Revolut confirms sensitive customer data breach

Recently, Revolut has come to the attention as being a 'dodgy' so called banking company with regards to its deliberately lax security where this has been explained in the the article:

Warning! Revolut wins Australian banking licence. Don't use it as it's not safe nor secure!

On the 13th of September 2026, Reuters has reported that Revolut has experienced a data breach.

This comes as no surprise, as a result of Revolut's appalling attitude towards customer security, where at the end of the business day, it's not the owners that will suffer but rather the customers.

Revolut's data breach is as a result of their negligence towards their customers data security, where the business should be shut down, but in reality this will not occur, as it's all about 'the economy'.

If ANY Australians are involved in this corporation, it could be for their benefit to withdraw any and all monies from this clown show.

See Reuters article:

Revolut confirms sensitive customer data breach after fake government requests

Sept 12 (Reuters) - British fintech Revolut confirmed on ​Saturday that sensitive customer information was disclosed ‌to an unauthorized third party after it received fraudulent requests from a legitimate government agency email domain.

Here ​are a few details:

• Revolut said in ​a statement that the breach affected a "very ⁠limited" number of customers, who had been ​notified by the company. It did not give ​further details.
• "Revolut systems and customer funds are unaffected," a spokesperson for the company said, without disclosing the ​exact number of individuals affected by the ​breach.
• "Upon detection, we immediately blocked the address and alerted the ‌relevant ⁠government agency as well as enforcement agencies, data protection, and financial regulators," the spokesperson said.
• The compromised data included customers' birth date, postal ​and email ​addresses, and ⁠phone numbers, as well as copies of their identity documents including ​passports and driver’s licenses, according to ​a ⁠TechCrunch report.
• Revolut is planning for a potential public listing and aiming for a valuation of up to $200 ⁠billion.
• It ​is one of the most ​successful European fintech companies, with no physical bank branches.

Security Alert: Bendigo Bank useless against cybercriminals/scammers!

Quite simply put the message is very clear: 

- IF you want to keep your money that’s their bank, take it OUT of Bendigo Bank!

This article is not going to have pages of attached PDFs explaining situations or how cybercriminals or scammers work.

While other banks work around the clock to protect ‘their’ cash that you gave them to be part of billion dollar profits for them, Bendigo Bank doesn’t have any (automated) systems that detect fraudulent activity, until their business day starts, that being at 9am.

So, how can you trust them with your hard earned cash, e.g. superannuation, pension etc.

The answer is - You can’t!

To make matters worse it was not even the Bendigo Bank that detected fraud, but rather the ANZ, which occurred at 3am, so they did NOTHING until it was too late!

Maybe they even outsourced their I.T. infrastructure to the scammer capital of the world, that being India?

From what is understood there are many victims of fraud from the Bendigo Bank, where realistically a class action lawsuit should occur against the bank, where Australia’s corrupt judicial system should not only make orders for compensation, but also the legal fees being fully remunerated .

Let’s see how this gross negligence by the Bendigo Bank fans out.

Bendigo Bank FAILED their customers, and the only way they can’t fail you is if you withdraw all YOUR cash from their premises.

Warning! Revolut wins Australian banking licence. Don't use it as it's not safe nor secure!

Just because a corporation is allowed to trade in Australia does not mean that it's good for the people.

It may be good for 'business' but not necessarily for the 'consumer' or corporate fodder.

Revolut is apparently Europe's largest private financial technology company started by Nik Storonsky and Vladimir Yatsenko.

Nik Storonsky is the chief executive of Revolut

From industry sources, it runs on Android 9 with no security patches since 2018, where this no way any sane person should do banking with their app.

Prior to conducting any banking on a mobile platform the system must be up to date with security patches in order to mitigate any threats or exploits.

For a few years, GrapheneOS has been the most secure Android mobile phone operating system, period.

So much so that the Israeli based Cellebrite phone hacking tool cannot penetrate an up to date GrapheneOS based phone in the BFU (Before First Unlock) state.

Revolut previously did run on GrapheneOS but has recently stopped its app from being run, citing security reasons, yet they allow it to run on a mobile phone operating system, where security updates stopped in 2018, or 8 years ago.

It's quite clear that this corporation does not have the best security practices in play, where they should not be trusted with you data or cash, irrespective of their previous financial performance.

Revolut is based in Lithuania, so when/if things go awry, then good luck getting your money out from within their app.

Buyer beware!

Edit:

See complaint from a user:

Good morning,

I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding Revolut's apparent ongoing rollout of changes to its Android application which prevent, or will prevent, the app from operating on devices running GrapheneOS.

