Prince Andrew to employ Ghislaine Maxwell’s failed ‘False Memory Syndrome’ Defence & CIA Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus

CIA Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus was a member of the USA False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF), an organisation founded by CIA MKULTRA psychiatrist Martin Orne and his fellow pedophiles to cover up the global child sex trafficking operation coordinated by the joint military intelligence agency.

The FMSF was the brainchild of Lt. Col. Michael Aquino who headed the U.S. Army Psychological Operations based in Fort Bragg. The FMSF was dissolved in late 2019 following my five-year social media campaign against it, and after the military’s replacement PSYOP was up and running. The replacement was QAnon. Consequently, victims of the CIA’s global child sex trafficking operation who were rented to and raped by VIPs including business men, politicians and royalty, are now labelled right-wing QAnon conspiracy nutters.

The CIA adopted me as QAnon’s poster child after a knife-wielding CIA asset failed to take me out during my 2016 lecture tour of the USA. QAnon made specific reference to my writings, particularly my ‘Watergate was Pedogate’ article. I was never part of QAnon, despite my association with QAnon followers including CIA asset Isaac Kappy. Kappy was murdered by a former Seal Team 6 assassin he reached out to for help, after he failed to set me up for arrest and internment in MI6 MKULTRA psychiatrist Paul Mullen’s Fixated Persons Units (located in three Australian states). Mullen was employed by the Royal Family to conceal Prince Andrew’s pedophile crimes. UK victims of VIP child trafficking are interned in Mullen’s London based Fixated Person’s Unit.

Elizabeth Loftus is a psychologist and professor at the University of California. Loftus has never worked as a therapist and never treated traumatised child rape victims. Yet she has testified for the defence of accused pedophiles in 150 criminal trials. Loftus has testified or consulted on behalf of Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Michael Jackson and numerous other alleged rapists.

In my book EYES WIDE OPEN, I wrote a comprehensive critique of Elizabeth Loftus, the FMSF, and Loftus’ legacy in Australia where VIP pedophiles escape prosecution and victims of government sponsored child sex trafficking can’t find therapeutic support. The information in my book was originally submitted to the federal Child Sex Abuse Royal Commission who commended the information which, they said, they were previously unaware of. An excerpt from that chapter can be read below.

As someone who has exposed the discredited Elizabeth Loftus’ and her gangrenous False Memory Syndrome writings and scientifically invalid and unethical ‘research’ for decades, I was delighted with the prosecution’s efforts in the Ghislaine Maxwell’s child sex trafficking case, and their success in exposing Loftus’ lies.

In the Ghislaine Maxwell case, the prosecution did a brilliant job of differentiating between benign memories that were tested in Loftus’ substandard research projects – and traumatic memories of being repeatedly raped throughout one’s development.

On cross-examination, the prosecution showed Loftus her research project in which she tried implanting a false memory of a rectal enema. The prosecutor asked Loftus:

“Isn’t it true that not a single participant later claimed to have this memory?”

Loftus: “Yes.”

“Isn’t it true that you attempted to implant a memory of an invasive procedure and you failed?”


Prosecutor: Isn’t it correct that when a traumatic event occurs, the core memory of that event becomes seared into the brain of the victim, in fragments or flashes – that although the details may necessarily be hazy because traumatic memories are difficult for the brain to process, the core event itself is not easily confused?

Loftus” “Yes.”

Prosecution: And that’s why you cannot implant a false memory of a rectal enema — something that the brain registers as invasive or traumatic.

Loftus: “Yes.”

The prosecutor hammered another Loftus study in which a statistically insignificant number (16%) of subjects were falsely convinced through suggestion that they met Bugs Bunny on a childhood trip to Disneyland, and concluded “This is not a case about Bugs Bunny.”

The prosecution raised another Loftus study in which subjects watched a car wreck video and were confused via suggestion about whether a road sign in the film read either STOP or YIELD. The prosecution concluded: “This case is not about the difference between a stop sign and a yield sign.”

