THE PEOPLE Vs THE BANKS > THE CRIMES OF THE BANKSTERS

MORTGAGE FRAUD: "IT'S CRIMINAL BY DESIGN"

<< < (3/3)

gerbil:
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
....

M O'D:
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.
--- End quote ---

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/obtaining_mortgage_fraud/

M O'D:
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

--- End quote ---

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/conspiracy_to_defraud_(common_law)/

Laurence James Howell:
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

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version