My understanding is that this change is currently being rolled out to only a proportion of users. It has not affected my account yet, but reports from other users indicate that Revolut is testing or progressively deploying this restriction. I am therefore raising this complaint now, before I am potentially locked out of access to my bank account.

I object to this decision in the strongest possible terms for several reasons.

1. GrapheneOS is not an insecure or compromised operating system

The restriction does not appear simply to be identifying genuinely insecure devices. GrapheneOS has specifically reported Revolut detecting and rejecting GrapheneOS devices.

This distinction matters.

GrapheneOS is a security- and privacy-focused Android operating system designed specifically for supported Google Pixel devices. It retains verified boot and supports a locked bootloader, while adding substantial security hardening beyond standard Android.

Blocking such a device merely because it does not run Google's stock operating system is not a meaningful assessment of whether that device is secure.

To use a simple analogy, it is rather like an insurance company refusing to insure a house because the customer's front-door lock is too secure.

If Revolut genuinely requires device integrity verification, GrapheneOS provides mechanisms by which applications can perform hardware-backed attestation and verify legitimate GrapheneOS installations. A blanket refusal to support the operating system is therefore neither the only nor, in my view, the most sensible security option available.

2. The policy produces an absurd security contradiction

Revolut currently supports Android versions going back many years.

This means that the Revolut application may operate on an old Android phone which is no longer receiving current operating-system security patches, while refusing to operate on a modern Google Pixel running an actively maintained, security-hardened version of Android.

It is very difficult to reconcile those two positions with an assertion that this restriction is necessary for customer security.

A modern Pixel running an up-to-date GrapheneOS installation with verified boot and a locked bootloader is clearly not inherently less secure simply because the operating system is not Google's stock Pixel firmware.

Security decisions should be based upon the actual security properties and integrity of a device, rather than an arbitrary list of approved operating-system vendors.

3. Revolut has apparently provided no viable alternative means of accessing my money

I have already contacted Revolut customer support regarding this issue.

I was advised that, should my device become unsupported, I could either use Revolut's web application or use another mobile phone.

Neither suggestion provides a reasonable solution.

Firstly, the web application itself requires authentication using the Revolut mobile application. If Revolut deliberately prevents that application from running on my device, telling me to use a website which requires approval from the application I can no longer use is circular and plainly does not solve the problem.

Secondly, I was effectively advised that I could obtain or borrow another person's phone, install Revolut on it, and log into my bank account there.

I find it extraordinary that this can seriously be proposed as the more secure alternative.

Revolut would apparently prefer me to enter my banking credentials and establish access to my account on a friend's device — a device over which I have no long-term control and whose security I cannot independently establish — rather than allow me to use my own modern Pixel with a locked bootloader and a security-focused operating system.

That appears directly contrary to the stated security objective of this change.

4. This risks depriving an existing customer of practical access to their bank account

This is not merely a question of whether Revolut chooses to support an optional feature on a particular platform.

I am an existing customer. I receive my salary into Revolut, use it as a significant part of my everyday banking arrangements, and pay for a Metal subscription.

Revolut has encouraged customers to treat its service as their bank. It is therefore entirely reasonable for customers to expect that Revolut will not deliberately remove their primary means of accessing their accounts without providing a genuinely functional alternative.

If Revolut introduces a technical restriction which it knows will prevent an existing customer from using the application, while its alternative web interface itself depends upon that application for authentication, that raises a much more serious question of effective access to the customer's financial services.

I should not be forced to purchase and carry a second mobile telephone solely because Revolut has chosen to reject a secure operating system which my existing hardware is perfectly capable of running.

Resolution requested

I would therefore like Revolut to:

confirm whether it intends to block, directly or indirectly, correctly installed GrapheneOS devices from accessing the Revolut application;

reconsider this policy and implement an appropriate method of supporting GrapheneOS, including hardware-backed device attestation where Revolut considers integrity verification necessary;

confirm that existing customers will not be deprived of access to their accounts solely because they use GrapheneOS on an otherwise supported device with a locked bootloader; and

if Revolut nevertheless intends to impose this restriction, provide a fully functional method of accessing and administering a Revolut account which does not itself require authorisation from the mobile application that Revolut has chosen to block.

I would also appreciate an explanation of the security rationale for permitting the application to operate on older Android devices which may no longer receive security updates while rejecting a current, supported Pixel running a hardened Android operating system.

Please treat this correspondence as a formal complaint, rather than general product feedback, and provide me with Revolut's formal written response.

