Author Topic: MORTGAGE FRAUD: "IT'S CRIMINAL BY DESIGN"  (Read 58482 times)

M O'D

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1164
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • ThinkFree
MORTGAGE FRAUD: "IT'S CRIMINAL BY DESIGN"
« on: May 02, 2013, 12:46:53 PM »
Hi. Full pdf of the article by Tim Madden, a notable Canadian forensic accountant here and ATTACHED BELOW... Peace  :-*

Quote
 
IT’S CRIMINAL BY DESIGN

 

by Timothy Madden

As at early 2010 the global financial system is undergoing a virtual controlled demolition to dispose of a massive liability to the apparent owners of the system. There is virtually not a mortgage out there that is worth the paper it is printed on in law or in equity. We are not experiencing a financial crisis, per se, but more correctly a crisis of criminality. They are destroying the liabilities by destroying the legal entities (financial institutions) to which they are attached. Who are you going to sue?

If you have a mortgage with a financial institution, then it is a virtual certainty that it is on its face a false document (as defined in Canada, for example, by s. 321 of the Criminal Code) and civilly unenforceable. The truly interesting part is that the criminality is so obvious, usually flagrantly so, and the reason why virtually every mortgage contains one or more of five primary and positive criminal devices. They are:

1. False receipt and/or false declaration of ownership;

2. Fictitious consideration;

3. Bait and switch;

4. Wager; and

5. Concealment of loan fees by omission.



1. False Receipt

The most common form of mortgage (for an initial home purchase) states to the effect:

I, John/Jane Smith, being registered as owner of an estate in fee simple of the following lands: [legal description of property]

In consideration of the sum of [$ Principal Amount] lent to me [past tense] by [Bank], the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, do hereby covenant as follows: [mortgage terms and conditions]

As and when the writings are signed, witnessed, notarized, and delivered, generally both sworn statements are objectively and demonstrably false. The nominal borrower wants the loan so that they can first become the owner, and then register such ownership; and they have not yet received a penny from the bank. So why does the solicitor get them to sign and swear under oath and penalty of perjury that they are the existing registered owner and that the bank has already paid them the loan proceeds?

Nor is it a mere technicality, because the bank then places essential and material reliance on the mortgage receipt clause in its sourcing (conversion/creation) of funds for the purported loan.

But time is of the essence, and if a writing (as a legal document) is a false document as and when nominally executed, then no subsequent treatment can cure that defect between the parties.



2. Fictitious or illusory consideration

The second most common technique is fictitious or illusory consideration where the mortgage states that the nominal borrower transfers ownership of the mortgage to the bank in exchange for the bank's bare agreement to make a loan or to advance credit. It is illegal and contrary to GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles/Practices) for a bank (or any lender or creditor) to hold out its agreement to loan as a separate or distinct consideration or service from the loan itself.

A typical (mortgage-secured) VanCity (Vancouver City Savings Credit Union (a major Canadian financial institution)) CREDITLINE LOAN AGREEMENT states, for example, (emphasis added):

'IN CONSIDERATION of VANCOUVER CITY SAVINGS CREDIT UNION ("VanCity") agreeing to establish a Creditline on the Account Number and Type noted above (the "Account") for the undersigned (the "Member") and agreeing to lend to the Member up to the sum shown below as the Authorized Limit (the "Authorized Limit"), the Member and VanCity agree as follows:... [other terms set out]'

The stated consideration is illusory (of no substance), specifically illegal in the case of a financial institution; the bank is in the business of knowing it, and its executive officers must swear under oath and penalty of perjury that it knows it (under the bank's Annual Report(s)). Further, no borrower has the capacity to allow or to agree to allow a bank, or anyone else, to violate the many and varied laws against the practice.



3. Bait and switch

The fictitious or illusory consideration technique is almost always used together with the bait and switch technique. Even if a bank's bare agreement to loan were itself a real and legal consideration, it is almost always negated by a disclaimer, as in the above VanCity example, which continues:

'NO OBLIGATION TO ADVANCE - The Member acknowledges and agrees that neither the execution of this Creditline Agreement nor execution and delivery of any security shall bind VanCity to advance or re-advance any unadvanced portion thereof, but nevertheless the estate conveyed to VanCity by any security shall take effect upon the execution and delivery of such security.'

Even without the Bank Act, Credit Union Act, Trust and Loan Companies Act, CICA (Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants), and/or GAAP regulations, the presence of a disclaimer that the bank is not bound to make a loan makes the express prior statement "In Consideration of [the bank's] agreement to lend...", of itself, into an objectively false representation or false pretense, it is classic bait and switch.

It is also mala en se or evil/wrongful of itself, meaning fraudulent on the face of it because it is directly contradicted and expressly over-ridden by the NO OBLIGATION TO ADVANCE clause, the initial bait clause can have no logical purpose other than to deceive.

With the intent to provide for its own unearned/unjust enrichment at the expense of the purported borrower, the bank holds out its bare and non-binding nominal agreement to loan as good and valuable consideration, substantially in the amount of the purported loan, to induce the purported borrower to execute (sign) and deliver the valuable security/money asset in favour of the bank materially before the bank provides any credit-in-fact.

In Canada the specific criminal offence is under s. 363 of the Criminal Code (obtaining execution of a valuable security by fraud or false pretense), and the same is criminal in virtually every country. The bank appears to legally obtain possession and ownership of the money/asset/security while incurring no liability in law (because of the disclaimer). That is the switch.

Here again, it is plainly obvious that the mortgage is a fraud on its face. Put any competent accountant on the witness stand and ask them if it is legal for a financial institution to record or otherwise treat or traffic in its agreement to advance as a separate or distinct consideration from an advance itself (as bait or otherwise) and they will testify that it is not legal, and is in fact specifically illegal. This is among the most basic and essential rules of institutional accounting. It is a rule against double counting.


4. Wager

The standard provision and disclaimer in a mortgage that the nominal borrower is bound unconditionally, but that the alleged lender is not bound to make an advance, also makes the transaction into a wager-in-law. A standard Bank of Montreal mortgage states/concludes in this respect, for example:

"(14) Whether or not:

(c) the Lender has advanced to the Borrower part of the Principal Amount, the Lender does not have to advance the Principal Amount or the rest or any further part of the Principal Amount to the Borrower unless the Lender wants to."

The larger agreement as stated in the mortgage is that in exchange for the bank's bare agreement to advance $230,000 to the nominal borrower, the nominal borrower agrees that they owe the bank $230,000 plus interest even if the bank changes its mind and does not make an advance. How the bank then decides on whether to make an advance after it has received the money/asset/security is irrelevant. It is the fact of making it a chance event that creates the wager-in-law.

Likewise again with the above switch clause from the VanCity example:

"NO OBLIGATION TO ADVANCE - The Member acknowledges and agrees that neither the execution of this Creditline Agreement nor execution and delivery of any security shall bind VanCity to advance [i.e., to award the prize], ...but nevertheless the estate conveyed to VanCity by any security [i.e., the entry fee] shall take effect upon the execution and delivery of such security."

By putting the agreement into the form of a wager the bank is able to nominally book or capitalize the value of the mortgage as its own property (like an entry fee) which it then flips back to the purported borrower as an award of newly created (interest bearing) credit (the prize) directly supported by the bank's acquisition of a right of property in the mortgage itself under the pretense of security.

To truly appreciate the aberrant nature of these practices, however, apply the same techniques to deposit accounts. Ask a banker if he will give you a signed receipt for a million dollar deposit, and say that you will return in a day or so to actually make the deposit. Ask a banker if the bank will agree that it owes you $1 million in exchange for your bare, nominal, and non-binding agreement to deposit $1 million. What banks do on purported loans is not just irregular – it is in-your-face criminal.

The majority of mortgages contain at least three out of four of the above illegal or demonstrably false provision types, any one of which in law renders the mortgage void and unenforceable, and makes the lawyers (and their bonding/insurance institutions) responsible for the financial consequences.



Now for the worldwide $100 trillion question:

Why would any competent lawyer solicit, or even allow, a party to sign a receipt for money received without even asking if the statement is true? "Oh before you sign that Mr. Smith, I need to ask, have you in fact received the $230,000 or whatever Principal Amount that the document claims to have already been paid to you by the bank?"

"Are you in fact the registered owner of the property? If so, then why do you want the loan? I thought that you said that you wanted the loan so that you can buy the property, yet here you are swearing under penalty of perjury that you already own it, and that such ownership is already registered?"

Why would any competent lawyer solicit, or even allow, a party to sign documents that state a fictitious and plainly illegal consideration from the other party, contrary to the most basic laws of accounting?

Why would any competent lawyer solicit, or even allow, a party to sign a document claiming to be a security, but which is on its face and by express terms a wager – racketeering by definition?

Metaphorically, the banker arrives at the transaction with empty pockets – he brings nothing and contributes nothing that he does not obtain from the nominal borrower – yet he walks away from the transaction as the legal creditor of the nominal borrower, who brings the only thing of equitable substance to the transaction (hypothecation/pledge of their future income) yet walks away the legal debtor of the banker.

But equity trumps law and the nominal borrower can always sue the bank in equity for the constructive and/or actual fraud that the bank commits – unless the bank can induce the nominal borrower into participating in the offence.