So, Elizabeth Loftus and her bogus research failed to stop the conviction of CIA child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell – who just happened to hold a submarine licence and all those other skills typically found in military intelligence agent scum.

In the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, the defence introduced a new take on Elizabeth Loftus’ False Memory Syndrome theory – that a desire for cash could implant an entirely false traumatic memory. That argument failed, yet the same defence is being employed in Prince Andrew’s upcoming trial.

Here is the excerpt from my book EYES WIDE OPEN concerning Elizabeth Loftus:


Royal Commissioner James Wood used the gangrenous writings of CIA psychologist Elizabeth Loftus to dismiss multiple witness accounts of organised pedophilia and ritual abuse. Wood’s Final Report referenced Loftus’ 1994 book, The Myth of Repressed Memory: False Memories and Allegations of Sexual Abuse, to support his conclusions: 

  1. ‘False memories’ of Ritual Abuse can be artificially created as a result of third person suggestion,
  2. A victim of Ritual Abuse can’t experience dissociation and repression of traumatic memories, and 
  3. Ritual Abuse victims are female ‘attention-seeking’ hypochondriacs whose flashbacks may be attributed to overly zealous female therapists. 

Loftus’ 1994 book was not a scientifically conducted, peer reviewed research publication. It was just a book. At the time of her 1994 book release, Loftus had published one study relevant to her ‘false memory’ theory, an experiment which examined university students’ memory for films of car accidents.[1] 

In 1995, Loftus co-published the notorious Lost in a Shopping Mall study.[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Loftus’ assigned University of Washington postgraduate student James Coan as chief co-investigator for her mall study. Subjects’ family members were asked to provide James Coan with three true childhood stories about the subjects, and to describe a typical family shopping trip. Based on the shopping trip descriptions, a false story was created for each subject about getting lost as a child during a shopping trip. Subjects were told their family members said the events ‘had happened.’ The subjects were asked to repeat the stories and to try and remember more details. Finally, the subjects were told that one of the memories was false and asked to choose the false memory. 

Elizabeth Loftus conducted and published this research before receiving ethical approval for the study. Loftus added a second interview plus another evaluation scale to the research protocol long after the study was approved on 10 August 1992. 

James Coan reported in his 1993 honours thesis that only 6/24 subjects completed the study, and zero subjects created a false memory.[7] [8] Crook and Dean (1999) analysed Loftus’ data and discovered only 2/24 subjects likely completed the study.[9] First year psychology students are taught, a minimum of n=10 subjects is required for valid statistical analysis. So, Loftus blatantly lied when she reported: ‘Of the 24 total, 19 subjects correctly chose the getting-lost memory as the false one, while the remaining five incorrectly thought that one of the true events was the false one… These findings reveal that people can be led to believe that entire events happened to them after suggestions to that effect.’[10]

The raw data from the shopping mall study were subpoenaed by defence attorneys in Burgus v. Braun. Loftus successfully obtained a gag order for her fraudulent data. The case settled on 31 October 1997 and the data returned to Loftus.Elizabeth Loftus published another lab experiment in 1996.[11] This examined, ‘whether imagining events from one’s past can affect memory for childhood events.’ A total of 38 undergraduate psychology students (young female university students studying the same course) participated in the study for course credit. Loftus asked the students to imagine described events such as tripping over or falling through a window.

The characteristics of Elizabeth Loftus’ samples made it inappropriate for her to generalise findings from her studies to the population at large. And yet Loftus drew conclusions from these severely flawed studies about the reliability of child abuse memories, and the possibility that a parent or therapist could create false memories of child abuse in a person who has experienced trauma of the most severe kind. Loftus basically equated a psychology student’s experience of watching a car crash film or imagining themselves falling over – with real life accounts of being systematically raped and tortured throughout one’s development. That is beyond preposterous.

Elizabeth Loftus’ conclusions failed to hold up under cross examination. In 1994, Lynn Crook successfully sued Loftus. Lawyer Barbara Jo Levy asked Loftus, ‘If you are asked to testify about your experiments of implanting false memories, would you use those first six?’ Loftus replied, ‘No, I don’t think I will use the first six’ (Transcript, p.61).