If Revolut proceeds with this restriction without providing a reasonable means for affected customers to continue accessing their accounts, or if I do not receive a satisfactory response to this complaint, I intend to refer the matter to the Bank of Lithuania, as the competent out-of-court dispute resolution authority identified in Revolut Bank UAB's terms for Maltese customers. I will also consider seeking assistance through the Maltese Office of the Arbiter for Financial Services and the FIN-NET cross-border consumer complaints framework where appropriate.

I sincerely hope escalation will not be necessary. I have been a loyal Revolut customer for years and have been sufficiently satisfied with the service to entrust Revolut with my salary payments and pay for a Metal subscription. That makes it particularly disappointing to face the prospect of being arbitrarily excluded from my own banking application despite using a modern and demonstrably security-focused device.

I would much prefer Revolut to address the underlying technical issue properly rather than force otherwise satisfied customers to choose between replacing their operating system, purchasing an unnecessary second phone, or moving their banking elsewhere.

I look forward to your formal response.

Kind regards,

See response from Revolut:

     Source:supplied

If Every Nation Is in Debt, Who Are They Paying? How Governments install Austerity

The people in governments and corporations truly do not care about the 'people'/serfs/commoners/general population.

The people in government are generally self serving, where all they truly care about is how much they can siphon from the positions they're in.

This 12 minute video is a great summary of how governments install austerity via a fraudulent monetary system.

See "If Every Nation Is in Debt… Who Are They Paying?" by Hidden Capital

"We the people" are the April Fools.

Privacy and Security Warning: myki system bank card upgrade

Australia’s governments are all about creating more customers.

Creating more 'consumers' and importing more useless eaters, where that subject is beyond the scope of this article.

What could go 'wrong', right?

Well, banks and financial institutions do factually commit offences and breach various Australian law, but they’re allowed to get away with it as seen within the Royal Commission, which at the end of the day was a ‘money for mates’ farce at the expense of the Australian Taxpayers.

Another action banks do, is aggregate your information, package it up, and sell it many times over.

If you ‘tap on’ and ‘tap off’ with your bank issued credit or debit card, then the bank will know your movements, package up this data and again, sell it many times over.

If you truly value your privacy, and therefore security you will not use your card or even phone with its virtual card for myki related travel.

In any event, that will just be another database which hackers will be able to eventually access and use it for whatever purpose they see fit.

The question is not ‘if’ but rather ‘when’ will your data get hacked?

How to determine Australian currency is real

Middle Eastern criminal syndicates from Melbourne and Sydney have been involved in the production of counterfeit currency for quite some time, and it seems that there is no stopping them.

Unfortunately the authorities are not doing enough, where the good people are ultimately victims of this highly organised criminal venture.

The new generation of Australian notes shown in the illustration below show that under UV (Ultra Violet) light features birds and flora which currently cannot be replicated in counterfeit currency.

Also, the other side of the notes shows their year of production under UV light as shown in the photo below.

See also a 'counterfeit detection guide' document from the Reserve Bank of Australia which contains information on the first generation of polymer notes:

Royal Commission into ‘antisemitism’ another deliberately misguided farce?

Historically, royal commissions in this colony are a compromised ‘money for mates’ rort of taxpayer funds.

The corruption of the colony's Anglo-Masonic legal system goes above the comprehension of the ‘average Joe’, exactly the way the system wants it to be.

Edward I

The previous royal commission into the banking and financial services institutions was a deliberately useless farce, where approx 10,000 signatories to it never obtained a remedy.

The Wood Royal Commission on paedophilia, totally useless to the victims of paedophiles in positions of power.

Will the (alleged) ‘royal commission into antisemitism’ ask the fundamental question of why is there a perception/sentiment of antisemitism or is it really anti-Zionism?

Protests in Melbourne

The so called commission will not entertain why is Australia importing Islamic fundamentalists that later carry out heinous actions or incite hate or violence, because it's acceptable if it's against Buddhist, Hindus or Christians?

See article from 2014: 

Adelaide-based Sheikh Sharif Hussein free to preach race hate

The so called commission will not entertain the fact that the Sajid Akram was a 'Person of Interest' and should have not been given the right to reside in Australia, where others have been denied entry of exercising their ‘free speech’ right in this colony.

The so called commission will not entertain the fact that Sajid Akram should have not been given a gun licence by the 'authorities'.

Will the commission obtain evidence that in the 1200’s the Jews were plunging the English population into poverty through a practice called usury, that being making loans that are seen as unfairly enriching the lender?

Will the commission obtain evidence that condemning taking advantage of others' misfortunes, was brought in under a law in 1275 called ‘Statute of the Jewry’ by Edward I of England?

Usury is still practised today and will be well into the future.

Will the so called royal commission look into the history why the Jews were kicked out of Egypt or Spain?

