peripheral swindles

 

BHP Inc. isn't just one swindle

- its a series of inter-related swindles!

Hit Counter
Umass Lowell 

The swindles described on this peripheral swindles web-page number four altold with the first being that BHP were very slow in licensing this invention - in fact this process took almost 6 years with the resultant losses being over $2 billion per year!

Another swindle was the cost over-runs on the HBI plant in Western Australia which was used to milk money from the company as well as artificially depress the share-price.  (This scam has just been run again - with AMP!)

The BHP share-price, being depressed to an artificial low, needed to "recover" and this presented another opportunity to scam on the varying share-price and this is described in "the Beswick deal" - the buying of shares from entities with major public ownership (i.e. superannuation funds) just before the "recovery".  Note that this "recovery" is quite steep - as if someone switched on a light!

Finally the invention produces that much money that at least $1 billion per annum is being "skimmed" from the BHP (before reporting the profits).

 

 

BHP Inc.  series of colossal frauds

 

peripheral swindles

 
 

SWINDLE     3 

  "tardiness in licensing"   +$10 billion
         

SWINDLE     4 

  "cost over-run"   $1 billion
      on HBI plant"    
         

SWINDLE     5 

  "the Beswick deal"   $2 billion
         

SWINDLE     6 

  "skimming the profits"   $1 billion/yr
         
         

SWINDLE     7 

  don't worry this'll    $?? billion
    get filled in soon !    
         
         
    . CORE SWINDLES .   $66 billion
 
 
    FRAUDS TOTALLING   $80 billion
         
 

 



  3\  "tardiness in licensing"


$2 BILLION PER YEAR FOR 5 YEARS

There has been no other mention in this web-site of the tardiness of BHP in licensing this invention to make about $2 billion to $3 billion per annum profit.  BHP were slow to show proper interest in this invention until an Undermanager at CORDEAUX Colliery (a BHP pit), in the Illawarra region of NSW, wanted to support their pipelines in an improved manner.  I was summoned to the Colliery and recommended the W-STRAP PLATES (see bottom red sketch) to address their services (pipelines) support problems.

Years later I was summoned 'out of the blue' to TOWER Colliery (another BHP underground mine) by Mark McCOLL, who was the Development Manager of this mine.  I telephoned Gerard CLEARY, Technical Assistant at VALE Engineering Pty Ltd, and together we developed a support device for this underground coliery's service pipelines. With the involvement of VALE Engineering Pty Ltd, TOWER were supplied with an improved means of supporting pipelines which integrated into the Mesh Strap roof support system.

Years before this visit to any BHP underground mine GORDONSTONE Colliery, in central Queensland, were supplied one thousand (early version) WK 970 wide-span brackets as early as in February, 1992.  GRETLEY Colliery, in the Hunter Valley region of NSW, had been using the laser-profiled LW 490 brackets, manufactured from Bisalloy 80 (very high strength construction steel) version, in small numbers from just after mid-1992.

The FACE EMPLACED Services Support invention's full range of support devices were not fully developed by the middle of 1992 yet their potential was understood by BHP because before the PATENT COOPERATION TREATY Patent Application (PCT/AU92/00555) was lodged in mid-October 1992 the three inventors had a meeting at Cornelis BAAS' house in Dapto, NSW.  Dr. Peter GRAY attended that meeting, representing BHP's interests.  Early in the next year (1993), after the the PCT Application was made, a meeting was held at the BULLIVANTS premises in Unanderra on the south coast of NSW with the Manager of that BULLIVANTS Office and two BULLIVANTS representatives from Sydney.  Again no licensing agreement!

Still later, on the Friday before the 1st of April in 1996 (which fell on a Monday), there was a meeting with the General Manager of BHP LIFTING & INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS (Robert EDWARDS) and again Dr. Peter GRAY - who by then had progressed from secondment to this arm of BHP to being employed by it.  Again no licensing agreement!