The purpose of the solicitor in the transaction is to induce the nominal borrower to commit a strict liability statutory offence so as to forfeit their capacity to sue the bank in equity for the bank's fraud. This in turn allows the bank to ignore its own criminal act and to capitalize the gain from the fraud without having to set aside a contingency on its accounting books. The legal guilt of the nominal borrower is inherent in the swearing of the document which is objectively false at the time of its making, unless he or she can establish that the language of the document is ambiguous.

The following is from a mortgage to the Canadian Crown corporation known as the (federal) Farm Credit Corporation (FCC). The rancher/borrower did not expect to receive the advance for two weeks, and, again as expected, the credit was subsequently not actually advanced until two weeks after he was required to sign, swear, and deliver the FCC's standard mortgage which states, in material part:

"WITNESSETH that the Mortgagor [Borrower] for and in consideration of --- One Hundred and Three Thousand Five Hundred --- ($103,500.00) --- Dollars of lawful money of Canada to him in hand well and truly paid by the Mortgagee [FCC] at or before the sealing and delivery of these presents (the receipt whereof is hereby by him acknowledged)...."

Again, time is of the essence, and the statement/document is plainly false as and when autographed/signed and delivered-in-fact. Further, such is not a side issue – evidencing the fact of executed consideration (a receipt) is the primary and stated purpose of the writing itself.

It is simply a lie put to paper.

But, again, why do they make it so obvious? Why virtually scream out: "to him in hand well and truly paid …at or before...", when the statement itself would be so plainly false to everyone present at the signing of the writing? Why do they rub our noses in it?

It is about regularizing or systemically involving the equity fraud victim as particeps criminis (partners in crime) as an estoppel of the victim's equitable rights, so that the bank can trade globally in the falsified documents:

particeps criminis ...2. The doctrine that one participant in an unlawful activity cannot recover in a civil action against another participant in the activity. (Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed.))

It also creates an all or nothing dilemma for the courts. Either enforce the law and equity, in which case the bankers, lawyers and judges (as former lawyers) incur the aggregate liability, or else allow and encourage the fraud to continue. There is no middle ground by design.

But regardless of the underlying purpose of the false statements of matters of fact, the fact remains that these merely apparent mortgages are objectively fraudulent on their face, they are void and unenforceable on that basis, and these seemingly anomalous provisions are not at all unique to Canada. For the most part, the form is the same all over the world.

Quid pro quo – the something for something is legal fees.

The quid pro quo - what the lawyers get in return - is the covertly protected treatment of legal fees.

The fifth item on the list is concealment by omission of illegally capitalized-in-advance loan fees, including and especially legal fees on loans, the single most significant source of income to the legal profession.

Parliament in Canada, for example, has made it directly illegal under a dozen different laws since 1880 for lenders to conceal legal fees as part of the claimed principal amount of a loan. More precisely, Parliament has repeatedly made it illegal for lenders to conceal any fees as part of the alleged part of the principal amount of a loan, but the nominal civil justice system steadfastly (and illegally) refuses to enforce these laws because they interfere with the exceptionally profitable and technically criminal relationship between the legal profession and the banks.

At 12% per annum, $2,000 of legal fees on a nominal $100,000 loan, for example, will leverage the interest cost by almost $30,000 over the 25-year amortization period on a mortgage (substantially more in the US where 30-year amortizations are the norm). In virtually any other business, all else being equal, higher costs mean lower profits, not exponentially greater.

Even if the nominal loan were real, the legal fees are to build a kind of legal cage in which to hold the borrower, and they are incurred by and for the benefit of the lender, and to the detriment of the borrower. Otherwise, all else being equal, borrowers would prefer stronger cages and higher legal fees. Legal fees also tend to increase with the purported loan amount and until relatively recently were normally referred to as the lawyer's commission.

Regardless of the underlying reasons to systematically subvert laws against the practice, there is a very material difference between a loan of, for example, $10,000 with interest at 50%, and a loan of $15,000 with zero interest, and it is a fraud to represent the former as the latter, even though the total obligation ($15,000) may be identical. Even a child can see why.

In respect of the global credit/finance business generally, there are five primary purposes to which loan fees and false documents by omission are routinely and in fact systematically directed. They are:

1. Interest rate fraud,
2. Unsecured creditor fraud,
3. Taxation fraud,
4. Financial market fraud, and
5. Regulatory fraud.

Interest rate fraud is where the lender employs loan fees to conceal or understate the real rate of interest. In the example above, the lender would require the borrower to sign a mortgage claiming that $15,000 had been loaned at zero interest, together with an unregistered side-agreement for a rebate or kick-back of $5,000 to the lender. While the borrower may or may not realize that the real rate is greater than zero, they normally do not know the actual rate they are paying. In practice, creditors use more plausible combinations because a mortgage claiming zero interest would arouse suspicion all around, and this applies also to the other four types, but we will stay with the same extreme example because it makes the process clear.

Unsecured creditor fraud occurs when the lender advances $10,000 in exchange for a registered mortgage claiming $15,000 and then claims, upon default, to be a secured creditor for $15,000 of "principal" leaving unsecured creditors of the same borrower to suffer an extra $5,000 loss of their actual principal or equity in favour of the secured lender's false claim to unearned interest.

Taxation fraud occurs when the lender advances $10,000 and then over or at the end of the term receives $5,000 of interest income when the borrower pays the total $15,000. By creating documents that claim a principal sum of $15,000 the lender can evade or reduce the taxation on its $5,000 of interest income.

Financial market fraud occurs when the lender invests $10,000 in a loan to a borrower and then uses the document or portfolio elsewhere claiming a principal sum or investment of $15,000. This particular and flagrantly criminal technique is essentially the reason financial markets worldwide are collapsing as this is written. It is an essential and material element in all financial market leverage and pyramid schemes.

Likewise, regulatory fraud is rampant.

Banks do not generally loan money – at best they advance credit and there is a world of difference.

On average a bank has to have $5 in cash in the vault in order to advance a new $100 of credit. The banks accordingly require borrowers to sign for $105 for every $100 net, and to make up the difference by concealed loan fees. So the borrower signs a mortgage for $105 but only receives $100 of credit as principal, and the bank books the $5 differential as an earned cash reserve to defeat the reserve law. The catch is that if the borrower goes bankrupt right away, then how much is actually in the vault from this transaction? Answer: zero. It is in fact an advance of $100 with a much higher rate than stated (see again interest rate fraud), and no reserve at all in the vault.

Then, if you start cross-leveraging and pyramiding these things, one on top of the other, the result is an eventual disaster of biblical proportions. Welcome to 2010.

In every case the crime is committed with the solicitation for the making of the false document with the intent that it be relied upon as genuine. Each of these five techniques is today rampant throughout the financial world.

We are being systematically looted by a virtual tag-team of national and international banks and national and international law firms. The banks do the looting and the lawyers get a kick-back to solicit and endorse the falsified documentation.

Money costs money while credit does not.

Further, and again, banks generally do not deal in money, but rather credit. The principal difference is that it costs money to loan money but it is a relatively costless undertaking to advance credit. The Alberta Court of Appeal gave a surprisingly accurate description of the real world in a 1967 decision called Breckinridge Speedway v. R [The Crown] (1967) 63 W.W.R. 257.

The likely reason we got the truth here was that the case was not about banking directly, but the mechanics of banking were relevant to the dispute at issue (Alberta Treasury Branches are an Alberta (Canada)-based financial institution):

The chartered banks in Canada issue obligations, namely, deposit liabilities, which are generally accepted as means of payment in Canada although they do not have the status of legal tender. In like manner the treasury branches create deposit liabilities. These deposit liabilities are a form of book debt owing by the bank to the customer and in most cases, including the treasury branches, are subject to transfer by cheque. These payments by cheque provide the means of settlement of a large percentage of the transactions of Canada. Likewise, the treasury branches' deposit liabilities furnish their customers with a similar means of making settlement of transactions by orders drawn on the treasury branches because the treasury branches have been able to persuade the public to regard their deposit liabilities or promises to pay as the equivalent of legal tender by undertaking to convert them into legal tender on demand. These deposit liabilities are used by the customers of the bank or treasury branch which created them as a substitute for currency.

Get it? Every bank in the world deals primarily in privately created and virtually-costless-to-produce "non-legal-tender substitutes for currency" issued either directly by themselves, or as a secondary market participant for "non-legal-tender substitutes for currency" issued by the master franchisee (e.g., the big six chartered banks in Canada, with unlimited authorized capital) in a given geographic region (Canada).

Summary and Review

By way of summary and review, let us look at recent typical small business loan (nominal $2.1 million) as arranged by Sun Life Financial, a global financial giant based in Canada.

First the nominal borrower was required to pay a non-refundable $4,000 "application fee" while agreeing that Sun Life is thereby under no liability to advance credit. That of itself makes the arrangement into a wager and contrary to s. 206(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada, which makes indictable any one who (emphasis added):

makes… any proposal, scheme or plan for advancing, lending… or in any way disposing of any property [e.g., loan proceeds] by…any mode of chance whatever.


Next, the nominal borrower was required to pay a $42,000 "security for costs fee" with the curious added provisio (condition) that the parties agree that the right of property in the $42,000 would pass to SUN LIFE and then be refunded forthwith should the bank choose to advance any credit. The amount represented exactly 2% of the nominal loan amount. Firstly here, if it were a genuine security for costs, then it would pass in trust to the bank's custodial possession only.