Will the so called royal commission look into the actions of modern day Israel against other nations and the correlation against Zionism?

See video: of the title: Rabbi EXPOSES Israel in Bondi Beach Attacks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xEiKpYX5_E

Keeping in mind that the matter of antisemitism vs anti-Zionism has already been before the Federal Court of Australia in 2025, under Wertheim v Haddad. Where the following was stated:

Will the so called commission do a deep dive into Zionism?

So, the royal commission will be into 'antisemitism' and not into the 'Bondi Beach Massacre', where the people will be blamed for (alleged) antisemitism, but an inquiry into the Bondi Beach massacre will pin the blame on the authorities at a fair few levels.

See also: 

Bondi massacre, the government to blame

Understanding risks of One-Time Passcode (OTP) authentication

Governments and corporations worldwide are now 'forcing' people under a false narrative, to have a newly created digital identification.

The databases where YOUR personal identification (or rather private and confidential) documents are stored, will now be the target of cybercrime, more than ever before in the history of the internet.

Authorities and corporations, will lie to you that 'your' data is safe.

Authentication will now be more imprtant than ever before, but are you being informed of all the risks involved?

Your research can start with this article of the following content:

Since the early 2000s, One-Time Passcodes (OTPs) have been a popular way to verify online transactions. Banks, fintechs, and financial services used OTPs to add extra security beyond traditional passwords. By generating a unique code for each transaction or login, OTPs introduced a second layer of protection - usually through two-factor authentication (2FA).

OTPs were also convenient. Users could quickly verify their identity without complicated steps. However, as cyber threats have become more advanced, OTPs - especially SMS-based OTPs - are no longer as secure as they once seemed.

In fact, SIM-swapping attacks have doubled in just a few years. Complaints to the FCC increased from 275 cases in 2020 to 550 cases in 2023. This rising threat highlights the growing risks of relying on OTPs in sensitive industries like finance and banking.

In this article, we’ll break down the risks of OTPs and explain why more businesses are moving to stronger alternatives like biometric authentication. Let’s start with the basics.

What Is OTP Authentication?

OTP stands for One-Time Passcode. It’s a security method that verifies a user’s identity by sending a temporary code. The user enters this code to complete a login or transaction.

Usually, OTPs are paired with a password for two-factor authentication. Once used, the code expires, making it harder for hackers to reuse it.

How Are OTPs Delivered?

SMS-based OTPs: Sent to the user’s mobile number. Easy to use but vulnerable to SIM swap attacks and mobile network vulnerabilities.

Email-based OTPs: Delivered to a user’s email inbox. Convenient, but risky if the email account is compromised.

App-based OTPs: Generated by apps like Google Authenticator. More secure, but requires users to set up an app in advance.

Why OTPs Are Becoming Risky

Despite their convenience, OTPs are now a major target for cybercriminals. Common attack methods include:

SIM Swap Attacks: Fraudsters trick mobile carriers into transferring a victim’s number to a new SIM card, intercepting OTPs.

SS7 Protocol Flaws: Outdated telecom systems can be exploited to intercept SMS messages, including OTPs.

Phishing and Social Engineering: Users are tricked into entering OTPs on fake websites or sharing them with attackers.

The Problems with SMS-Based OTPs

Weakened Security: SMS OTPs are now easily intercepted or bypassed by modern hackers.

Delivery Issues: Messages can be delayed or lost due to poor signal, roaming, or carrier errors.

High Costs: Sending millions of OTPs per month generates large operational expenses for banks and fintechs.

Better Alternatives to OTP Authentication

To stay ahead of attackers, businesses are moving toward stronger, more reliable authentication methods:

1. Biometric Authentication with Liveness Detection

Biometric authentication uses fingerprints, facial recognition, or iris scans. Advanced systems integrate liveness detection, ensuring that a real, live person is present - not just a photo or video. This makes it extremely difficult for fraudsters to spoof the system.

2. Passwordless Authentication

Passwordless systems remove the need for both passwords and OTPs. Instead, users authenticate with biometrics, security keys, or device-bound links. Benefits include:

Stronger protection against phishing and SIM swapping.

A smoother user experience with fewer login barriers.

Lower operational costs by eliminating SMS fees and password resets.

Why Moving Beyond OTPs Matters for Finance and Banking

Financial institutions face increasing pressure to secure customer accounts and protect sensitive data. Today’s leaders are adopting:

Biometric Authentication: Enhanced with liveness detection to stop spoofing.

Passwordless Solutions: Faster, safer, and more convenient for users.

Adaptive MFA: Dynamic authentication based on user behavior and device security.