I have no doubt that BHP's plan was to assist my ex-brother-in-law*, using a newly-written will by my wife suffering from terminal cancer, to defraud me of the rights to this invention.  They obviously wanted to wait another year to accomplish this as the executors of my wife's estate could delay the grant of probate till this time because there was some discretionary taxation applicable till three years from the date of her death with respect to the trusts established by the executors of the estate for the children.  Three years after her death a higher rate of taxation was applicable concerning the children's trust if probate was not granted.

*

What do you call BUFFY - a fraud, a grave-robber, a thief, ...... ?
(Most aptly a worried man!  Who threw the rather large rock which)
(broke the side window of the house I'm living in and why did the)
(Real Estate Agent not require me to pay for the damage?)
Wherever this invention has been it has hardly left a trace!

* *
Note:
My cartoonist had a brick-bat hurled at the front security door of the house he's living in as well as a boulder thrown up his drive and I'm not one bit jealous - I always knew that the cartoonies would cause more mental disturbance in these crooks than the written presentation - they hate being mocked!

 the ol' smoke and mirrors trick 

The theme of the preceding cartoon was copied by PBS in America as I had this cartoon on this web-site late in 2001 and the date associated with the hyperlinked web-page is not till early in 2002.

In the meantime, after this third meeting with representatives from BHP, the patent attorney I was currently employing had me send all the assignments of the rights to the invention, directly to the Canadian Patent Office, due to some urgency in their receipt by them.  The instruction from the patent attorney was via telephone so there was no record of this conversation.  Then my local newspaper printed a story on myself and the invention [patting Johnny (me) on the head] and about three weeks after this the real crunch came - the patent attorney sent me an account for something like $9,000!  The following month another approximate $9,000 account arrived and almost $4,000 for the next month following - in all well over $20,000 in three consecutive months of bills from the patent attorney!

My thoughts after the first approximate $9,000 account was that at last someone wanted the patents.

The next month's account with an approximate $9,000 additional charge I interpreted as being that someone wanted the intellectual property for the FACE EMPLACED Services Support invention really quickly!  I already understood the message quite clearly that "my" patent attorney/BHP wanted the rights to the patents so the third consecutive month's approximate $4,000 amount was hardly a surprise.

The next step in the procession did surprise me however!  In January 1997 I received a letter from my? patent attorney, the same one who sent the plus $20,000 in charges, and the covering letter was concerned with my granting the Polish patent attorney the right to administer the patents for his country.  The attachment to this letter had the heading "POLAND" but the text of the letter was only concerned with the assignment of the rights to the intellectual property to the other executor of my wife's estate - Barbara O'BRIEN* (of Bolwarra near Maitland).  All that had to be done was that the heading "POLAND" be cut off from the lower section of the page and they (the crooked patent attorneys) had the rights to this invention for nothing!

*
isn't this one a 'piece of work' - while her sister was dying Barbara was arranging how to get stuck into her soon-to-be-dead sister's estate!


So there you have it - this delay of 5 years** was to bleed me of money, hopefully manoeuvre me into a more difficult legal position and hopefully convince me that this invention had little commercial use!

**
The patenting process actually began on the 16th of October in 1991 when I lodged the initial Provisional Patent Application according to the Notice of Entitlement - to enlarge image mouse-over and right click and select "Fit Image to Screen".  I advertised the invention intensively from this date because the rights to the intellectual property were protected by the lodgement of this Provisional Patent Application.  The year odd I've subtracted is an allowance for the ramping-up of sales due to the fact that would be some delay in acceptance of the invention in the underground mining and tunnelling industries.

 

THIS 5 YEAR DELAY CONSERVATIVELY 

COST BHP LTD $10 BILLION IN PROFIT!