Secondly, it is prima facie a fraud against Sun Life's required cash reserves. The clause states in essence that the nominal borrower agrees to show up the day before the bank might make an advance, with $42,000 in cash in a brown paper bag, hand it over to the bank and agree that the cash then belongs absolutely to the bank, which will hold it for a day, and then give it back if it chooses to make an award of credit under the arrangement. To me this seems rather elementary. How blind can auditors and bank examiners be?

Next the nominal borrower was required to sign, have witnessed and notarized, and deliver to Sun Life's solicitors a mortgage on the business property agreeing that the nominal borrower is irrevocably and unconditionally indebted to Sun Life in the "Principal Amount" of $2,100,000, and to give an express receipt for the alleged loan proceeds:

3. In consideration of the Principal Amount of lawful money of Canada, now paid by the Mortgagee to the Mortgagor, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the Mortgagor doth grant and mortgage unto the Mortgagee, its successors and assigns forever, ALL AND SINGULAR the Lands subject only to the Permitted Encumbrances.

where (by clause 1 (xiv)) ""Principal Amount" means the principal amount described in PART 1 of this mortgage [i.e., $2,100,000.00].".

Two days later, the bank advanced $2,100,000 with approximately $100,000 redirected back to the bank in additional fees including of course its legal fees. What is the going rate for a lawyer to draw up constructive forgeries and other organized crime offences?

Note that not only is the receipt clause categorically false, as and when the security is executed and delivered, but the bank also flagrantly lies about the substance of the thing itself. Even the credit that is eventually flipped back in part to the nominal borrower is just that – credit. It is not "lawful money of Canada" but instead "non-legal tender substitutes for currency" "which does not have the status of legal tender" as has been judicially noted.

And of course, and again, any subsequent dealing of any kind, including the receipt of any and all payments under these so-called loans, is automatically an offense against s. 462.31(1) of the Criminal Code (laundering proceeds of crime).

Conclusion and cure

In law and in equity, with few exceptions, every past or present mortgaged homeowner in the world owns their home outright and can recover whatever they have paid the financial institution, plus interest, and/or receive financial compensation if the property has been sold in the meantime. It is the simplest thing in the world to implement.

To start, all nations can agree to crystallize their net foreign debt.

Then, effectively all other credit-based debt can be recognized as null and void.

Then all governments can, at near-zero cost, declare all broadly-defined deposit accounts denominated in their currency to be deemed cash deposits at the respective central bank.

The same nations can simultaneously and collectively agree to 100% required cash backing for all credit transactions going forward.

Freeze the bubble. Cash everyone out. Close the casino.

Law and equity are restored, no one loses a penny, and the twin plagues of debt and financial leverage are gone from the planet.

For my own part, the system operates on the presumption that I have no moral right to bring this information forward unless and until I have a viable solution. Well I do. It will only work once, but it will work once.

Then we can talk about a general amnesty for the broadly-defined legal profession and financial industry. This is not about vengeance or retribution but only about fixing the system.

Who on earth would be harmed by such a remedy?

No one.

We have been psychologically conditioned not to see the obvious, by a relative handful of sentient beings who would perceive the loss of power for its own sake to be a form of positive damage to themselves greater than the financial benefit of having their deposit accounts guaranteed.

They are suffering from a form of spiritual diminished capacity, and the best case scenario for all of us is to genuinely persuade them to take a different path before they do something that may carry with it eternal consequences.

So we can all do this the easy way where everybody wins, or we can do it the hard way where some substantial damage and destruction to people and property may, and likely will, result. Despite the overall tone of much of the preceding, I do believe, or at least understand, the concept of giving the devil his due. By whatever means the oligarchy has managed to fool the vast majority of humanity for at least 300 years and has amassed either nominal title or claim to the virtual entirety of real wealth on Earth, including the future labour of the masses. Is it realistic to expect them to walk away from that regardless of how it was obtained?

The middle way is usually best, not by pure probability, but for a reason. Perhaps it is as simple as actually thanking the oligarchy for the lesson learned, allow it to capitalize or protect, say, 25% of its previous maximum real wealth, and we both move on. At that point the real task becomes controlling the explosion of productive human capacity and output instead of ceding power to our darker nature.

Bear in mind, however, that the oligarchy has consistently arranged things over the centuries under the all or nothing principle, and has thus far gotten its way. The core risk of such a strategy is that the mark figures out what you are doing and calls your bluff.

Tim. February 12, 2010.



http://www.scribd.com/doc/105856020/It-
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 09:56:55 AM by M O'E »
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

M O'D

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1164
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • ThinkFree
Re: "IT'S CRIMINAL BY DESIGN" ~ TIMOTHY MADDEN ON BANKING
« Reply #1 on: May 06, 2013, 06:34:50 PM »
Quote
Santa’s Talk, 2 October 2010.

Credit Consumer Licences held by the Utility Companies, the Banks, the Bailiff Firms
Also have a data protection licence too

FIND OUT WHO’S WRITING TO YOU - use credit consumer licence (CCA Register). Means they can tap into credit and the insurance scam. Don’t pay, then they make a claim from the consolidated funds through insurance. Scottish Power. Licence no.

These companies are licenced to deal with fictional entities only – known as ‘the Consumer’.

At the beginning of the financial year, the Government pays out from the Consolidated Fund which covers all the charges for mortgages, utilities, Council Tax etc on behalf of the people… and these institutions then begin the process of pulling back from the people what has already been paid.

These corporations are part of this Debt Collection System, collecting on behalf of the Govt./the Crown

All have liability insurance –moneys not paid are covered as the DCAs can claim through their insurers. If someone doesnt pay, consol fund insured through Lloyds pays. However they don’t have the right to collect if insurers pay on the debt. Third party debt collector has been paid from the insurance. If they try and enforce the collection of the liability then that is fraud.

The estimate - if no estimate copy of the bill then there is no contract.

Gas and Electricity Act 1954 applies only to the power companies, those who pose as said co.s are in fact Debt Collection Agencies and this act does not apply to them. Fraud by false representation.

The Utility Debt Collectors/companies rent your meter. Power is supplied by statute – agreement between you and the utility Co/ DCA – they can only ask for money if they’ve established a contract - which they do with the copy of estimate.

Council Tax bills are based on their offer(s) as published in the local newspaper - needs rebutting between publication and bill. Does a utility company have the legal right to ask you for money? Do they fuck...

Significance of the Universal Postal Union – no statutes apply whilst documents are in its custody/service.  Makes you post master if you sign through them.

If there is no evidence of delivery, there is no evidence of any statute that can be enforced.

FIND OUT WHAT TYPE OF LICENCE THE CO. HAS – who is the insurer of the original debt?

Solicitor has ltd power of attorney – he cannot enforce a debt.

FIND THEIR INSURANCE NO.

RETURNS TO HEAD OFFICE - postal address from CCA

BANKS

Have no money – they are credit extenders

CREDIT – ‘means promise’


The Mortgage Game

The ‘Dead Pledge’


A seller of a house finds a buyer.

The buyer arranges to buy it through a bank (B1). The buyer takes the liability – he promises to pay. B1 draws up an agreement for him to sign.

The bank (B1) wants him to indorse this agreement with his signature, which is what happens. Seller gets credit.

Buyer receives the house ‘free and clear’ of all encumbrances – HE IS THE OWNER.

This agreement is a negotiable offer and the bank becomes holder of it and indorses it “Without Recourse”.

It then is sold to another bank (B2).

The Trick

B1 offers you a loan, you think this is the money they loaned you to buy the house. However, the house is yours, free of all encumbrances – it has already been bought, the Seller has been paid.

The ‘Dead Pledge’  - is when you pledge the house as a security for this trick ‘Loan’.

But how could you make such a pledge unless the house was yours – free of all encumbrances?

B1 says, ‘You pay and we will give you the loan’.

However, the Bank tricks you into believing you received a loan – but where is the evidence of this?

The property is pledged as security to receive a LOAN – but this loan has nothing to do with the house.   THE HOUSE IS NOT PART OF THE LOAN –  the house was already paid for when B1 made its offer to provide you with a ‘LOAN’.

‘The Power of Sale’

This Clause is in the Agreement.

The remedy is to contest this Power of Sale.

Get the bank to produce the Land Charge and interpret it to the Judge.

“I allege fraud and I allege the bank does not have the power of sale.”
“Can you get a bank official to come and testify?”
If the bank’s lawyer tries to testify, it’s fraud.
Can sub-poena Bank officials.. . who won’t show. So, you win through default.

Can only talk about the loan – but where is the evidence of a loan being deposited in my mortgage account?
Th eBank appears to have no power of sale…

The Application and Mortgage Deed should be created and signed simultaneously. But are they? Look and see…

Interestingly, the mortgage adviser is instructed to under no circumstances allow the buyer to go away with the agreement.

Can only talk about the loan – but where is the evidence of a loan being deposited in my mortgage account?
The Bank appears to have no power of sale…

The Application and Mortgage Deed should be created and signed simultaneously. But are they? Look and see…

Interestingly, the mortgage adviser is instructed to under no circumstances allow the buyer to go away with the agreement.

YOU: I’ve not received a loan…
JUDGE: Do you live in the house?
YOU: No.
JUDGE: Have you paid?
YOU: I will when I get a loan.

The Land Registry is part of the Fraud – the agreement and Deed are not stamped on the same day.