Privacy is also critical. That’s why new solutions like Keyless’ Zero-Knowledge Biometrics (ZKB) ensure that no biometric data is ever stored or shared, helping banks stay compliant with regulations like GDPR.

Conclusion: OTPs Are No Longer Enough

While OTPs once served as a valuable security tool, today’s digital landscape demands stronger protection. The risks of SIM swapping, protocol flaws, and phishing make OTPs an increasingly unreliable method.

Forward-looking organizations are upgrading to privacy-first, biometric-based authentication solutions. By doing so, they’re not just protecting transactions - they’re building trust and delivering safer digital experiences.

Source:keyless.io

All Wars Are Bankers' Wars

Documentary Film by Michael Rivero, 2016.

The United States fought the American Revolution primarily over King George III's Currency act, which forced the colonists to conduct their business only using printed bank notes borrowed from the Bank of England at interest.

After the revolution, the new United States adopted a radically different economic system in which the government issued its own value-based money, so that private banks like the Bank of England were not siphoning off the wealth of the people through interest-bearing bank notes.

But bankers are nothing if not dedicated to their schemes to acquire your wealth, and know full well how easy it is to corrupt a nation's leaders.

Just one year after Mayer Amschel Rothschild had uttered his infamous "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws", the bankers succeeded in setting up a new Private Central Bank called the First Bank of the United States, largely through the efforts of the Rothschild's chief US supporter, Alexander Hamilton.

Also available on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v4pe3wl-all-wars-are-bankers-wars.html

How banks have deliberately compromised your account security

In certain circles, banks and financial services institutions are regarded as the world’s largest criminal organisations.

After all, they not only obtain money printed out of thin air, but also transfer this to tangible assets, where if you (the serf) were to do the same you’d be charged for fraud.

The above is what fiat currency is a described by the Australian Oxford Dictionary in 2010.

One of the worst parts about financial fraud is that governemnts worldwide 'support' this action.

In Australia, there was this farcical action called the Royal Commission into Misconduct in Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry in 2017-2019, where not one of the over 10,000 applicants received a remedy.

That is how corrupt and supportive the 'brotherhood' in the Australian government is of the criminal actions of the 'banksters'. 

The push for governments and corporations to leave behind the paper world, including physical cash, is for the cheaper administration of the plebs/serfs/commoners/corporate (nee cannon) fodder, where data aggregation is the ultimate goal.

People are sold a deliberate lie for going cashless.

Using ‘plastic’ or cards, is marketed as being secure and easier and quicker to use than cash, i.e. more convenient for the shopper/consumer.

In an earlier iteration of the card, a swipe was the method at the terminal where a magnetic strip was read by the terminal.

Sure there were problems with this as we all should comprehend that technology is not infalable.

As technology progressed, the next phase using an RFID was marketed as more secure and even quicker method as it was a 'tap and go' action, where the ‘more secure’ is a deliberate lie.

ANY so called Information Technology security expert should know that RFID is easily hackable, where those institutions that have implemented this and put it out into the consumer world would have known about this.

Sure more tech savvy people will say that this threat can be mitigated by purchasing a 'RFID wallet', but that is not the point as by default the card is less secure, when given to the customer in its original format.

See article from 2015:

RFID Credit Cards: What you don’t know WILL hurt you!

A card skimmer may not be that easy to spot at an ATM.

So why did they compromise your security?

For the sake of convenience, so that it would be even easier than before for you to go cashless.

Soon there may be no cash, no cards just access to numbers in a so called 'account' via, the next most 'secure' thing that being biometrics.

All part of the Order of the New World.

You'll own nothing and be happy (if you're brainwashed), thanks Klaus!

P.S. on the topic of 'consumers', the (Victorian) government considers 'native' Australians that are recipients of the government's health care businesses as 'consumers' as seen in the following screencapture:

How the government SCREWED Aussies - " The country is f**ked"

'Australia is a lucky country, run mainly by second-rate people who share its luck.'

The first part of the quote from the book by Donald Horne from the mid 1960's, is what that mainstream media tells the serfs, but they DELIBRATELY neglect to follow up with the full sentence, which factually condemns the people in control.

Some 60 years later Matt Barrie, states a more realistic and accurate description.

Australia ‘should be the richest country in the world’ but instead is ‘f**ked’.

The colony's (deliberately) incompetent 'leaders' are plunging the population into a totalitarian state 'upgrading' it from an (oligarchical) authoritarian one, but that's another topic for another day.

Freelancer chief executive Matt Barrie who appeared on the Equity Mates podcast last week for a wide-ranging discussion covering the housing market, mass immigration, energy policy and cost-of-living, has given an accurate and brutally honest description of the state of Australia, period.