 

enquiries@BHPstinks.com

Join the Mailing List for the electronic NEWSLETTER  -  'post' to:    newsletter@BHPstinks.com 

overview

HOME                    conclusions                      

 



  4\  "cost over-run on HBI plant"


$1 BILLION

Now people and organizations aligned with BHP wanted to depress the market for BHP shares to provide the opportunity to purchase volumes of shares with a lower outlay.  One very profitable manner of achieving this artificial depression in the price of BHP shares would be to falsely* inflate costs to the company and have these ever-increasing costs publicised!  The construction of the Hot Briquetting Iron (HBI) plant in Western Australia provided a perfect opportunity for this to occur and I remember the cost of this plant increasing a number of times to over $2 billion!

*
Commissioner COLE, of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY, has determined that this cost-over-run only involved about $1 million in fraudulent payments (Sydney Morning Herald - 25/7/02, page 7) - I'll back my "guess" over his determination!

(anyway everybody just about ignores "ol King Cole")
(
- his judgements have been overturned!)


As the initially-promoted construction cost of this HBI plant was less than $1 billion, so the difference between the "final" cost and the initially quoted cost is the by-product of this type of scam - i.e. over $1 billion was siphoned from the company and pocketed by the perpetrators of this scheme!

In summary this "cost over-run" fraud is a very simple type of scheme to run - advertise ever-increasing costs, pocket this money, and the public's perception of BHP's "performance" is such that the "double-bunger" effect of devaluing the shares allows those "insider traders" to snap up bargains.


Quite disturbingly the media generates a number of opportunities for this to occur in other areas!

enquiries@BHPstinks.com

Join the Mailing List for the electronic NEWSLETTER  -  'post' to:    newsletter@BHPstinks.com 

overview

HOME                    conclusions                      

 



  5\  "the Beswick deal"


$2 BILLION FRAUD

BACKGROUND

Paul ANDERSON, the previous CEO and General Manager of "THE BROKEN HILL PROPRIETARY COMPANY LTD" (herinafter called "BHP"), during an interview on television (the Business Sunday programme on Kerry PACKER's Channel 9) indicated that there was some problem with Beswick.  I thought he was intimating that there was something not quite right with the relationship between BHP and Beswick Pty Ltd and that this problem could be overcome with some share dealings.  I understood that the share dealings were to be such that minimum taxation liability would be attracted to the manner of solution to this Beswick problem, because these shares were to be dealt with at the low share-price as BHP was in the mid-1997 to mid-1999 share-price trough (see following graph).


 

There was something not quite right with Beswick Pty Ltd's relationship with BHP - BHP and Elders IXL had cross-shareholding ownership deal which allowed the BHP directors to effectively control BHP by requesting Elders IXL to exercise their will through their subsidiary Beswick!  Beswick Pty Ltd was established during the Robert Holmes a Court control challenge on BHP, way back in the period in which came to be known as WA Inc.  By using this Beswick mechanism BHP could magnify their control of BHP by requiring the input of less money for the same effect, than if the shareholders in Beswick instead chose to buy BHP shares!  Essentially the Beswick directors could exert an unfair amount of control over BHP, which being a large shareholder (18%) in BHP, could control BHP.  One can easily understand why this type of control is illegal - voting no longer becomes representative for the investment in the corporation.

EXPLANATION

Australian corporations are required to lodge Annual Returns (Form 316) with the Australian Securities & Investments Commission.  There are actually very few details required to be recorded on these Annual Returns - such information as registered office address, principal place of business, directors (and when appointed of resigned) as well as the 20 largest shareholders and the number of shares each held (as well as whether these shares are fully paid or not and share options).  Both THE BROKEN HILL PROPRIETARY COMPANY LIMITED and BESWICK PROPRIETARY LIMITED were Australian corporations during the whole of the period of interest.

 the BHP Billiton Ltd 'house of cards' 

(they'll fall like dominoes!)

