Crime Against Humanity: the Holy GAAP, 34

Before drawing my personal conclusions about the legal coverage of moneypulation and moneypulators, I think it is appropriate to point out the relationship between scriptural, commercial bank money and off−balance sheet activities in general, too. The studies of Mervyn K. Lewis and Daniele Pace, amongst the many important details they shed light on, highlight as well the off−balance sheet room for manoeuvre for commercial bank money.
Remembering that that “money” is a virtual, imagined, non−physical entity, we realise that as such it can exist, operate, and produce wealth transfer to its creator, everywhere not one, but two requirements are present: not only the acknowledgement and acceptance of its purchasing power, but also the presence of the physical infrastructure enabling it to exist and circulate at all.
The wide scope of off−balance sheet activities provides both such requirements, as it offers outside of the borders of the balance sheet further ample space where scriptural money is acknowledged, accepted and supported, and where it can therefore be unleashed and run wild even more. In fact, tens of different types of off−balance sheet activities exist, and at least a good dozen of them looks directly connected to the creation, circulation and persistence of the “promise of payment who would be payment”: loan commitments such as overdraft facilities, credit lines, back up lines for commercial paper, standby lines of credit, revolving lines of credit and reciprocal deposit agreements; loan−related services such as loan origination, loan servicing, loan pass throughs, asset sales without recourse, sales of loan participations, agent for syndicated loans…
Wait a minute! You don’t want us to get lost in this terminological minefield, do you? Don’t worry.
I previously warned you we enter a minefield here, a hostile territory where moneypulators may turn 1984’s Doublespeak into an art in order to conceal their three−card trick and get it on with it while convincing us there is none and how dare we even think so. Therefore it goes without saying that there can be countless controversies about what is what, what is applicable to what, and what are we talking about in the first place, and we’re not going to take this bait, right?. We’re going to study legalese semantics and grammar only to the point it brings us out of going in circles, not beyond that point where it brings us back into it.