Australia's housing market is a huge Ponzi scheme instigated and supported by the 'Australian Government' (LLC, ™, ®, ©, etc etc) designed to deliberately screw the Australian population.

The 'problem' there is the people are quite satisfied with this, as their silence is acquiescence!

See full 52 minute interview:

Covid fines unlawful, the documents they can’t give you!

 Off the public record.

• You live in an abusive relationship with your government.

• In this colony called Australia, people live under a totalitarian, fascist, corporatised, police state.

• Forget being people of the ‘Commonwealth’ or democracy, those days are left to a museum (i.e MOAD), but that’s another story.

See article: Democracy in Australia

The government (all three tiers, Parliament, Executive and Judiciary) is corrupt to the core.

The businesses known as the courts, are corrupt where they are ‘owned’ by banking and financial services institutions such as Goldman Sachs, The Vangaurd Group and BlackRock, being subservient to their ‘stakeholders’.

See court document within the article:

Courts acting under dictation owned by financial services institutions

The courts are allegedly places of public record, but they have ways and means of hiding cases from the public, as part of the agenda of the secretive police state, naturally to the detriment of society.

In your documentation, if you expose the corruption of the police, government or courts, your matter will not make it to the ‘public record’ where it will be withdrawn or dismissed.

This may be seen as a ‘victory’ but it’s actually a loss, a loss for the people, as they are unaware of the details, and a cover-up of criminality by those in power.

In many states of Australia, ‘Covid’ fines have been withdrawn.

They have been withdrawn not when people started to challenge them, but more importantly when people started getting their paperwork right and asking the RIGHT questions.

A proper challenge to any alleged offence should be, first and foremost, on a basis of a ‘question of law’.

Government overflowing with people that gas-light their constituents.

In the police state of Victoria, under the leadership of ‘Chairman Dan’ (Andrews), premier of Victoria from 2014 – 2023, Covid fines were issued unlawfully, under whatever pretexts.

The problem there was that there was no lawfully enacted ‘infrastructure’ in place that would give rise for those fines to exist.

The government knew this, the police knew this and the courts knew this but they wanted to see if the serfs knew, so they gas-lighted the people.

Once again, when people started to obtain the correct knowledge, the fines were getting withdrawn.

The courts are corrupt.

The corruption begins at the registrar level.

They are the 'gatekeepers', the people who will not allow you to have the documents required for you to be successful in defending your matter.

So, apparently ‘advertisements’ were flung around everywhere that the good people of Victoria are under a ‘State of Emergency'.

SO, can the government prove this was a lawfully (as opposed to legally) issued declaration?

What medical advice was given that gave rise for this State of Emergency?

Allegedly there was a State of Disaster issued on 2/08/2020 @ 6pm.

Was this lawfully issued? Can ‘we’ have a copy of this?

MANY people obtained a ‘Covid’ fine, where the charge was as follows:

“Refuse or fail to comply with a direction or requirement made of a person in the exercise of a power under an authorisation given under Section 199 (INDIVIDUAL) Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.”.

In the above you may have noticed that “direction or requirement made of a person” has been underlined.

Keeping in mind that the burden of proof is on the accuser, where every aspect of the accusation or charge must be proven, beyond any reasonable doubt.

Therefore, Victoria Police accuses that you have refused or failed to comply with a direction/requirement that was made of you.

NOW, first and foremost can Victoria Police PROVE that this alleged direction/requirement was given to your ‘person’?

If so, then you require proof that it was served on your person, where an ‘advertisement’ on a freeway digital sign is not legally binding.

A lawful declaration that one must work from home?

What Act have you been charged under?

Since the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, is the alleged source, then a ‘deep dive’ can be initiated if this Act is in circulation lawfully, under something called a ‘reservation of points of law’ or a Section 72B (of the Judiciary Act 1903).

In reality there was no lawfully enacted ‘State of Emergency’ in Victoria, and the government does NOT want the serfs to know about this.

Sure there may be a piece of paper, that states it’s a ‘State of Emergency’ but was it issued lawfully?

Since Victoria Police were fining people under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, Section 167 - Power to request information, the following is stated:

(1)     An authorised officer may request a person to provide information to the authorised officer which the authorised officer believes is necessary to investigate whether there is a risk to public health or to manage or control a risk to public health. 

(3)     A person may refuse to provide the information requested under subsection (1). 

Meaning, when they stop you, there is no need to answer ANY questions.

See documents within the article: Is the 25km rule in Victoria a valid statutory provision?