In December 1995, two women filed ethics complaints against Elizabeth Loftus with the American Psychological Association, claiming she had misrepresented their successful recalled-memory lawsuits to the media. Loftus resigned from the APA in January 1996, so the APA dropped their investigation.

Washington Post article entitled, In the Sharon Case, a Grilling to Remember (27 October 2006) described a damning cross examination of Elizabeth Loftus:

But when Fitzgerald got his chance to cross-examine Loftus about her findings, he had her stuttering to explain her own writings and back pedalling from her earlier assertions. Citing several of her publications, footnotes and the work of her peers, Fitzgerald got Loftus to acknowledge that the methodology she had used at times in her long academic career was not that scientific, that her conclusions about memory were conflicting, and that she had exaggerated a figure and a statement from her survey of D.C. jurors that favoured the defence.

In 2003, Nicole Tau successfully sued Loftus for invasion of privacy. At age six years, during a videotaped interview by a medical doctor, Tau had accused her mother of child abuse. Tau subsequently forgot her abuse but spontaneously recalled it at age 17 years. Corwin and Olafson (1997) published an article about the case, favouring the notion that repressed memory of childhood abuse can be recalled. Elizabeth Loftus set out to discredit Tau by hiring a private investigator to locate Tau. The PI lied to Tau’s family by pretending to be Corwin’s research assistant. Loftus subsequently published an article based on the PI’s interviews with Tau’s family in which she identified Tau as a victim of crime. Tau filed an ethics complaint against Loftus in 1999 with the University of Washington who upheld the complaint.During a 2013 TED Talk about memory, Loftus intentionally misrepresented the basic facts of Nicole Tau’s case by saying it was about a ‘woman’ who ‘accused her mother of sexual abuse based on a repressed memory.’ Loftus knowingly omitted crucial facts of the case: that Tau was six years old when she made the report, then forgot the memory, and then spontaneously and accurately recalled the memory 11 years later at age 17 years.


Elizabeth Loftus was discredited, professionally disciplined, and successfully sued in the USA for her blatant lack of ethical conduct and unscientific methodology. Despite this, Loftus’ unproven opinion regarding memory: (a) was the basis for Royal Commissioner James Wood’s dismissal of multiple independent reports of Ritual Abuse; (b) provides the Australian blueprint for dismissing the nature and existence of extreme child abuse within mental health, education, and forensics; and (c) underpins all psychology teaching and educational texts in Australia. Most Australian psychology textbooks are American imports. Mine were. A 2014 study examined three undergraduate psychology textbooks and found, all three concluded that child abuse memories are likely false.[1] All three textbooks referenced Loftus’ writings. Owing to this unfounded and illogical embracement of Loftus’ opinion:

  • Australian universities and educational materials teach psychology students that most child abuse memories are false, and repressed trauma memories are particularly unreliable.
  • Regulatory bodies deter psychologists from acknowledging the validity of repressed child abuse memories and working with implicit trauma memories.
  • Australian psychology students receive no training in the Trauma Model approach.
  • Australian therapists receive zero training in recognising or treating ritual abuse and mind control.
  • NSW Victims of Crime counselling services forbade the use of scientifically validated, effective tools like EMDR for processing implicit abuse memories (until I publicly accused them of withholding treatment). A therapist can only use EMDR if they tape the sessions; yet this is not required for other, less effective treatment modalities.
  • University criminology lecturers do not teach future Australian law enforcement officials that child trafficking is run as a single, integrated global operation.

ABC Concede: MKULTRA Came to Australia

After years of publicly vilifying and slandering me for verbalising my child abuse witness testimony, the ABC finally put in print what I stated and published years ago – that MKULTRA came to Australia via the University of Sydney. Yet the ABC article left out some crucial facts which I discuss below.



