of this of course we have).
Furthermore, the H.R. J. asked the same question 3 times, on the third time I asked the H.R. J.dat I had already answered it twice, that I did not suffer from dementia, but I still wanted to answer

it.
He then asked if I believed that or if people would do this in Tanzania, then I asked him if he had ever been to Tanzania, in his negative answer I advised him to buy a ticket and go there, as it is quite difficult to have a discussion with someone who in this sense is not inhibited by any knowledge of the matter, to which he replies I am only for legal
support.
When I said that I had received a cheque and had it confiscated first, by van Lanschot, of course, (only a bank can check if a cheque is good or not)
Then he said yes that piece

in the newspaper, then told me that I had received a cheque but had it checked first if it was good for myself to take action) Furthermore, one was quite unhappy with the fact that we had received a reminder from Van Lanschot on 15 September 1999 regarding the B form, in which it was stated that they had received an amount from abroad ??
So their internal communication is not an immediate
example. (see the abovementioned, p. 5)
Mr. J. then suggested that mistakes had been made by Van Lanschot, but that they were not the only ones, when I asked him if we were going to be childish, once one had gone the wrong way (by van Lanschot) that everyone went the wrong way.
The H.R. J. suggested I know what you want, you just want a line under it, but I find this a little too short by the bend, to which I asked him: do you know another solution ?, to which he suggested I make my report and they see but there what they do with
it. !?
Telephone interview with Mr.B van der V. 3 January 2000 at 14:30. (after first trying on 31-12-1999)
I asked him when we could hear anything, after mr. Jansen's final comment in our last conversation, i.e. "I'll finish my report and I'll give it up, and they'll see what they do with
it. And also that we have made sure that our
agent has returned his fee US$ 11,400.= Mr. van der V. commented on whether we took care of it and not their own (F. van Lanschot Bankiers), to which I replied that I took care of that, because our agent did not have to take this off through legal pressure, Mr. van der V. only suggested this small amount ?


Then I said that the Hr. van der V. knew well that after six weeks it was no longer doable in a normal way, but that I wanted to get rid of it, because the amount only went up because of the interest and it became quite large.
Mr. van der V. stated that he no longer had it directly in his hands but colleagues and the police, I stated that, of course, I had also sought information from others in the meantime, and I therefore had more information, including.dat I have never seen that cheque and therefore did not graft it, and the bank has never given permission or authorisation either verbally or in writing on our behalf to endossing?!

Furthermore, I said that during the period until about 04 October 1999, I was very nervous, I also asked The Hr. J.dat I did not 'let me be hoeed by errors of van Lanschot' furthermore, I referred to the damage caused by Van Lanschot to us and the possible claim made by us to Van Lanschot.

In the meantime, having obtained the information mentioned (a, we have never seen this check and therefore not offered it ourselves, therefore not ensdosed and also not given permission/permission from Lanschot to do this for us !!) we (my wife and I) have calmed down and see it only as a death amount, As Mr. van der Veen himself said when I said that because of the interest on interest system, the amount I would take with me in my grave would be very high, so the interest could be stopped, this was just an administrative intervention

?!?
Furthermore, the Lord van der V.dat we should wait for further steps from van Lanschot
?! After about two years there was a call in the morning in the Kloklaan and there were 7 people

at the door asking if they could come in, i.e.: A female judge commissioner (!?!)


Prosecutor (Mr. Van N. – I'll come
back to
this later)
2 male detectives 1 female detective And a non-instantly explainable female person (maybe a psychologist who had to arrow our reaction ?!)
After letting them in, my wife was asked to get out of bed immediately, which she met, my wife wanted to get dressed in toilet but this happened with the presence of the female detective, namely with a foot in the door and door style so that she could not hide or flush
anything.
Then my wife Don, our Rottweiler, wanted to walk out, this was forbidden in the beginning, but when my wife "fell out" to the detectives that the dog could not do anything about it but he still had to do his need she got permission, with of course the female detective as "supervisor" down with it, when my wife came back she had brought the newspaper, which I sat down to read very quietly, because I was not at all panicked, because I (we) had not done anything wrong.
Furthermore, the whole house was "combed out" when
two female uniformed officers came in and took my wife to the police station, and later I was taken to the station, on the balustrade the female officer asked if I would volunteer or she had to handcuff me (!!!?) in the police car I said to the officers, when they asked what I was doing now for work, that I was selling equipment whose name would not happen to them, when they asked what is that name then I see: escape capuchons (EVAC+).