The reality is that if you ask for the documents, as shown above within the Subpoena, Form 13, the ‘gatekeepers’ will not allow you to have them, where your request WILL be denied.

See also:

• Corrupt Police Issuing (COVID) Fines Only To Be Dropped Before Court

• State of Emergency & curfew acted out illegally by Daniel Andrews?

• No 'State of Emergency' for Victoria, government lies

• Six weeks lock down but Andrews signed Victorians up for four

• Do Covid Infringements issued in Victoria meet the Prescribed Details?

That’s life in a corrupt colony.

The TRUTH about Bank Privacy

The truth is that we (the people) do not have privacy any more.

It's been thrown under a bus, gone out the door or whatever other metaphor you like.

The sad reality is that people LET it happen.

And once it's 'lost' you're NEVER getting it back again, period.

People, the herd/serfs/plebs are really asleep at the wheel.

See content in the following video:

Pandora Papers - 169 Documents

Just a reminder that the Pandora Papers was an exposé of currupt people in government, corporations and banking institutions, including but not limited to the UK government, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Apple, Nike banks, media personalities like Shakira, Claudia Schiffer, Julio Iglesias, Elton John, Ringo Starr.

See some of the documents within the zip file:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pZi7Ozy6SD0kjDPKbO018F88N_ahmm1k/view

Disclosures:

In total, 35 current and former national leaders appear in the leak, alongside 400 public officials from nearly 100 countries and more than 100 billionaires.^[14] Some of the activities were legal according to the country's tax laws. Some files were showing the date of 1970, but they were actually created between the years 1996 to 2020. The data included 130 billionaires listed by Forbes, over 330 politicians, celebrities, members of royal families and religious leaders. Among those names are former British prime minister Tony Blair, Chilean president Sebastián Piñera, former Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta, Montenegrin president Milo Đukanović, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Qatari emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, United Arab Emirates prime minister and Dubai ruler Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Gabonese president Ali Bongo Ondimba, Lebanese prime minister Najib Mikati,^[15] Ecuadorian president Guillermo Lasso, family members of former Argentine president Mauricio Macri and his spin-doctor, Ecuadorian Jaime Durán Barba,^[16][17][18] and Cypriot president Nicos Anastasiades.^[19][20] More than 100 billionaires, 29,000 offshore accounts, 30 current and former leaders, and 336 politicians^[21] were named in the first leaks on 3 October 2021.^[1][11]

King Abdullah II of Jordan is one of the main figures named in the papers, with documents showing he had invested over US$100 million in property across the US and UK, including houses in Malibu, California,^[22] Washington, D.C., London and Ascot.^[23][24] A UK company controlled by Cherie Blair was shown to have acquired a £6.45 million property in London by purchasing Romanstone International Limited, a British Virgin Islands company; had the property been acquired directly, £312,000 would have been payable in stamp duty. Tony Blair's name appears in a statement of joint income for the associated mortgage.^[25]

The papers also reveal how an office block owned by Azerbaijan's ruling Aliyev family was sold to the Crown Estate, the UK sovereign's public estate, for £66 million in 2018, netting the Aliyevs a £31 million profit. Another office block worth £33 million was sold to the family in 2009, and was gifted to the son of Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev, Heydar.^[5] According to Las Vegas Sun, "Members of the inner circle of Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan are accused of hiding millions of dollars in wealth in secret companies or trusts".^[26] Supporters of former Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko accused his successor Zelensky, who came to power on an anti-corruption campaign, of tax evasion.^[27] Elsewhere, close associates of Russian president Vladimir Putin, like Svetlana Krivonogikh and Gennady Timchenko, were revealed to have secret assets in Monaco, and Czech prime minister Andrej Babiš, who had campaigned on promising to crack down on corruption and tax evasion, did not declare the use of an offshore investment company in the purchase of eight properties, including two villas, in Mougins on the French Riviera for £12 million.^[5][28][29] As a result of the Pandora Papers, more information emerged about Russia-linked, allegedly Kremlin-linked, donations to the Tories.^[30] Uhuru Kenyatta was also mentioned, despite being quoted in 2018 as stating, "Every public servant's assets must be declared publicly so that people can question and ask – what is legitimate?"^[11] Kenyatta and six members of his family have been linked to 13 offshore companies.^[31] The leaked list also includes transnational criminal organization leaders, such as Raffaele Amato, boss of the Amato-Pagano clan, a clan within the Camorra, dedicated to international drug trafficking. Amato used a shell company in the UK to buy land and real estate in Spain.^[32][33][34]

See list of people named in the Pandora Papers in the link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora_Papers

Will these (alleged) criminals ever see a courtroom?

Pricewaterhouse Coopers operates in Australia.