The ABC article concept, and the ideas and research cited in it are not new. I was the first person to publicly declare and publish online and in a book format that MKULTRA came to Australia, and that MKULTRA entered Australia via the University of Sydney. Steve McMurray was the first to locate and publish the academic research papers mentioned in the ABC article. Steve McMurray’s original work was published online in 2015 in multiple locations, including my websites, and in my 2019 free book EYES WIDE OPEN. Our publications predate the ABC article by six years.

I disagree with the ABC article content where it asserts University of Sydney staff and students were unaware that they were participating in MKULTRA research. I witnessed staff and students knowingly participate in MKULKTRA research in the University of Sydney’s Madsen Building, a CSIRO owned laboratory. University of Sydney staff and students, dressed in white lab coats, watched as head CIA psychologist John Gittinger instructed them – using me as a lab rat – how to subject MKULTRA child victims to torture and unethical hypnosis in the name of national security. Martin Orne’s University of Sydney student Wendy Louise Walker went on to supervise the rape and torture of child MKULTRA victims in the CIA laboratory situated beneath Holsworthy Army Base, and in the adjacent 20-story underground CSIRO laboratory located beneath ANSTO nuclear reactor at Lucas heights.

Both the the CSIRO and ANSTO signed up to the Redress Scheme instigated by the federal Child Sex Abuse Royal Commission, which constitutes an admission of guilt and liability that children were raped in these government institutions. To further demonstrate the USA connection, ANSTO – an Australian government subsidiary – is registered to Idaho, USA.

I also object to the notion that MKULTRA was deemed a failure. As you will gather from my book excerpt below, Martin Orne’s hypnosis study proved subjects did things under hypnosis they wouldn’t normally, and George Hoben Estabrooks boasted that hypnosis was successfully used to split a victim’s personality and create an assassin / spy. Further, declassified CIA documents prove otherwise. For example, see my book concerning the success of the Gateway Project which continues today at the Monroe Institute under the same military leader.



Here is an excerpt from my book EYES WIDE OPEN concerning Martin Orne and his 1960 visit to Australia:

2. Martin Orne & John Gittinger Named to Presidential Committee

The Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments was established in 1994 to investigate the US government’s unethical human radiation experiments. On March 15, 1995, New Orleans trauma therapist Valerie B. Wolf and her clients, Claudia S. Mullen and Chris deNicola Ebner appeared before the Advisory Committee in Washington, D.C. to testify on the connection between the Radiation Experiments and Mind Control Experimentation on Children. Wolf submitted:

Generally, it appears that therapists across the country are finding clients who have been subjected to mind control techniques. The consistency of their stories about the purpose of the mind control and torture techniques, such as electric shock, use of hallucinogens, sensory deprivation, spinning, hypnosis, dislocation of limbs and sexual abuse is remarkable. There is almost nothing published on this aspect of mind control used with children, and these clients come from all over the country, having had no contact with each other… It needs to be made clear that people have remembered these names and events spontaneously with free recall and without the use of any memory-retrievable techniques, such as hypnosis.

Claudia S. Mullen testified:

Between the years of 1957 and 1984, I became a pawn in a government scheme whose ultimate goal was mind control and to create the ‘perfect spy’ — all through the use of chemicals, radiation, drugs, hypnosis, electric shock, isolation in tubs of water, sleep deprivation, brainwashing and verbal, physical, emotional and sexual abuse. In 1958, I was to be tested, they told me, by some important doctors coming from a place called the ‘Society’ (the Human Ecology Society). [aka, Human Ecology Fund] 

A Dr John Gittinger tested me, and Dr [Ewan] Cameron gave me the shocks and Dr Greene the x-rays. Then, I was told by Sid Gottlieb I was ‘ripe for the big A,’ meaning ‘Artichoke.’… The next year, I was sent to a place in Maryland called Deep Creek Cabins to learn how to ‘sexually please men.’ Also, I was taught how to coerce them into talking about themselves. It was Richard Helms (Deputy Director of the CIA), Dr Gottlieb, Captain George White and Morse Allen who all planned on filming as many high government and agency officials and heads of academic institutions and foundations as possible, so later, when the funding for mind control and radiation started to dwindle, then the projects would continue — at any cost. I was to become a regular little ‘spy’ for them after that summer, eventually entrapping many unwitting men, including themselves, all with the use of a hidden camera. I was only nine when this kind of sexual humiliation began. [Martin Orne was the only pedophile not filmed.]