At the police station, my wife and "arraigned" were referred to an assistant district attorney and then placed separately in a
cell. Since my wife in boarding school used to suffer a "lock-up" trauma she got "Spanish stuffy" and asked a cop if the door should not be open ajar, which of course was just allowed, but they would leave the control hatch open, but if another person came by he had to close because of privacy.
When my wife was questioned, she said that she didn't know anything about the whole thing, but that she had made payments because she had always done so and that they needed to be with me for more
information. my wife was then left alone. Then they (two detectives) started with me, after first claiming that I was a lousy businessman who had finally achieved nothing and I had to agree with them unfortunately and that they
came to the conclusion that they could get me mad, they threw it over a different tack and they kindly started asking all kinds of questions about how and why, then they showed me "the check" at one point, when I told them that it was the first time I saw that check and asked them who had grafted it, without asking my permission (handing over a change by signature to another one), they said that van Lanschot himself had claimed that they had done wrong

, when I asked what am I doing here, they said that there was no investigation of van Lanschot to me (a civil case) but of the Public Prosecutor's Office O.M. into my actions, a criminal case.
So they kept asking questions and answering them, at one point they asked a question they had asked three times before I said to them I'm not senile but I bag it for you to answer again with the same answer, I have nothing to hide so I will always give the same answers
back.
About that check I said when that cheque had been sent to myself then this had not happened, because I myself experienced a few times that I was sent a cheque and I always had it checked by van Lanschot before I took further steps, and that happened with this, I still stood with it in the Brabants Dagblad as a warning to other
companies. They later recorded this story in a separate report.
A day later the sequel, but we were so outspoken because it was all repetition of moves, when we were allowed home at about 16:00, my wife was still incredibly nervous considering her locking up
fear.
Since they had taken our PCs, I had to come back a week later to see a follow-up to the interrogation, this interrogation ran from 10:00 to 16:00, but in the end I went to ask them questions, along the lines of "what kind of training" did you have for, accounting and all that, in flat a certain Bertus had asked when they saw that they were taking the PCs : there will be child pornography standing up ?!?!, this was later corrected by him in the
flat. After another two years, I got a letter from the district attorney who wanted to make a transaction proposal, then I went to the lawyer assigned to us, a Mr. G. van der G., who stated that he couldn't tie a rope to it,

it was too complicated for him, and we went to that prosecutor, that sujet looked at me with an inferior look that bothered me enormously, and I was immediately on extra sharp, he stated: scams, forgery and healing is not proven but we do think of "guilt heap" is when you can know that the project is not "correct", since he could go with up to 120 hours of community service he wanted to impose this

, that lawyer argued, and that was all he said, I think mr van den Hurk is firm in that, so I told that prosecutor that I categorically refuse to accept that transaction proposal, That I do not accept any transaction proposal, because that would mean that I would then plead guilty and therefore I do not accept anything, he then I challenge you in court and then you get a criminal record, I said that the judge then matters, you can demand it, which is your right as my right is that I categorically refuse all proposals, and as far as the criminal record is concerned, do you think I still apply with my 62 years in a state employment?
Furthermore, he suggested you have still Dfl. 40,000 enjoyed here and if lanschot does not recover it then I claim it back, I asked him Dlf. 40,000, I'm not getting any further than Dfl. 36,000 and if your people can find this this is not my problem but your problem, all payments have gone all the way, then he said now I will take you to court and my demand will be higher, given your age no jail time but a higher community service and recovery of the money enjoyed.