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia, has committed over 13,000 criminal offences, being a money laundering facility, quite literally above the law, still operates in Australia.

How do you deal with corrupt govenrment departments, polticians etc?

You don't go to them, as they're the problem?

You don't go to the mainstrream media, as they're part of the problem too, you 'leak' it online in the most anonymous way possible.

The ATO allegedly vowed that 'no stone is left unturned' regarding 400 Australian names.

So, how did that go two and bit years later?

So what's the blowback from this whole fiasco regarding the people/corporations etc mentioned?

Brethren protecting their own, would be an appropriate response.

Yet, when the authorities accuse a serf of  a (say road related) 'crime', the remedy for the authorities is swift.

That's life in a colony.

The Great Australian (post COVID-19) Rip Off!

The world has changed dramatically since 2020, where governments and corporations have lied and forced people into actions that are against medical practices, where also ‘human rights’ have been (unlawfully) thrown under a bus.

Tens of thousands of Australians have also been unlawfully issued Infringement Notices, where they have been withdrawn en masse, after a challenge in the Supreme Court in NSW meaning they were invalid to begin with, where police acted dishonestly in the first place, under dictation from the government, which has been downplayed by the mainstream media, but that is a separate and quite lengthy topic in itself.

The topic of this post is that of price gouging Australian consumers/shoppers/corporate fodder or generally anyone that participates in the ‘economy’. 

One of the government’s priorities, apart from looking after the safety of its (own) people is this behemoth called the economy.

What is good for the economy may not be good for the people.

Governments require a strong economy, meaning the serfs keeping busy spending, purchasing imported goods, leaving cash behind, using credit cards, loans to acquire goods services etc.

Those little mice need to keep the wheels of industry turning.

Restricting people from using cash is also a high priority for governments and corporations, as ‘going cashless’ is for the purpose of monitoring and collecting data for next level analytics, which also includes limiting actions/movements, e.g. you cannot get a home loan because you have too many smashed avo meals at restaurants or you eat too much junk food, where you are the author of your own health issues so medical care for certain illnesses will be denied.

Some people may call the above a ‘conspiracy theory’ but the above examples are a fact, paying specific attention that medical care has been denied for many as they have, for example, not succumbed to a trial drug forced by governments and medical practitioners without full disclosure of the ingested product.

According to the law medical care must be give to every person, without prejudice or conditions, which has not been the case in Australia.

MANY people in government should give themselves a pat on the back, as they have taken action to boost the economy significantly therefore making their bosses and the banking giants super rich, putting aside 'big pharma'.

The people in government deliberately created the ‘housing crisis’ by dumping more immigrants (also referred to a debt slaves/corporate fodder) than the general population/infrastructure can handle.

While then Premier Dan Andrews unlawfully installed a martial law type lockup of Victorians the government imported over thirty thousand Chinese nationals under the cover of darkness. 

The supply to demand ratio quickly changed where prices skyrocketed, putting many Australians into financial hardship, below the (Henderson) poverty line into the streets/tents/cars for accommodation with little to no reprieve from those who created the problem in the first place.

The government also 'punishes' you for being poor:

New law for Centrelink to punish people for being unemployed

As with all this hopelessness, and no sign of help, in despair some have taken their lives.

Apperently road traffic fines are all about 'if it saves one life', as 'marketed' in Victoria under the 'Towards Zero' campaign, a number the authorities are fully aware will NEVER occur.

But all that does not matter, as the housing crisis action alone triggered other actions which brought in huge revenue, in the form of tax dollars for those in government, so that their pensions after their useless tenure ( to the general population) will be secured to support a life of luxury for their family members.

Building costs have (artificially) skyrocketed in the process, creating more debt for the ‘debt slaves’ to the (immense) pleasure of the banking world.

Since 2020, goods and services/’consumer’ items/’things’ have gone up anything from one hundred to  five hundred percent, with no real justifiable cause, even though the pandemic is often heard as an excuse, where (deliberately) zero intervention from the authorities that monitor this, yet the government continues to falsify the Consumer Price and Living Cost indexes, where in reality we (Australia) are in a recession.

Another couple of items high on governments agendas are to lie to the general population without transparency which the people in the Australian Government are excellent at, supported by their corrupt ‘brethren’ in the judiciary and to install a level of pain, be it financial, mental or emotional to a (well defined) level that is below the general population rioting.

Paying two to five times for ‘things’ is GREAT for the ‘economy’, but not really for you, right?

ZERO intervention on this just shows you how much the government ‘cares’ about you, the lowly serf.

So why is there a push for your alleged ‘health’ to forcibly take a trial drug?