IMPORTANCE of bringing in an argument you can back up with facts

CONSUMER CREDIT LICENCE, Section 75

I thought I owed them money.
Where is the loan?
I’m a victim of fraud.
If the bank does have power of sale, can they show where they deposited this loan into the account?
They did not consummate the deal – where is the evidence of the loan?

YOU: Sir, are you a qualified banker?
YOU: Does the lawyer/barrister have first hand knowledge of the facts? No? WSTFUT (Well, shut the fuck up then)

YOU: I object with prejudice - not accepting anything he’s saying,

Ad Hoc - for this

Prejudice.
1. Harm or injury to a person or thing that may result from a judgement or action, esp. one in which his or her rights are disregarded. ME
2. Terminate with extreme prejudice US slang, kill, assassinate. To the prejudice of with resulting harm to. Without prejudice without detriment to any existing right or claim, spec in Law, without damage to one’s own rights or claims.

Independent a finding which cause substantial prejudice to the applicant
Gen. Injury, damage, harm M16-18

The Voluntary Community Trust

Inform the bank the Trust wishes to begin a Financial Review under Section 13 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

The Third Party has Power of Attorney. As Trustee, can sign power of attorney
JUDGE: ‘Who are you?’
YOU: I am the client.

Go into the power of sale clause

THIS HAS THE EFFECT OF STOPPING ANY LEGAL ACTION WHILST REVIEW IS BEING MADE.

Can use District Registry to register documents (effectively notarising them)

The mortgage charge – how can the bank claim possession of the address, which is out on the road?

Mete
1. a goal, a destination
2. A boundary, a limit, (material or immaterial); a boundary stone or mark. Freq. (esp. Law) in metes and bounds


Power of Review under section 13 of Financial Services and Marketing Act 2000

No original land charge - no power of sale…

No original mortgage
 





« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 09:12:19 AM by M O'E »
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

milk

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "IT'S CRIMINAL BY DESIGN" ~ TIMOTHY MADDEN ON BANKING
« Reply #2 on: May 10, 2013, 12:50:15 AM »
Credit "means promise." 

I missed that one.
  Great post, and thanks who ever did the transcript. 


M O'D

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1164
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • ThinkFree
Re: "IT'S CRIMINAL BY DESIGN" ~ TIMOTHY MADDEN ON BANKING
« Reply #3 on: May 10, 2013, 08:37:05 AM »
Now here's the kicker ~ ask yourself what is the role of the solicitor in the fraud? ...


Quote
Why would any competent lawyer solicit, or even allow, a party to sign a receipt for money received without even asking if the statement is true? "Oh before you sign that Mr. Smith, I need to ask, have you in fact received the $230,000 or whatever Principal Amount that the document claims to have already been paid to you by the bank?"

"Are you in fact the registered owner of the property? If so, then why do you want the loan? I thought that you said that you wanted the loan so that you can buy the property, yet here you are swearing under penalty of perjury that you already own it, and that such ownership is already registered?"

Why would any competent lawyer solicit, or even allow, a party to sign documents that state a fictitious and plainly illegal consideration from the other party, contrary to the most basic laws of accounting?

Why would any competent lawyer solicit, or even allow, a party to sign a document claiming to be a security, but which is on its face and by express terms a wager – racketeering by definition?

Metaphorically, the banker arrives at the transaction with empty pockets – he brings nothing and contributes nothing that he does not obtain from the nominal borrower – yet he walks away from the transaction as the legal creditor of the nominal borrower, who brings the only thing of equitable substance to the transaction (hypothecation/pledge of their future income) yet walks away the legal debtor of the banker. But equity trumps law and the nominal borrower can always sue the bank in equity for the constructive and/or actual fraud that the bank commits – unless the bank can induce the nominal borrower into participating in the offence.

The purpose of the solicitor in the transaction is to induce the nominal borrower to commit a strict liability statutory offence so as to forfeit their capacity to sue the bank in equity for the bank's fraud. This in turn allows the bank to ignore its own criminal act and to capitalize the gain from the fraud without having to set aside a contingency on its accounting books. The legal guilt of the nominal borrower is inherent in the swearing of the document which is objectively false at the time of its making, unless he or she can establish that the language of the document is ambiguous.
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

M O'D

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1164
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • ThinkFree
Re: "IT'S CRIMINAL BY DESIGN" ~ TIMOTHY MADDEN ON BANKING
« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2013, 04:08:37 PM »
Quote
Fraud Act 2006
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Fraud Act 2006[1]

Parliament of the United Kingdom
Long title   An Act to make provision for, and in connection with, criminal liability for fraud and obtaining services dishonestly.
Chapter   2006 c 35
Territorial extent   England and Wales; Northern Ireland
Dates
Royal Assent   8 November 2006
Commencement   15 January 2007
Status: Current legislation

Quote
The Fraud Act 2006 (c 35) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It affects England and Wales and Northern Ireland. It was given Royal Assent on 8 November 2006, and came into effect on 15 January 2007.[2]

The Act gives a statutory definition of the criminal offence of fraud, defining it in three classes - fraud by false representation, fraud by failing to disclose information, and fraud by abuse of position. It provides that a person found guilty of fraud was liable to a fine or imprisonment for up to twelve months on summary conviction (six months in Northern Ireland), or a fine or imprisonment for up to ten years on conviction on indictment.

This Act largely replaces the laws relating to obtaining property by deception, obtaining a pecuniary advantage and other offences that were created under the Theft Act 1978. These offences attracted much criticism for their complexity and difficulty in proving at court. Much of the Theft Act 1978 has been repealed, however, the offence of making off without payment, defined under section 3 has not been affected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud_Act_2006

"Fraud by false representation" is defined by Section 2 of the Act as a case where a person makes "any representation as to fact or law ... express or implied" which they know to be untrue or misleading.

"Fraud by failing to disclose information" is defined by Section 3 of the Act as a case where a person fails to disclose any information to a third party when they are under a legal duty to disclose such information.

"Fraud by abuse of position" is defined by Section 4 of the Act as a case where a person occupies a position where they are expected to safeguard the financial interests of another person, and abuses that position; this includes cases where the abuse consisted of an omission rather than an overt act.


In all three classes of fraud, it requires that for an offence to have occurred, the person must have acted dishonestly, and that they had to have acted with the intent of making a gain for themselves or anyone else, or inflicting a loss (or a risk of loss) on another.[/color][/font]

Quote
The presence of a disclaimer that the bank is not bound to make a loan makes the express prior statement "In Consideration of [the bank's] agreement to lend...", of itself, into an objectively false representation with the intent to provide for its own unearned/unjust enrichment at the expense of the purported borrower, the bank holds out its bare and non-binding nominal agreement to loan as good and valuable consideration, substantially in the amount of the purported loan, to induce the purported borrower to execute (sign) and deliver the valuable security/money asset in favour of the bank materially before the bank provides any credit-in-fact.
Tim Madden

In UK,  the specific criminal offence is under s.2 of the Fraud Act (2006) "Fraud by false representation":

Quote
(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b)intends, by making the representation—

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2)A representation is false if—

(a)it is untrue or misleading, and

(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3)“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—

(a)the person making the representation, or

(b)any other person.

(4)A representation may be express or implied.

(5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

Obtaining execution (signing) of a valuable security by fraud or false pretense is the criminal act the bankster tricks the mortgagor into doing. The bank appears to legally obtain possession and ownership of the money/asset/security while incurring no liability in law (because of the disclaimer and the lack of a lawful agreement)...

So, under the financial inducement and fraudulent misrepresentations of the bankster and the negligent omissions of the conveyancing solicitor who instructs the duped punter to sign the palpably false document (aka deed) as 'beneficial owner' when he is not and leave it undated, the void mortgage is created...  ???



WHAT WAS APPARENTLY A CIVIL MATTER IS IN FACT A CRIMINAL ONE AND IT HAS BEEN FROM THE BEGINNING...
 

« Last Edit: May 24, 2013, 08:36:36 PM by M O'E »
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

M O'D

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1164
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • ThinkFree
Mortgage Fraud ~ Susanne Posel
« Reply #5 on: August 07, 2013, 09:43:16 AM »
Susanne Posel - Hour 1 - Mortgage Fraud & False Memory Implant
August 5, 2013

Quote
Susanne Posel is an investigative journalist and Chief Editor of OccupyCorporatism.com, an alternative news website dedicated to exposing the elite and their plans to globalize money, governments and people. She has expanded out to touch on all aspects of control the ruling Elite use to coerce the masses into compliance. And because of this fact Susanne believes that non-compliance is the answer to combating the New World Order. We discuss two main topics: A new US house bill will is designed to deepen the mortgage fraud and foreclosures. Susanne connects the dots to Agenda 21's land grab. She talks about Edward Bernays' propaganda, the bank for international settlements and planned obsolescence.

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2013/08/RIR-130805.php
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

M O'D

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1164
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • ThinkFree
DAVID WILLIAMS & TIMOTHY MADDEN ON 'PARTICEPS CRIMINIS'
« Reply #6 on: August 21, 2013, 04:06:18 PM »
HOW LOAN AGREEMENT WITH BANK MEANS CUSTOMER IS UNWITTING DUPE & A 'PARTNER/ACCOMPLICE IN CRIME'.

The Rabbit hole of banking crime just got a whole lot deeper...