And if I am convicted, I will appeal, and if necessary again after that, if necessary, I will go to the criminal court in Strasbourg, because I will not be condemned as
innocent. Furthermore the foundation "False accused" likes to take this story up to support me, then I got up and went to him, I gave him a hand and said goodbye I guess. When we got out of his office, I said to that lawyer what did he really want, he said, so he'd get off nicely, but what a memory you have to say.
About two weeks later I was summoned to the Judge-Commissioner, who said you refused the transaction then we will stop the preliminary investigation and wiretaps, I did not reply back, then she looked at me in amazement and then I gave her a hand and said, good morning, this is what I got in my
upbringing. Then I received a letter asking me to sign it, then I read it carefully, and when I did not know a particular word at one point I asked her what this word meant, when she explained it to me and I agreed, I signed the letter and went home.
On July 21, 2003, I received a request to report to the district court, this was already a sign that they had little, so no, evidence otherwise it would have been in a multiple room, when I was there a girl asked me, you are Mr van den Hurk?
I said yes why, she said I'm Anita de H.of the Brabants Dagblad, I asked her what do you do here, she said I've been invited by your lawyer and she showed me letter from him with his invitation, I said I'd rather not have, but she said that's free news gathering.

Furthermore, there was no one from my side to support me, my wife and also my son were not.
At one point we were summoned to enter and had to take a seat on the "complained bench" then there was a shout: go stand the judge, a beautiful woman came in and said asked to me are you Johannes Geertruida van den Hurk?
I confirmed it and she said sit down, Mr van den Hurk I have read the file and I find it rather complex, I would like to ask you a few questions about this, I said ok, then there was a long discussion about what was happening in the African countries that the judge had some questions about, because said did not immediately know how it works/worked another, as a final question she asked: have you only recently had contact with Mr. L..., I was shocked for a moment, because I "can" only "Ashok" I said, yes a few days ago I had him 3 times on the line for the statement that I knew nothing about this whole thing (that it is an unsecured cheque) "Only a bank can check a check) then she said, "We know that because we've tapped,

Then she said to the prosecutor, another, you can start with your requisition, he said, First of all, I would like to apologize to Mr.
van den Hurk, the way we did it has not been correct, we have taken too long (4 years), but we consider guilt healing proven and therefore we demand 60 hours of community service and recovery of the amount of Dfl. 40,000.00 obtained from it, now you may begin the defense she said to the lawyer, who began to wauw mainly about the Dfl. 40,000,00, when he was pronounced

the judge asked if I still wanted to use the right of the last word, I said yes please, in flat where I live said a man, when they took our computers, there will be child pornography, i found out because this person's wife asked me, Ger, what actually happened, when I explained it to her she said to her husband , you hear this, you always with your big b...., then the judge said to me, I can say that word, when I told him that I was not undividedly happy with that and asked him to correct this, said yes I will, I only said it to one person, then I said that my fold has claustrophobia and of that locking in the cell at the police station still has nightmares , then the judge said I believe this has cut deep into your personal life, but I'm going to back off right now,

shecame back and said: in view of the behaviour of Lanschot Bankers, I am quite free to speak to you of the charges brought against you, again in view of the conduct of Lanschot Bankier, I would like to point out that the O.M. has 14 days to appeal against this judgment.

I
said to her, "May I thank you for your wise decision, and I'm not going to let you, but otherwise I would have come and shake your hand, she spontaneously burst into her laughter and said, that's not the custom here, then I said to her, still pretty confuust, then we'll have a cup of coffee if we meet at the market or something, then said, that's fine why not, but
you can go."


I looked at the district attorney, but I saw his face of "we're not going to come back to this" but I also thought, now they can come back to it instead of me, but those 14 days have taken a long time.
When we got out of the courtroom, the lawyer said, either you're a good liar or. I don't remember the latter, I didn't even listen anymore.

 

 

 

 

back to Dutch