The Annual Returns of interest were for the BHP 1998 and 1999 years - where Beswick Pty Ltd's largest shareholding in BHP (338 million odd) was reduced to less than about 6 million shares .  The shareholding data from these two Annual Returns was input into a spreadsheet programme which was used to analyse the change in shareholdings between these two years.  This spreadsheet is presented following and the column of major interest is the last column in the first table.  This column presents the number of shares held on the 9th of December, 1999 [{ 1999 Return }] minus the number of shares held on the 11th of January, 1999 [ 1998 Return ] - a less than twelve month period!

 

 

 comparison of 20 largest BHP shareholdings 1998 & 99 

 
   CORPORATION

1998

{1999} {1999} – 1998  
     
   ANZ Nominees Limited 55,097,330 60,054,064 4,956,734   
   National Nominees Limited 116,707,695 164,765,855 48,058,160   
   Westpac Custodian Nominees Ltd 205,310,870 207,631,610 2,320,740   
   Chase Manhattan Nominees Limited 154,632,276 234,607,906 79,975,630   
   Queensland Investment Corporation 38,273,197 36,655,683 -1,617,514   
   Beswick Pty Ltd Group <not in 99 Annual Return> 338,066,630 5,990,699 -332,075,931   
   Australian Mutual Provident Society 42,840,527 43,047,407 206,880   
   Perpetual Trustee{s} Australia Group 30,311,669 39,487,620 9,175,951   
   MLC Limited {MLC Group of Companies} 28,802,084 24,899,739 -3,902,345   
   SAS Trustee Corporation <not in 99 Annual Return> 26,853,695 5,990,699 -20,862,996   
   BT Custodians Ltd 35,805,889 38,527,742 2,721,853   
   Citicorp Nominees {Pty Ltd} 28,617,175 40,823,511 12,206,336   
   Perpetual Trustee Nominees {Perp Nom's Ltd} 20,297,870 18,764,608 -1,533,262   
   Commonwealth Custodian Services {Ltd} 11,355,170 19,809,299 8,454,129   
   Japan Resources Limited 10,925,000 12,325,000 1,400,000   
   Mitsubishi Development Pty Ltd  10,806,892 10,806,892 0   
   HKBA Nominees Limited 10,395,307 16,168,529 5,773,222   
   Permanent Trustee Limited 8,987,366 27,407,522 18,420,156   
   Prudential Corp Aust Group <not in 99 Annual Return> 8,693,779 5,990,699 -2,703,080   
   NRMA Group 8,570,921 9,038,733 467,812   
       
   SUM OF SHARES HELD BY 20

1,191,351,342

   
   TOP SHAREHOLDERS IN 1998    
     
   SUM OF SHARES HELD BY TOP 20 SHAREHOLDERS IN 1999

1,022,793,817

 
     
   LOSS OF SHARES FROM TOP 20 SHARE-   -168,557,525   
   HOLDERS FROM 1999 c/f 1998    
       
       
   NOT IN 1998 (Annual Return)      
       
   AXA Trustees Limited 8,570,921 10,308,205 1,737,284   
   CSS Board 8,570,921 8,019,473 -551,448   
   Commonwealth Life Limited 8,570,921 5,990,699 -2,580,222   
       
       
   SHARES HELD BY THE THREE ADDITIONAL 1999 SHAREHOLDERS 24,318,377  
     
   LOSS OF SHARES FROM THREE ADDITIONAL 1999   -1,394,386   
   SHAREHOLDERS COMPARING 1999 WITH 1998
 
   ASSUMPTIONS (italicised)
 
   count Beswick as having disposed of all their BHP shares (same for SAS and Prudential)
 
   count the three new entries in the top 20 list as having no shares (least case scenario)
 
 
   THE TOP 20 SHAREHOLDERS DIVESTED THEMSELVES OF AT LEAST  .145 MILLION SHARES.
 