Tim Madden is an expert forensic accountant recognised by House of Parliament in Canada. The excellent David Williams of Matrix Solutions and Timothy Madden explain the 'Partners in Crime' (particeps criminis) element of all loan agreements with the Banksters and how it exists to the advantage of the Banksters. Tim Madden took the issue all the way to the supreme court of Canada which determined that bank would not do business with you unless you were an accomplice in the crime i.e you have to sign the FALSE DOCUMENT in order to receive the purported 'advance'.  Thus, in one fell swoop, you are an accomplice to the crimes of the Banksters and no court can grant you remedy ~ either at law or in equity.

You are sullied by the transaction you have entered and nothing can make your hands clean. Constructive forgery is what it is known as. It is the same as the 'Main man' Mafia principle. Banks won't do business with you unless and until you have committed the crime because then they know you will not be able to sue them.

Criminal law only states it's a felony, does not state that you shall not do it and therefore the act itself, though criminal, is not fundamentally 'illegal' and they enforce the void contract anyway. They are taking the piss.

Madden identifies the De facto coup vs. the parliament in Canada.. To the Courts there (and from what I have experienced of the Crown Judiciary of ALBION), Criminal law is only a guideline they will consider but it is not binding on them.

Making a false document with intent of forgery ~ "is that your signature?" asks judge. No. Then you're guilty.

You're the one giving them the mortgage, from a legal standpoint, it looks like you drafted the doc, that you are the one who is guilty of making the false document false document with the intent that it be relied upon as genuine. That is the act of forgery and little wonder no judge in UK ever grants the mortgagor the relief that he seeks.

Common law forgery is the signing of a document you know to be false at the time.

The conceptual opposite of law is equity. Law is to take by force that which someone else produced .
You've already 'lost' the moment you crossed that threshold. The instant you signed and delivered the 'Deed of Mortgage' to the bankster. Touching the unclean thing.

Locus standing in curiam. In order to ask for equity you must be able to do it and your hands must be clean.

The lawyer who advised you to enter into such an unlawful contract may well prove to be the only avenue for remedy, after all, would you have entered into such an arrangement had he explained the nature of the deal you were making with the devil?

The Deed of Mortgage is a false document and you signed it!

"Is that your signature?" asks the judge.

"Were the statements true as and when you signed the document?" he continues...

Answer yes to the first and no to the second questions and you have admitted you're a particeps criminis ~ a willing accomplice to the scam. The court knows it's a scam. You have a sense of it but only now do you understand it. In simple terms, you are guilty of making a false document. You have committed Constructive forgery . The act of signing your name to a document which is false (the Deed of Mortgage) means you have committed a Common Law forgery. Your hands are as dirty as a mud wrestler's ~ you are in cahoots with the devil.  Oh dear, oh dear  :-[

Remember, EQUITY is the opposite of LAW. Equity means that which is right, virtuous, correct in and of itself.  Law means the taking by force of stuff another didn't produce.

TOUCHING THE UNCLEAN THING ~ can you make it clean? Can it make you clean?  Sign the deed and you have unclean hands. In order to ask for equity you must be able to do it, and your hands must be clean. Ipso facto, there is no remedy to be had in the commercial courts.



Quote


Particeps Criminis: A participant in a crime; an accomplice. One who shares or co-operates in a criminal offense, tort or fraud. Blacks Law 5th Edition page 1007

Unclean hands, sometimes clean hands doctrine or dirty hands doctrine is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy on account of the fact that the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands". The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands".

A defendant's unclean hands can also be claimed and proven by the plaintiff to claim other equitable remedies and to prevent that defendant from asserting equitable affirmative defenses. In other words, 'unclean hands' can be used offensively by the plaintiff as well as defensively by the defendant. Historically, the doctrine of unclean hands can be traced as far back as the Fourth Lateran Council.

"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_deklUe6Gk


SOURCES: http://cottonwoodconnection.spruz.com

http://therightofselfdetermination.com
« Last Edit: September 08, 2013, 11:00:19 AM by M O'E »
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

M O'D

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1164
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • ThinkFree
THE FORGERY ACT 1913
« Reply #7 on: August 21, 2013, 09:34:48 PM »
Please note the following was repealed ~ nevertheless, the offences still remain under Common Law and that is why it is published here. The relevant sections to banking forgery are in colour.

Although the Fraud Act 2006 is the latest statutory instrument in play with regard to Forgery, the following should help to clarify in people's minds the reality of the racket they have unwittingly entered. Or not, as the case may be...

Interesting to note that the Act came into full effect in 1914, the very year the Banksters stirred up WW1... 


Forgery Act 1913

Quote
1913 c. 27Whole Act without Schedules here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1913/27/body/enacted

1 Definition of forgery

(1) For the purposes of this Act, forgery is the making of a false document in order that it may be used as genuine, and in the case of the seals and dies mentioned in this Act the counterfeiting of a seal or die, and forgery with intent to defraud or deceive, as the case may be, is punishable as in this Act provided.

(2) A document is false within the meaning of this Act if the whole or any material part thereof purports to be made by or on behalf or on account of a person who did not make it nor authorise its making ; or if, though made by or on behalf or on account of the person by whom or by whose authority it purports to have been made, the time or place of making, where either is material, or, in the case of a document identified by number or mark, the number or any distinguishing mark identifying the document, is falsely stated therein ; and in particular a document is false:—

(a) if any material alteration, whether by addition, insertion, obliteration, erasure, removal, or otherwise, has been made therein;


(3) For the purposes of this Act—

(a) it is immaterial in what language a document is expressed or in what place within or without the King's dominions it is expressed to take effect;

(b) Forgery of a document may be complete even if the document when forged is incomplete, or is not or does not purport to be such a document as would be binding or sufficient in law;

2 Forgery of certain documents with, intent to defraud

(1) Forgery of the following documents, if committed with intent to defraud, shall be felony and punishable with penal servitude for life :—

(a) Any will, codicil, or other testamentary document, either of a dead or of a living person, or any probate or letters of administration, whether with or without the will annexed;

(b) Any deed or bond, or any assignment at law or in equity of any deed or bond, or any attestation of the execution of any deed or bond ;

(c) Any bank note, or any indorsement on or assignment of any bank note.

(2) Forgery of the following documents, if committed with intent to defraud, shall be felony and punishable with penal servitude for any term not exceeding fourteen years :—

(a) Any valuable security or assignment thereof or endorsement thereon, or, where the valuable security is a bill of exchange, any acceptance thereof ;

(b) Any document of title to lands or any assignment thereof or endorsement thereon ;

(c) Any document of title to goods or any assignment thereof or endorsement thereon ;

(g)Any document or copy of a document used or intended to be used in evidence in any Court of Record, or any document which is made evidence by law ;

6 Uttering

(1) Every person who utters any forged document, seal, or die shall be guilty of an offence of the like degree (whether felony or misdemeanour) and on conviction thereof shall be liable to the same punishment as if he himself had forged the document, seal, or die.

(2) A person utters a forged document, seal, or die, who, knowing the same to be forged, and with either of the intents necessary to constitute the offence of forging the said document, seal, or die, uses, offers, publishes, delivers, disposes of, tenders in payment or in exchange, exposes for sale or exchange, exchanges, tenders in evidence, or puts off the said forged document, seal, or die.

7 Demanding property on forged documents, &c

Every person shall be guilty of felony and on conviction thereof shall be liable to penal servitude for any term not exceeding fourteen years, who, with intent to defraud, demands, receives, or obtains, or causes or procures to be delivered, paid or transferred to any person, or endeavours to receive or obtain or to cause or procure to be delivered, paid or transferred to any person any money, security for money Or other property, real or personal:

(a )under, upon, or by virtue of any forged instrument whatsoever, knowing the same to be forged ; or

(b) under, upon, or by virtue of any "probate or letters of administration, knowing the will, testament, codicil, or testamentary writing on which such probate or letters of administration shall have been obtained to have been forged, or knowing such probate or letters of administration to have been obtained by any false oath, affirmation, or affidavit,

11 Accessories and abettors

Any person who knowingly and wilfully aids, abets, counsels, causes, procures, or commands the commission of an offence punishable under this Act shall be liable to be dealt with, indicted, tried, and punished as a principal offender.


12 Punishments

(1) Where a sentence of penal servitude may be imposed on conviction of an offence against this Act, the court may, instead thereof, impose a sentence of imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for not more than two years.

(2) — (a) On conviction of a misdemeanour punishable under this Act, the court, instead of or in addition to any other punishment which may be lawfully imposed, may fine the offender :

(b) On conviction of a felony punishable under this Act, the court, in addition to imposing a sentence of penal servitude or imprisonment, may require the offender to enter into his own recognizances, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace and being of good behaviour :

(c) On conviction of a misdemeanour punishable under this Act, the court, instead of or in addition to any other punishment which may lawfully be imposed for the offence, may require the offender to enter into his own recognizances, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace and being of good behaviour:

(d) No person shall be imprisoned under this section for more than one year for not finding sureties.

13 Jurisdiction of quarter sessions in England

A court of quarter sessions in England shall not have jurisdiction to try an indictment for any offence against this Act or for an offence which, under any enactment for the time being in force, is declared to be forgery or to be punishable as forgery.