Another time, I heard Dr Martin Orne, who was the Director of the Scientific Office, and later the Institute for Experimental Research, state that in order to keep more funding coming from different sources for the radiation and mind control projects, he suggested stepping up the amounts of all the ‘stressors’ used and also the blackmail portion of the experiments. He said, ‘It needed to be done faster, then get rid of the subjects, as it was asking for ‘us’ to come back and haunt them by remembering.’


CIA psychiatrist and psychologist Martin Theodore Orne conducted MK-ULTRA Subproject 84 at the University of Sydney during a two-month lecture period in 1960. His experiment was jointly funded by the US Airforce Office of Scientific Research (grant number AF-AFOSR-88-63) and the Human Ecology Fund (HEF) under the project title Attitude Formation, Decision Matrices. The HEF also financed Hans Eysenck’s Subproject 111 under the same title. Hence subprojects 84 and 111 were related and both influenced Australian operations. The HEF was a Cornell University based CIA cut-out for financing MK-ULTRA activities including Ewen Cameron’s crimes at Montreal’s Allen Memorial Institute.

Martin Orne’s 1960 visit was sponsored by USEFA (US Educational Foundation in Australia), the Australian body of the Fulbright Scholarship and Lectureship Program. The CIA used the Fulbright program to insert their agents or contractors into MK-ULTRA subprojects. 

University of Sydney Psychology faculty head, Alfred Gordon Hammer, approved Subproject 84. Gordon Hammer (then APS Chair) subsequently spent two sabbaticals in Martin Orne’s Philadelphia laboratory during the 1960s and 70s. Leading up to Martin Orne’s visit, Gordon Hammer ran a weekly hypnosis seminar attended by University of Sydney students who became major contributors to MK-ULTRA hypnosis research: 

  • Frederick Evans
  • Wendy-Louise Walker
  • George Singer
  • Wendy A. Fairfax-Thorn
  • Jean Jones 
  • Margaret Austin,
  • Peter Sheehan
  • Campbell W. Perry.

In April 1960, four months before Martin Orne visited Sydney, George Hoben Estabrooks invited him to speak at a Colgate College symposium. Estabrooks, father of the Manchurian Candidate, boasted eight years later:

The key to creating an effective spy or assassin rests in splitting a man’s personality, or creating multi-personality, with the aid of hypnotism. This is not science fiction. This has and is being done. I have done it. It is child’s play now to develop a multiple personality through hypnotism.

Martin Orne’s presentation paper was later titled ‘Antisocial Behaviour and Hypnosis.’ His experimental objective was to see if hypnotised subjects would carry out dangerous and harmful acts they normally would not. The resultant article, Social Control in the Psychological Experiment: Antisocial Behaviour & Hypnosis,published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, was co-authored by Martin Orne and University of Sydney psychology student Frederick J. Evans. The abstract of the 1965 paper reads:

Rowland and Young found that hypnotized subjects were willing to carry out such apparently antisocial actions as grasping a dangerous reptile, plunging their hand into concentrated acid, and throwing the acid at an assistant.

Frederick Evans and Martin Orne subsequently assumed positions at the University of Pennsylvania, the USA’s major MK-ULTRA research hub. Australian psychologists Peter W. Sheehan and Campbell W. Perry conducted Manchurian-candidate hypnosis experiments with this Pennsylvanian research network. Campbell Perry became a board member of the CIA’s False Memory Syndrome Foundation headed by Martin Orne.