 
   Assuming that the real market value of these shares was about $18, instead of
   the assumed sale price of $12, means that the $6 difference in price would enable
   .about $1 billion to have been pocketed from this particular scam!.
 
 
   source:  Annual Returns lodged with the  Australian Securities & Investments Commission
 

N.B.  Parentheses  { }  enclose the 1999 recorded CORPORATION name in abbreviated form.

 

 

If you view the totals for each of these three columns;

                1998,            {1999}        and        {1999} - 1998

you'll come to understand that the -168,557,525 shares for the {1999} -1998 column is simply the total number of BHP shares for the top 20 shareholders for the year {1999} minus the total number of BHP shares for the top 20 shareholders for the year 1998 - i.e. nearly 170 million BHP shares "migrated" out of this top 20 shareholder group!

Would you believe it that these BHP shares appreciated* about $6 in value within two months of being sold!  This number of shares times the appreciation (170 million x $6 = $1 billion approx.) is quite a large figure!  Now its even worse when the Beswick directors are considered by themselves!  You'd think that these directors would be given the proverbial kick in the "a" over the selling off of at least 330 million BHP shares but this doesn't appear to be so because afterwards all of these Beswick directors were able to pick up their pay for another 18 months before even just one of them resigned!  One can only presume that losing two billion dollars or so isn't all that bad.  Perhaps these directors should apply for jobs with HIH, One.Tel, Harris Scarf or ANSETT!

*

   shows just how well these BHP shares can perform when the "brakes" are removed
- caused by continual misleading reports (considering the company overall) about the;

* a\   MAGMA Copper purchase - "the jury's still out on that one" (Jerry ELLIS)
* b\   cost over-runs on the Hot Briquetting Iron plant in Western Australia (over $1 billlion)
* c\   troubles at both the BEENUP Mineral Sands project and the
* d\   HARTLEY Platinum mine in Zimbabwe

The reader can appreciate that the amount pocketed from "the Beswick deal" was about $1 billion but about $6 billion worth of BHP shares was sold from Beswick to cover for this particular swindle.  If all the shares had have ended up outside the "top 20" shareholder group then suspicion would have been immediately drawn to the scam so at least the bulk of this Beswick tranche of BHP shares needed to be sold to cover for this "migration" of shares outside the "top 20".


Just one point to mention there was an unusual amount of director activity around this time in Beswick.  Two directors were appointed on the 1st of March, 1999 and another was appointed about five months earlier.  The only long-standing director, maintained through this whole period, was the secretary.

Looking deeper the "big winner" was Chase Manhattan Nominees Ltd.  They increased the number of shares they manage by almost 80 million shares!  Now who owns these shares - that is the question!  Both the THE BROKEN HILL PROPRIETARY COMPANY LIMITED 1998 and 1999 Annual Returns only reveal that all of the BHP shares under Chase Manhattan Nominees Ltd's control were not held beneficially (i.e. Chase Manhattan Nominees Ltd. were not the owner of these shares - they only managed these shares).  This nomineeship is a good mask to hide behind!

NURSES, POLICE, FIREMEN, TEACHERS, AMBULANCE, STATE RAIL & RTA STAFF and other NSW GOV'T EMPLOYEES

The tenth entry on the green table presented preceding is SAS Trustee Corporation which is one of the eight funds comprising STATE SUPER.  NSW's Nurses, .Police., Firemen, Public School Teachers, State Rail & RTA Staff and also other NSW Government Employees contribute to STATE SUPER.  It appears that at least 20 million odd BHP shares were sold by STATE SUPER in 1999.  This may not have been the case though as Chase Manhattan Nomines Ltd. may have beome the non-benficial "owner" of these shares.  I'm suspicious that these shares were sold before the BHP share-price "recovery" although a following STATE SUPER Annual Report indicates othertwise!  (If these BHP shares were sold the opportunity to increase the worth of this superannuation by at least $120 million was missed due to this possible early sale of BHP shares!)