14 Venue

(1) A person charged—

(a) with an offence against this Act; or

(b) with an offence indictable at common law or under any Act for the time being in force consisting in the forging or altering of any matter whatsoever, or in offering, uttering, disposing of, or putting off any matter whatsoever, knowing the same to be forged or altered;

may be proceeded against, indicted, tried, and punished in any county or place in which he was apprehended or is in custody as if the offence had been committed in that county or place; and for all purposes incidental to or consequential on the prosecution, trial, or punishment of the offence, it shall be deemed to have been committed in that county or place:


Provided that, where the offence charged relates to documents made for the purpose of any Act relating to the suppression of the slave trade, it shall, for the purposes of jurisdiction and trial, be treated as an offence against the Slave Trade Act, 1873.

(2) Nothing in this section shall affect the laws relating to the government of His Majesty's naval or military forces.

17 Form of indictment and proof of intent

(1) In an indictment or information for an offence against this Act with reference to any document, seal, or die, it is sufficient to refer to the document, seal, or die by any name or designation by which it is usually known, or by its purport, without setting ,out any copy or facsimile of the whole or any part of the document, seal, or die.

(2) Where an intent to defraud or an intent to deceive is one of the constituent elements of an offence punishable under this Act, or under any other Act relating to forgery or any kindred offence for the time being in force, it shall not be necessary to allege in the indictment or to prove an intent to defraud or deceive any particular person; and it shall be sufficient to prove that the defendant did the act charged with intent to defraud or to deceive, as the case may require.

(3) If any person who is a member of any co-partnership, or is one of two or more beneficial owners of any property, forges any document, matter, or thing with intent to defraud the co-partnership or the other beneficial owners, he is liable to be dealt with, indicted, tried, and punished as if he had not been or was not a member of the co-partnership, nor one of such beneficial owners.

18 Interpretation

The expression "document of title to lands " includes any deed, map, roll, register, or instrument in writing being or containing evidence of the title or any part of the title to any land or to any interest in or arising out of any land, or any authenticated copy thereof:

The expression " valuable security " includes any writing entitling or evidencing the title of any person to any share or interest in any public stock, annuity, fund, or debt of any part of His Majesty's dominions or of any foreign state, or in any stock, annuity, fund, or debt of any body corporate, company, or society, whether within or without His Majesty's dominions, or to any deposit in any bank, and also includes any scrip, debenture, bill, note, warrant, order, or other security for the payment of money, or any accountable receipt, release, or discharge, or any receipt or other instrument evidencing the payment of money, or the delivery of any chattel personal.

20 Repeals

The enactments specified in the schedule to this Act are hereby repealed as to England and Ireland to the extent specified in the third column of that schedule.

21 Extent

This Act shall not extend to Scotland.

22 Short title and commencement

This Act may be cited as the Forgery Act, 1913, and shall come into operation on the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and fourteen.

© Crown copyright
You may use and re-use the information featured on this website (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence
« Last Edit: August 22, 2013, 11:21:35 AM by M O'E »
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

M O'D

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1164
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • ThinkFree
Re: MORTGAGE FRAUD: "IT'S CRIMINAL BY DESIGN"
« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2013, 11:49:04 AM »
"The Unclean Hands Doctrine Prevents Foreclosure Challenges"



Quote
The unclean hands doctrine dates to a time when one might petition the king to order a remedy to right a wrong. The respondent could challenge the granting of the remedy because the petitioner had acted improperly or unfairly, hence "unclean hands." Modern courts have broadly applied the unclean hands doctrine to numerous situations including, for example, the granting of an injunction against patent infringement. Very recently the unclean hands doctrine is being applied to borrowers in situations in which a lender's conduct concerning a real estate mortgage is challenged by the borrower. This comment will briefly note four federal district court decisions.

On March 19, 2013, a federal magistrate for a district court in Michigan considered numerous challenges to foreclosure. He wrote:

Quote
"Where, as here, Plaintiff received $135,000, failed to pay the debt as agreed and then 'sought judicial assistance in avoiding [his] contractual obligations[,]' the doctrine of unclean hands applies to close the doors to equitable relief, such as quiet title."

On March 20, 2013, a federal district court in Minnesota considered a borrower's challenge to a Sheriff's sale and other actions related to a foreclosure. The court wrote:

Quote
"As a threshold for this equitable relief, the law requires a plaintiff have "clean hands" to have standing. It is undisputed Plaintiffs defaulted on their mortgage loan over four years ago. They seek to declare their mortgage invalid after defaulting; as such, they come to the present case with unclean hands."

On April 10, 2013, a federal district court in Oregon addressed a condominium developer's complaint concerning the FDIC's failure to honor a change in terms agreement related to mortgaged properties. In dismissing the developer's unclean hands argument, the court stated:

Quote
"The Court has not found any Oregon case, and Defendants have cited none, in which the court found unclean hands by a foreclosing entity precluded a foreclosure when the borrower was in default in its loan payments and the default in the loan payments was not caused by any action taken by the lender."

The next day, April 11, 2013 a federal district court in California dismissed a borrower's complaint concerning a failed attempt to secure a mortgage modification by, in part, noting:

Quote
"As to Plaintiff's allegedly misreported income, Plaintiff alleges she signed the loan application knowing her income was misreported. Thus, not only did Plaintiff know of that fact at the time she executed the re-finance loan documents, but she failed to exercise any diligence. Indeed, Plaintiff's admittedly unclean hands bar any fraud claim based on the misreporting of her income."

It should be noted that these opinions are trial court decisions and are subject to being overturned on appeal. Nevertheless, it appears that improper conduct by a borrower, including defaulting on mortgage payments, creates a major barrier to challenging the lender's actions. Of course, not all foreclosure challenges might be subject to an unclean hands defense. However, as a generalization one may say that the unclean hands doctrine prevents foreclosure challenges.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-reid/the-unclean-hands-doctrin_b_3103510.html
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

M O'D

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1164
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • ThinkFree
CPS GUIDELINES ~ The Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981
« Reply #9 on: September 10, 2013, 12:24:30 AM »
Quote
Monday, 9 September 2013

Making a False Instrument

Date produced: January 2012 Title: Forgery Offence: Forgery - Making a false instrument

Legislation: S1 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 Mode of Trial: Either Way Statutory

Limitations & Maximum Penalty: 10 years

Making an instrument which to Ds knowledge is false, with the intention of inducing someone to accept it as genuine and to some act to that other person's prejudice.  Meaning of 'false' is given in section 9, it does not mean that it has to be forged, most simply it tells a lie about itself see Archbold 22-8.

It is an offence of double specific intent, requiring both an intention that the instrument should be used to induce someone else to accept it as genuine and an intention that by reason of accepting it as genuine that the other person will do some act to his own of another's prejudice.


Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
Nature of instrument.
High Gain - actual and intended.
Defendant a professional or quasi-professional.
Sophisticated Offending.
Repeated Offending.
Professional Hallmarks.
Target Individuals rather than Institutions.
Vulnerable victim.

Relevant Sentencing Council Guideline (if any)

SGC Guideline for Fraud especially if accompanied by Fraud offences

Relevant sentencing Guidelines (If any)
None

Relevant Sentencing Case Law

R. V. KERR [1998] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 316 Convicted of procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception. The defendant befriended and old lady asked her to sell her bungalow and when she refused to do so forged a deed of gift. Elements of breach of trust and deceiving the Land Registry. 3 years.

R. V SPILLMAN AND SPILLMAN [2001] 1 Cr.App.R.(S.) 139 (at 496) One appellant was convicted and the other pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud. The defendants and impersonated the testator  and forged a will with a view to obtaining £1.8 million. Mean, devious, carefully planned and carried out and was very nearly successful. 7 and 5 years.

R. V TINA ROBERTS [2011] EWCA Crim 1819 Appellant aged 31 and of previous good character, pleaded guilty and was sentenced for obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception, obtaining a money transfer by deception, 9 offences of fraud, some of which related to forging documents.  She was running a business which provided nutritional products and a range of treatments, including physiotherapy - she was not a qualified physiotherapist. She obtained loans, other banking facilities and also money from clients by making a series of misrepresentations; some of her claims were supported by the use of false documents and false business accounts. 6 years.

Ancillary Orders
Compensation
Confiscation
POCA
Forfeiture orders - of any item shown to relate to the offence  - to be destroyed or dealt with in any manner the court thinks fit, s 7(3) F +C Act 1981 Archbold 22-38

Consider Also

SGC Guideline for Fraud offences and note also potential to charge FRAUD ACT 2006 offences
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/making_a_false_instrument/
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 10:29:07 AM by M O'E »
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

gerbil

  • Sovereign
  • Sr. Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 321
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Kevin the gerbil
    • VOIDMORTGAGE
Re: MORTGAGE FRAUD: "IT'S CRIMINAL BY DESIGN"
« Reply #10 on: September 10, 2013, 06:56:06 AM »
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/obtaining_mortgage_fraud/


    Large amount advanced
    Large loss suffered by lender (Loss = value as represented - actual value)
    Planning
    More than one property
    Offending carried out over a long period
    Offender acting with others
    Offender prime mover or nominee
    Motivated by greed or desire to live beyond his or her means
    No intention to repay
    False identities or details
    Falsified properties
    False or forged documents
    Official documents altered or falsified
....
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
http://www.voidmortgage.net

M O'D

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1164
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • ThinkFree
Re: MORTGAGE FRAUD: "IT'S CRIMINAL BY DESIGN"
« Reply #11 on: September 10, 2013, 10:06:50 AM »
The following, taken from the CPS webpage contains information that is skew to the facts. The scale of mortgage fraud is far more encompassing than the govt. lackeys may realise since the fraud is built into the system itself and encompasses the entire legal profession, and not for the reasons the cps may cite.