Wendy A. Fairfax-Thorn was a student in Phil Sutcliffe’s Psychology department, studying hypnosis and multiple personality disorder with Subproject 84 psychologist Frederick J. Evans. In 1960, Wendy Thorn completed a University of Sydney thesis on posthypnotic amnesia, then presented her paper Hypnosis and Suggestibility to the ABBPS. In 1961, the ABBPS financed a post-graduate research scholarship to ANU (Australian National University) for Wendy Thorn to study the placebo effect. Her resultant 1962 ANU thesis noted: ‘This study would have also lacked a great deal without the information, advice and materials supplied by Professor H.J. Eysenck (director of MK-ULTRA Subproject 111). From 1963 to 1964, Wendy Thorn participated in hypnosis research with Frederick J. Evans while receiving assistance from the CIA-funded Studies in Hypnosis Project directed by Martin Orne. In 1963, Fred Evans attended Harvard on a Fulbright Scholarship to work and publish with Martin Orne. Wendy Thorn later collaborated with Fred Evans and Hans Eysenck on MK-ULTRA research at Maudsley Hospital Institute of Psychiatry (IoP) in London. Wendy Thorn and Fred Evans subsequently co-published a paper on hypnotic amnesia in 1966.

Phillip Sutcliffe had MK-ULTRA connections which led to Martin Orne commencing his MK-ULTRA hypnosis research at the University of Sydney. Peter Sheehan explained:

Phil had network connections with Martin Orne, and very quickly I got drawn into a very extensive program of research – that was funded in Australia – and then through the network and the associations and working with Phil Sutcliffe, I then went across to work with Martin Orne in Philadelphia.

Phil Sutcliffe was influenced by his thesis examiner Hans Eysenck who directed MK-ULTRA Subproject 111. In 1959, Phil Sutcliffe received the first University of Sydney PhD for his thesis Hypnotic Behaviour: Fantasy or Simulation? His thesis examiners were Gordon Hammer, Robert W. White (Harvard), and Hans Eysenck of London’s Institute of Psychiatry which conducted CIA funded MK-ULTRA research. The examiners declared Sutcliffe’s work ‘a model for what a PhD thesis should be.’ Robert White headed Harvard’s Social Relations Department where MK-ULTRA doctors Henry A. Murray and Timothy Leary operated. After examining Phil Sutcliffe’s thesis in November 1959, Hans Eysenck applied for a CIA grant to direct MK-ULTRA Subproject 111. The CIA Chemical Branch Chief concluded, ‘Eysenck is one of the most skilful and productive psychologists on the international scene today and a grant to him would add prestige of the Society.’

Peter Van Sommers: Phil Sutcliffe later connected with Peter Van Sommers, a University of Melbourne student who received a 1958 Fulbright Scholarship to become the first student in Experimental Psychology at Harvard’s Social Relations Department. At Harvard, Van Sommers placed electrodes in the brains of rats to create lesions used to control their behaviour. Harvard retained Van Sommers until 1961, after his Fulbright scholarship expired, because his research was valuable to DoD (Department of Defence) projects. Van Sommers also spent time at the University of Pennsylvania which offered the world’s most cutting-edge psychology research laboratory. In the late 1960s, Van Sommers visited the Mecca of MK-ULTRA, Aldous Huxley’s Esalen Institute in Big Sur, California.



Peter Sheehan subsequently founded a hypnosis laboratory at the University of Queensland. Multiple independent sources informed me that undergraduate psychology students felt forced to participate in hypnosis research for course credit. Peter Sheehan worked in the UQ psychology faculty with Paul Wilson who, witnesses told me, screened a kiddie porn snuff film to psychology students. Paul Wilson was subsequently convicted of child rape. During the early 1980s, UQ advertised that it was hosting a pro-pedophilia symposium which was cancelled following public outcry.

New Book Offers Insight into how Aussie Banks Launder Proceeds of CIA Global Child Sex Trafficking Operation

On sale 1 June 2022


How the Aussie economy got hooked on the world’s dirtiest cash

In today’s ruthless world of organised crime, the best criminals aren’t foolish enough to steal money out of banks. They wear tailored suits, carry briefcases, and discreetly slip money into banks. 