 

update
Q/
When does 6% return guaranteed (on investment) not mean 6% return guaranteed?
A/
When you're (NSW) STATE SUPER and you've collected $1 billion in earnings surplus to the 6% guaranteed and you want to shift these surplus funds (amounting to $1 billion) to another purpose - not the genuine SAS Trustee Corporation (longer-serving NSW Public Servants) fund of STATE SUPER purpose!

 

 

.GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED FRAUD!.

.even the coppers were robbed !   -  by the BHP Inc. series of colossal frauds

 

. more on superannuation .

 

. even more on superannuation - its a REALLY big racket! .

 

OTHERS DEFRAUDED

BESWICK Pty Ltd was half-owned by THE BREWING GROUP and so half of this $2 billion fraud was borne by them.  About one quarter of Beswick was owned by BHP so BHP shareholders were defrauded of about $500 million too!

SIGN POST

Anyone reading this presentation would understand that I've put quite a deal of effort into investigating this "Beswick deal" and some may wonder why!  To explain this point I'd already 'cottoned on' to the "theft of the invention"/"share-price collapse" scam (both presented directly following) some months before and so I was aware that BHP had obviously manipulated their share-prices in an extreme manner.  Also I remembered that interview on television where Paul ANDERSON was talking about "the Beswick problem" -  I'd never seen him so self-conscious!  This was the trigger to spark this particular part of the investigation.  This nervousness was like a beacon and I decided to 'home in'.

One thing you'll come to appreciate is that scams can only be run when the situation is going to alter.  Such things like the transfer of property due to death and when the share-value is going to alter significantly are perfect opportunities!

enquiries@BHPstinks.com

Join the Mailing List for the electronic NEWSLETTER  -  'post' to:    newsletter@BHPstinks.com 

overview

HOME                    conclusions                      

 



  6\  "skimming the profits"


$1 BILLION PER YEAR FRAUD

With BHP Ltd's stand-alone profit (i.e. sans Billiton) being $3.85 billion*, for the financial year ending on the 30th of June in 2001, and the estimated profit for the FACE EMPLACED Services Support invention being between $2 billion and $3 billion per annum (before tax) we are led to believe that whole of the of the remainder of the BHP earned only about $1.5 billionWhy this invention has been kept secret is because then a large portion of the profit from it can be siphoned-off before the profit for the company is reported (skimmed) without any awkward questions being asked about where the money went!

* Australian currency


Of course another
explanation is that since that this invention has been kept secret from the smaller personal shareholders, including the personal shareholders in the larger institutional shareholders which have invested in BHP, BHP would have had no awkward questions asked regarding an invention which was almost ignored for six years!

One would be a bit naive to think that this is the first time this "disappearing invention" scam has been run!  In other words there might be more inventions "procured" under this BHP plan and the shareholders referred to in the foregoing paragraph are very likely to have been defrauded by these other occurrences too!


The foregoing makes a mockery of the "Biennial Steel Awards"!  These awards are about creating the impression that BHP treat inventors well when actually the reverse is the truth!

enquiries@BHPstinks.com

Join the Mailing List for the electronic NEWSLETTER  -  'post' to:    newsletter@BHPstinks.com 

overview

HOME                    conclusions                      

 



  7\  "what will it be?"


$?? BILLION

 

. CORE SWINDLES .

 

enquiries@BHPstinks.com

Join the Mailing List for the electronic NEWSLETTER  -  'post' to:    newsletter@BHPstinks.com 

overview

HOME                    conclusions                      

John Pink
 
PO Box 267
 
Mob +61 (0)  415 566 122
 
Corrimal  NSW  2518
 
 
www.BHPstinks.com
Australia
 
Ph     +61 (0) 2 42 85 3155
 
 
-
Donations can be transferred to the following bank account
Financial Institution:
IMB Ltd    (IMB Banking & Financial Services)
Account name:
J E Pink - BHP INVESTIGATION
BSB No:
641800   
Account No:
200295229