The entire legal profession is, most assuredly, complicit in mortgage fraud because they are the ones who advise and instruct the 'mortgagor' to sign what is a FALSE INSTRUMENT (the Deed of Mortgage). The instrument is false on its face because, as Tim Madden explains, it contains 2 prima facie misrepresentations: false receipt and false declaration of ownership:

At the time of signing the 'deed',

1. FACT: There is no 'borrower': the 'punter' has received zilch. So that statement is false, notwithstanding the fact that the advance of 'credit' is simply a credit extension that flows from the punter's signature.
2. FACT: The 'punter' is not the 'beneficial owner' at the time of signing. Another lie put to paper.

The whole process is classic smoke and mirrors, with the lawyer the one who procures the signature on a valuable (though false) instrument. Remember, the Deed has to be complete at the moment of signing in order for it to be valid.  The fact the lawyer inserts the date in his own handwriting several weeks or months after the execution of the deed is nothing less than forgery, as defined by the 1981 Act in the previous post.

Woe betide the lawyer who procures his client's execution and delivery of a valuable security which is false on its face... Notice how frequently the phrase "procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception" crops up.

That is the crime committed by every lawyer who advises his client to execute and deliver an incomplete deed to him for the benefit of the bank. As previously established, to alter the deed by way of insertion (the dating at a later point) is an act of forgery, irrespective of cognitive dissonance or common practice.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF MORTGAGES ARE FRAUDULENT ~ AND THE 'DEED' IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF SUCH.   

In the light of the above, this makes for interesting reading ~



Quote
Obtaining mortgage fraud

Date Updated: January 2012

Title: Theft

Offence: Obtaining by deception - mortgage fraud

Legislation: S15 Theft Act 1968

Commencement Date: Repealed as from 15.1.2007  by the FRAUD ACT 2006 , however under transitional provisions this section  is still applicable to  offences where the offence was partly committed before 15th January 2007- see section14(2) and schedule 2 of  the Fraud  Act for detailed provisions.

Mode of Trial: Either way

Statutory Limitations & Maximum Penalty: 10 years

Culpability & Harm
Large amount advanced
Large loss suffered by lender (Loss = value as represented - actual value)
Planning
More than one property
Offending carried out over a long period
Offender acting with others
Offender prime mover or nominee
Motivated by greed or desire to live beyond his or her means
No intention to repay
False identities or details
Falsified properties
False or forged documents
Official documents altered or falsified
Aggravating & Mitigating Factors
Offender recruited others.
Offender a professional or quasi-professional.

Relevant Sentencing Guidelines (If Any)

Clark [1998] 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 95 (Guideline Case)
Property obtained in breach of trust
(superseded the guideline case of Barrick (1985) 81 Cr. App. R. (S) 78 to take account of inflation)
Save in very exceptional circumstances, where a person in a position of trust, for example an accountant, a solicitor, a bank employee or a postman has used his trusted and privileged position to defraud his partners, clients employers or the general public of sizeable sums of money, that person will attract immediate custody.

Such a person, as Clark himself, will hitherto be of impeccable character.

Due to the increasing scale of white-collar dishonesty, such cases warranted longer sentences than originally contemplated in Barrick.

As in Barrick, as well as the amount stolen, the following is to be taken into consideration when sentencing:

Quality and degree of trust in, and rank of the offender
Use the money was put to
Effect on the victim
Period over which the fraud was persisted in
Effect on the public and public confidence
Effect on fellow employees and partners
Effect on the offender
Offender's own history
Personal mitigation
Long delay between discovery of offences and start of trial (2 years or more)
Consecutive sentences may be appropriate where the amount stolen was large, stolen on a number of occasions or taken from more than one victim.

Guidelines
Value of Fraud: Significant but less than £17,500
Guidelines After Contested Trial: Very short custodial to 21 months

Value of Fraud: £17,500 to £100,000
Guidelines After Contested Trial: 2 - 3 years

Value of Fraud: £100,000 to £250,000
Guidelines After Contested Trial: 3 - 4 years

Value of Fraud: £250,000 to £1 million
Guidelines After Contested Trial: 5 - 9 years

Value of Fraud: £1 million or more
Guidelines After Contested Trial: 10 years or more

R v Stevens and Others (1993) 14 Cr. App. R. (S) 372, Current Sentencing Practice B6-33E59
Pleaded guilty to various counts on an indictment containing a total of 37 counts. All the offences were mortgage frauds committed over a period of eight years, 128 mortgage applications having been made in relation to 90 different properties. A total of £1.8 million had been obtained, and attempts had been made in relation to a further £2.5 million. The total loss to lending institutions was estimated to be about £250,000. The sentencer adopted as a criterion of culpability the extent of the unsecured loan obtained by particular defendants, namely the extent to which the advance exceeded the amount of the advance which would have been made if the true value of the property had been known. 6 months to 3 years.

"There are different sorts of mortgage fraud, some more sophisticated than others. In some instances, as happened here, false names and values are used. Properties, as well as borrowers, may even be invented for the purpose of defrauding the financial institutions. One must also take account of the fact that some loans are obtained for commercial purposes under the guise of being for domestic occupation and so at domestic rates. An important consideration is the part played by any given defendant in the fraud; that is to say, his role may be anything between prime mover and nominee. It is an aggravating feature if he recruits others to participate in the commission of the fraud. Of relevance, also, is the length of involvement in the fraud or frauds by any particular defendant, as well as the extent of any personal benefit that he may have derived. It is of consequence, as the judge took into account in this case, whether there was a genuine intention to repay loans advanced, and thereby ultimately avoiding loss to the financial institutions concerned. It is important to bear in mind whether any particular defendant is a professional person or a quasi-professional person, for the special reason that if such a participant he must necessarily be guilty of a breach of trust, and his role may be an important one in the deception of the lending institution."

R v Kefford (Mark James) [2002] 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 106

For economic crimes, alternative sentences to imprisonment could be appropriate punishment.
K was employed by a building society and opened false accounts into which he made windfall payments and then withdrew money as needed. The amount of £11,120 was taken. When interviewed the appellant immediately made full and frank confessions. He had no previous convictions. After the discovery of the offences the appellant sold his home so as to be able to repay the sums he had taken. On appeal his sentence was reduced from 12 months imprisonment to 4 months. The court commented that even in the present circumstances, in cases involving breach of trust where the sum involved was not small, the guidance in Clarke was still applicable even where it was a first offence, however, a sentence of imprisonment should only be imposed when necessary and only for as long as was necessary in view of the overcrowded prison system. For economic crimes, especially where the offender was of previous good character, alternative sentences to imprisonment could be appropriate punishment.

Relevant Sentencing Case Law

R v Mason [1991]12 Cr. App. R. (S) 737
Pleaded guilty to five counts of procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception, three of obtaining property by deception and one of obtaining services by deception. The defendant took out a £56K mortgage, a £64K mortgage and a £80K mortgage and secured loans on a property using a false name and details. Liability £36K. Carefully thought through scheme over a extended period which required considerable skill. 3 years.

R v Callen [1992] 13 Cr. App. R. (S) 60
Convicted of conspiracy. The appellant was a mortgage broker. Over a period of four years he conspired with surveyors and accountants to obtain £2 million from mortgages by the provision of false descriptions of the property concerned and false accounts. The defendant earned £50K commission. 4 years.

R v Luxon and Others [1992] 13 Cr. App. R. (S) 138
Convicted or pleaded guilty to various offences of procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception, obtaining property by deception, and obtaining services by deception. They were concerned in a series of fraudulent mortgage transactions involving a large number of properties. A total of about £600,000 was obtained, and the lenders sustained losses of about £225,000. 18 months to 3 and a half years.

R v Weinberg [1993] 14 Cr. App. R. (S) 381
Pleaded guilty to procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception. The defendant, a financial services consultant, concealed his debts and applied for a mortgage advance of £292K to enable him to purchase a flat for resale. 12 months.

R v Rice [1993] 14 Cr. App. R. (S) 231
Pleaded guilty to 11 counts of procuring the execution of a valuable security. The defendant, in conjunction with others, obtained seven building society mortgages by giving false particulars of occupation, name and salary. A total of £600K was obtained. The defendant admitted his part in the offences when challenged and offered to give evidence against his accomplices. 2 years.

R v Harling and Hayden [1992] 13 Cr. App. R. (S) 672
Pleaded guilty to three offences of obtaining property by deception and one of conspiracy to procure the execution of a valuable security. He was involved in obtaining mortgages in respect of four properties by various false representations, principally relating to sales to fictitious individuals. The total amount involved in the frauds was about £171K all the money was repaid before the offences were discovered 2 years.

R v Harjit Singh Samra [1991] 13 Cr. App. R. (S) 168
Pleaded guilty to two offences of procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception. The defendant obtained mortgages on two houses (£165K) brought to let by making false representations about his income and his circumstances and intentions. 9 months.