Bigwigs, oligarchs and crime syndicates running drugs, trafficking guns and people, arming terrorists and subverting government controls are desperate to put a legitimate face on their wealth. Washing dirty money, moving it around the globe, making it look legitimate is where the action is for both criminals and the authorities chasing them.

Australia is awash with dirty money. It flows through our economy, keeps banks running, powers big business, puts coffee on restaurant tables, seeps into clubs, pubs, sport, the art world and anywhere that value is moved. It infiltrates real estate, costs billions in policing, and takes a terrible toll on Australian lives. What law enforcement agencies might lack in legislation and political will, they make up for with sheer resourcefulness. When they can’t get at the masterminds and bigwigs, they have honed tactics that intercept the flow of illicit cash and aim to drive a wedge between crooks and their ill-gotten wealth.

In The Lucky Laundry, financial crime expert Nathan Lynch delves deep inside this hidden world to explain how dark money has infected the lives of ordinary people – and tainted Australian democracy. He opens the curtain on the hidden world of financial intelligence, where crooks and spooks play a cat-and-mouse game inside the world’s black money markets.


Here is what I wrote about this topic in the 2020 Lockdown Edition of my book EYES WIDE OPEN:


Australia is in the process of two federal investigations, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse, and the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. Only one of these investigations has shed any light on the global child trafficking network. On 5 April 2018, Nicole Rose, the newly appointed head of AUSTRAC (Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre) addressed the Australian media:[1]

I thought coming from the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission that I had a pretty good handle on serious and organised crime side. I didn’t appreciate the depth and breadth of involvement with private entities and banks. I didn’t appreciate how many industries it does actually touch. There’s a misperception that money laundering is a victimless white-collar crime that’s probably just looking at tax avoidance – and it’s not. It is criminal entities using financial institutions here and nationally to move criminal funds around our country and our financial system overseas. And it has a massive impact on everyday life. Whether that’s child exploitation, serious and organised crime, drug importation – it all involves money laundering.

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) was subsequently fined $700 million for almost 54,000 breaches of anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing laws, including the laundering of proceeds from child sex trafficking, and the channelling of these funds into overseas terrorist organisations. This massive criminal operation involved 27 different groups or cells, each of which accessed a CBA account. Each of the 27 accounts was used for money laundering by multiple, possibly hundreds, of criminals, with each individual depositing amounts of over $10,000 into the automatic tellers per sitting. Police obtained footage of people sitting at tellers at night with large bags of cash, patiently feeding notes into the IDMs (Intelligent Deposit Machines).

About 80 percent of CBA-laundered money was obtained via drug trafficking, while the remaining 20 percent came from child sex trafficking (namely by Fijian nationals operating in far north Queensland). The CBA sting operation incorporated the biggest illicit drug bust in Australian history. This massive Perth, WA drug bust went unreported in the Australian media. And that is not all the government covered up. AUSTRAC cut short their investigation and action against the CBA because if they continued, the laundering operation was so massive the CBA would have run out of money paying the appropriate fines.

The most telling cover-up regarding the CBA case is that, while the CBA as an organisation was fined, law enforcement authorities never prosecuted the individual CBA employees identified as responsible for masterminding the laundering operation. Those offenders simply left the CBA to assume senior executive positions within other organisations. Police prosecutors claimed they had insufficient evidence to prosecute the executives, when they in fact possessed ample evidence. I suggest the true reason the DPP did not pursue the individuals responsible for these crimes is because the perpetrators were CIA agents, and the CBA money laundering operation was part of the CIA-coordinated global child and drug trafficking operation.

As I write, Westpac and the NAB (National Australia Bank) are under AUSTRAC investigation for the very same crimes. 

[1] Peter Ryan (2018). New AUSTRAC boss Nicole Rose shocked by ‘depth and breadth’ of money laundering, ABC News [Online], 5 April.