Standard Bank CEO fail their Investors and their bondholders-

lets see I'm on cell: ***

Response to Standard Bank’s Generic Reply on Hello Peter – 4 July 2025

Dear Standard Bank,

Your response dated 3 July 2025 is entirely unacceptable and frankly insulting considering the severity and scale of the issue raised.

You stated:

“Please be assured that we will do our utmost to resolve this issue as soon as possible...” Yet to date, no one from your legal, compliance, or executive team has made any contact with me whatsoever, despite the matter being escalated directly to Mr. Sim Tshabalala.

Let me remind you:

This is not a "service inconvenience" – it is a matter of facilitated property ***** and financial negligence: You approved and paid out R1.4 million on a property that was:

Built without approved plans.

Issued without a valid occupation certificate.

Transferred under clearly *****ulent circumstances via an attorney now under ******** investigation.

You are currently the bondholder on a compromised asset with no legal standing, thus exposing both myself and your institution to serious regulatory and financial risk.

Your due diligence process failed catastrophically, raising red flags about internal compliance, risk assessment procedures, and your broader corporate governance practices.

Your patronizing boilerplate response implies:

No urgency,

No internal accountability,

No willingness to investigate the ***** you've indirectly enabled.

I am therefore escalating this further: A formal complaint will be lodged with the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA).

I will also approach the Office of the Banking Ombudsman.

A ******** case is being opened with the SAPS Commercial Crimes Unit involving the conveyancer.

The LPC has been informed regarding the conduct of the attorney who facilitated this transaction.

If Standard Bank wishes to demonstrate any level of integrity, I expect a senior representative to contact me as sarcastically posted, not another copy-paste template response.

This is your opportunity to rectify a serious internal failure and engage in meaningful resolution.

Robert O’Connor: Erf 16172, Brackenfell Title Deed T19713/2021

Subject: Re: Financial ***** - Urgent Attention Required - Still Awaiting ContaI received your response today, July 4, 2025, at 16:40, indicating that my financial ***** case is being prioritized.

With all due respect, this response is shear crud, as I stated previously. It's incredibly frustrating to be told my matter is a "priority" when not a single person has reached out to me for any details or to gather information about the *****. This is an absurd way to handle such a serious issue.

How can a matter be a priority if there's been zero contact or effort to investigate? Your "appreciate your patience" rings hollow when there's no tangible action to warrant it.

I need more than platitudes; I need a Standard Bank representative to immediately contact me to properly address this financial *****. This "shannagans" approach is completely unacceptable.

YOU ARE NOT DEALING WITH AN AI SYSTEM BUT PEOPLE WITH INTELLIGENCE WHICH YOU SEEM TO BE UNDERESTIMATING- MR SHABALA, DO YOU HAVE NO SHAME, SIR!
THIS STANDARD BANK INVESTORS IS WHY YOU NEED TO TAKE YOUR MONEY AND RUN!!!!

On Tuesday, the 8th July, i will proceed to incorporate Standard Bank as complicit in the ***** case being opened at the commercial crime division of the SAPS against all parties involved, as you are trying to undermine this matter. lets see how this looks in the public arena Sir!

I find your response unqualified by trying to redirect your liability to a 3rd party transfer attorney:
THE PUBLIC SHOULD TAKE NOTICE OF THE CASE STIPULATED BELOW WHERE THE COURTS FOUND ABSA LIABLE FOR SUCH NEGLIGENCE-

Dear Standard Bank Legal Department, I refer to your response dated 04 July 2025, in which you deny liability regarding the *****ulent and non-compliant property transaction involving [insert property address and Title Deed number]. Your assertion that Standard Bank is not liable is fundamentally flawed for the following reasons: 1. Unilateral Authorization of Payment Despite Material Irregularities Standard Bank Home Loans unilaterally authorized the release of funds to the seller, based on documentation that was patently non-compliant and in material breach of national building regulations. This occurred despite the absence of critical documents, including:
- An occupation certificate,
- Municipal final approvals,
- Verified compliance with SANS 10400 or NHBRC certification. Standard Bank, acting as the mortgagee and thus a fiduciary in the transaction, had a legal and financial duty to exercise due diligence before authorizing payment—especially since this payment finalized the property transfer. 2. Assumption of Representational and Fiduciary Role In disbursing funds based on documentation it accepted and assessed internally, Standard Bank effectively acted as an agent with delegated authority, not merely as a lender but as a representative of our interests in ensuring the validity and legality of the transaction. The Bank’s own due diligence and internal legal teams approved documents that should never have passed legal muster. As such, liability for the consequences of this transaction cannot now be conveniently shifted to external conveyancers or third parties—your institution made the final binding decision that triggered and validated the ******* transfer. 3. Negligence in Verifying Legal Validity of Documents Any prudent financial institution would—at a minimum—verify:
- The authenticity of the occupation certificate,
- The compliance of the structure with national safety and planning standards,
- The authority of the signatories involved in the sale. By failing to do so, Standard Bank directly enabled and facilitated a *****ulent transaction and is now estopped from disclaiming liability. The principle of estoppel binds the Bank to its own actions and approvals, particularly where those actions materially prejudiced the purchaser. 4. Precedent and Case Law South African jurisprudence is clear: when a bank plays an active role in vetting and approving a transaction—especially by controlling and releasing the purchase funds—it assumes a duty of care that cannot be outsourced. The Absa Bank Ltd v Moore case (2016) confirms that banks can be held liable where they failed to act prudently in the disbur*****t of loan proceeds. Conclusion and Demand for Remedy Your denial of liability is rejected. Standard Bank bears direct responsibility for the *****ulent and defective transfer and the consequential financial and legal harm suffered. I hereby request:
- A formal retraction of your denial,
- Immediate commitment to a corrective action plan,
- Compensation for the losses incurred, including legal and remedial costs. Failing a satisfactory response within 7 calendar days, I will escalate the matter to:
- The Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA),
- The National Credit Regulator (NCR),
- The Banking Ombudsman of South Africa,
- And commence legal proceedings for damages. Activate a social media drive against your negligence. Yours sincerely,

Robert O’Connor
+***8
[Erf 16172 Brackenfell, Title Deed: T 19*** , Bond Number: ***]