R v Evans [1992] 13 Cr. App. R. (S) 413
Convicted of two counts of obtaining by deception. The defendant was an estate agent and obtained a mortgage advance of £52K by making false representations in relation to his employment and earnings, and a second advance of £87K relating to a different property by similar false representations. "All too frequently the defendants include people with professional qualifications or with business experience in property dealing." 12 months with 3 months suspended.

R v Rolls [1993] 14 Cr. App. R. (S) 304
Pleaded guilty to three counts of procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception. On three occasions the defendant who was in financial difficulties obtained mortgages by pretended to sell his house. Sales were based on genuine valuation. No intention to cause any loss. 9 months.

R v Ozair Ahmed [1994] 15 Cr. App. R. (S) 286
Pleaded guilty to three counts of procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception. The defendant secured three mortgages on domestic premises by false representations about his income. One property was occupied by the defendant; the other two were let out. The total amount of the mortgages was £100K. Previous good character, mortgage payments up to date. 9 months

Ward [2005] EWCA CRIM 1972
Prominent Role, Mortgage Broker

6 years imprisonment after conviction was upheld on appeal for the appellant who along with others had perpetrated mortgage frauds, having been convicted of obtaining money transfers by deception. It was held that Ward, a mortgage broker, had played a prominent role, and had been a recruiter, Stevens (1993) 14 Cr. App. R. (S) 372 considered.

Jenner [2002] EWCA CRIM 3060
Building Society Manager

J, a former building society facilities manager, appealed against a total sentence of four years' imprisonment following guilty pleas for false accounting and obtaining a money transfer by deception. J contended that the sentence was excessive in view of the decision in R v Kefford (Mark James) [2002] EWCA CRIM 519, that in economic crimes of this nature, imprisonment should only be imposed when necessary and for no longer than necessary. Allowing the appeal, that in light of the decision in Kefford, J's full cooperation which had enabled the building society to recover nearly all its losses of £394,000 and J's excellent prison report, a sentence of three years and six months' imprisonment should be substituted, Kefford followed.

Carter [2002] EWCA CRIM 2147
False information given by mortgage broker
Two years were reduced on appeal to 12 months following guilty pleas to obtaining a money transfer by deception. The appellant was an independent mortgage adviser and he used that position to make an application for a mortgage advance in the sum of £141,000, giving false information as to the address that he lived, a false landlord's reference and a forged gas bill. As a result he was granted a mortgage advance in the sum sought.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/obtaining_mortgage_fraud/
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 10:21:24 AM by M O'E »
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

M O'D

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1164
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • ThinkFree
CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD & BREACH OF TRUST (CPS GUIDELINES)
« Reply #12 on: September 16, 2013, 11:15:13 AM »
Conspiracy to Defraud (Common Law)

Quote


Date produced: 5 July 2011
Title: Financial crime
Offence: Conspiracy to Defraud
Legislation: Common Law (preserved by  section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977)
Commencement date: N/A
Mode of Trial: Indictable Only

Statutory Limitations & Maximum Penalty: 10 years imprisonment - s.12 (3) CJA 1987.
See Attorney General's Guidance of 9/1/2007 attached to Policy Bulletin 15/2007. Prosecutors will need to specify why this charge is being chosen as opposed to any other and will need management approval to charge, as well as complete monitoring forms - check local arrangements.

Sentencing Range: Variable

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

The amount involved

The use to which money was put (spending on luxuries more venal than on necessities)

Breach of position trust, such as by employee, director or trustee

Elderly or vulnerable victim

Extent of loss - intended and actual

Extent of gain - intended and actual

The period over which and the persistence with which the fraud was carried out
Guilty plea

Voluntary repayments

Personal factors such as illness, disability, family difficulties, etc

Relevant Sentencing Council Guidelines

Fraud guideline does not apply

Relevant Sentencing Guidelines

R v BRIGHT [2008] EWCA Crim 462.

Held: The maximum prison sentence available following a conviction for conspiracy to defraud was 10 years not 7 (as for fraudulent trading).

Guideline Breach of Trust Case

R v CLARK [1998] 2 Cr.App.R. (S.) 95

Save in very exceptional circumstances, where a person in a position of trust, for example an accountant, a solicitor, a bank employee or a postman has used his trusted and privileged position to defraud his partners, clients employers or the general public of sizeable sums of money immediate imprisonment is inevitable unless there are exceptional circumstances or the amount of money involved is very small. The amount defrauded is an important factor and the following guidelines apply where the sums involved are:

Less than £17,500   up to 21 months imprisonment
£17,500 to £100,000   2-3 years
£100,000 to £250,000  3-4 years
£250,000 to £1 million  5-9 years
£1 million or more   10 years +


R. V KEFFORD (MARK JAMES) [2002] 2 CR. APP. R. (S.) 106

For economic crimes, alternative sentences to imprisonment could be appropriate punishment.

K was employed by a building society and opened false accounts into which he made windfall payments and then withdrew money as needed. The amount of £11,120 was taken. When interviewed the appellant immediately made full and frank confessions. He had no previous convictions. After the discovery of the offences the appellant sold his home so as to be able to repay the sums he had taken. On appeal his sentence was reduced from 12 months imprisonment to 4 months. The court commented that even in the present circumstances, in cases involving breach of trust where the sum involved was not small, the guidance in Clarke was still applicable even where it was a first offence, however, a sentence of imprisonment should only be imposed when necessary and only for as long as was necessary in view of the overcrowded prison system. For economic crimes, especially where the offender was of previous good character, alternative sentences to imprisonment could be appropriate punishment.

Others cases consider:

a guilty plea;

the amount involved and the length of time over which the defalcations were persisted in (bearing in mind that a large total may in fact represent a very small amount weekly);

the circumstances in which the offence began (e.g. there is a plain difference between a legitimate claim which becomes false owing to a change of situation and on the other hand a claim which is false from the very beginning);

the use to which the money is put (the provision of household necessities is more venial than spending the money on unnecessary luxury);

previous character;

Matters special to the offender, such as illness, disability, family difficulties, etc.

Any voluntary repayment of the amounts overpaid.

If immediate imprisonment is necessary, a short term of up to about nine or 12 months will usually be sufficient in a contested case where the overpayment is less than, say £10,000.

(The case of GRAHAM, WHATLEY [2005] 1 CR.APP.R.(S) 115 revises the starting amount in Stewart and decides that that short terms of up to about 9 to 12 months would usually be sufficient in contested cases where the overpayment was less than £20,000. Sentences would depend on an almost infinite variety of factors. Serious aggravating factors, such as the obtaining of large sums, frauds persisted in over lengthy periods, claims for benefit that were fraudulent from the inception, sophisticated fraud involving the use of false and/or multiple identities, and the maintenance of an extravagant lifestyle over the period in question, would be likely to result in substantial periods of imprisonment.)

Guideline Mortgage Fraud  Case

STEVENS AND OTHERS (1993) 14 CR.APP.R.(S) 372

In this case, 19 appellants had made 128 mortgage applications in relation to 90 properties. A total of £1.8 million had been obtained over eight years, and £2.5 million worth of further attempts had been made.

The Court of Appeal held that the following should be considered when sentencing for mortgage fraud:-

Whether false names and values were used

Whether properties and borrowers were invented

It is an aggravating feature to recruit others to participate in the fraud

Whether loans for commercial properties were obtained at domestic rates

The part played by the offender; whether he was a professional man or not (breach of trust)

Period over which the fraud was persisted in

Personal benefits derived from the fraud

Delay between the acts ending and the arrest; between arrest and plea; the nature and timing of
the plea is important when there has been a delay

Character and age of offender

Relevant Sentencing Case Law

Refer to theft and fraud cases

R v SIAW [2010] EWCA Crim 395

D pleaded guilty to 2 counts of conspiracy to defraud.  D was in a relationship with a bank employee who he persuaded to access account details of customers.  Total loss was £38,320.  De was also involved in another fraud involving a dishonest bank employee who created fictitious standing orders.  Total loss was £12,295.  A sentence of 4 years was upheld (2 years for the first fraud and 2 years consecutive for the second).

R v NDAMBA [2011] EWCA Crim 139

D pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to defraud.  He was involved in a sophisticated conspiracy to steal and alter cheques.  The cheques were altered to match bank cards which had also been stolen.  The cards were then used with the cheques to withdraw sums of money.  The total value of the fraud was £60,000.  D was arrested with £1600 in cash on him and a folder containing various names, addresses and amounts of money.  Sentence of 27 months on each count reduced to 18 months on appeal because the sentencing judge had overstated the D's involvement.

Ancillary Orders
(Archbold paragraph references)

Compensation Orders: 5-411
Deprivation Orders: 5-439
Disqualification from acting as a Company Director: 5-851
Financial Reporting Orders: 5-886c
Consider Also


Archbold 33-36

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/conspiracy_to_defraud_(common_law)/
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

Laurence James Howell

  • The Bankster Busters
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: MORTGAGE FRAUD: "IT'S CRIMINAL BY DESIGN"
« Reply #13 on: September 17, 2013, 11:09:17 AM »
Hi All

Procuring a signature by Misrepresentation of the material facts. Your hands are clean Fraud Act 2006 plus unauthorized use of signature and Security Instrument meant to permanently deprive the Alleged Borrower of his valuable goods namely the Loan Note and Unjust Enrichment for the Mortco and a denial of Natural Justice to the signer in that the New Credits belong to the Alleged Borrower and not the mortco.

peace through Love