Should bank be reported for increasing salary on mortgage application?

[Sunny]

I don't get what the OP is looking for. Looking at the above it would appear that the bank was the victim of fraud from either the broker or both the broker and borrower. The relative applied for loan. Even if the broker committed fraud, it doesn't absolve the relative from personal responsibility with regard to the loan and the repayments.

I am sorry that the person struggled to make the repayments and life was hard on the back of an ill-advised loan but I am not sure what you are hoping to achieve. As others have said, move on. The system has changed so that those sort of unverified wishy washy applications are finished (for a few years anyway until sub prime makes a comeback!). You are not going to get anywhere.

 

[Jim2007]

The fraud or mistake, call it what you will, affected the borrower, because if the bank acted properly her life would have been completely different.

There is no such thing as reckless lending. The borrower was an adult and society rightly or wrongly, society assumes that they are capable of action in their own interests. You'd have a better chance of arguing that the borrower did not have the capacity to enter into the contract than this nonsense.

Fraud relates to the obtaining of money by deception, the bank lent the money and according to you the borrower acted with integrity, so no basis for a complaint. The dealings between the bank, it's employees and third party brokers is their business, it's up to them to decide if they wish to make a complaint.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

It was the borrowers life which was hugely negatively affected. Her main wish though was that it should not happen to others. She did not want to see other lives destroyed or history repeat itself.

Hi Tim

If the bank had not put in an income of €160k , but had lent her the money based on the accounts showing €40k, would she have been happy?

Brendan

 

[Timjoe]

If the bank had not put in an income of €160k , but had lent her the money based on the accounts showing €40k, would she have been happy?

Nail on the head and good question. The bank would not, or certainly should not, have lent her money based on her income of €40k. I think what annoyed the borrower most was that someone in the bank slyly behind her back put down her annual salary at over 160k, and assessed the loan accordingly, and got a commission or bonus or promotion or big salary or whatever as a result. Had the bank acted properly and honestly in assessing her application, her life would have been very different. I suppose years ago, people trusted the Church and the Banks to act properly and honestly, and not to destroy lives. She knew she applied for loan. Even if the banker or their broker committed fraud - as appears likely as they could not come up with an explanation - it did not absolve the borrower from personal responsibility with regard to the loan and the repayments. She knew that.
She did not want it happening to others and wanted all suspected white collar fraud investigated, and if necessary punished. I guess everyone would be in agreement there. Well, everyone who was not involved in changing figures at someone elses expense.

 

[EmmDee]

wanted all suspected white collar fraud investigated, and if necessary punished. I guess everyone would be in agreement there. Well, everyone who was not involved in changing figures at someone elses expense.

There isn't fraud. Also, she made the application. If the aim is to spare others what she went through then I suggest promoting sensible borrowing and urging people not to borrow beyond their means.

Was she not aware of how much she applied for? When the bank wrote the cheque, did she go back and say "there seems to be some mistake - you shouldn't lend me this much"? If the mortgage application had been tampered with to change the amount requested, then there would be a bigger question - ultimately, her signature went on the form. She was responsible for the amount requested. The income statement (or any other evidence) is just secondary documentation.

 

[Bronte]

She knew she should not have borrowed the money. In 2007 people got carried away. Land did not fall as much as some housing. The land was repossessed, the borrower lost whatever savings she put in to the mortgage and insurance covered the rest, as far as I know. So the bank did not lose money. Savings and a 30k inheritance.

I do not want to identify the borrower and do not see it of relevance.

I guess she thought it was going up in value and a good place for her 30k inheritance etc. Maybe she hoped to sell it after a year. The bank neglected to ask her how she proposed to pay back the loan.
.

You're very vague as to answering important questions yet you are certain in your conviction your relation was defrauded.

How much did your relative put into the land purchase.
How much did the land costs.
How much did she borrow.
What were the repayments.
How do you know the bank neglected to ask her how she was going to repay the loan - that makes zero sense. You have all the paperwork. Over what term and for what repayments was the loan.

Round figures will mean she won't be identified, even full details would hardly identify her. We don't know what province never mind county.

Do you not think she was pretty stupid taking out a loan you think she could never repay.

 

[Timjoe]

Do you not think she was pretty stupid taking out a loan you think she could never repay.

Of course she was very stupid. She was not a financial expert, far from it.

she made the application.
Was she not aware of how much she applied for?

Of course she did and of course she was aware of how much she applied for. She was very stupid and did not think beyond the year her savings and inheritance would last in repayments, and like many others thought property was going to go up for ever, and if there was to be a landing it would be a soft landing.

How do you know the bank neglected to ask her how she was going to repay the loan - that makes zero sense. You have all the paperwork.

On the bank paperwork it just says she could afford to repay the loan from her existing annual income of over €160,000.

There isn't fraud.

So if, as certainly appears to be the case, someone in the bank changed figures from €40,000 per annum to over €160,000 per annum, in order to sell the loan and therefore get commission or bonus or whatever and therefore selfishly profit as a result, to the detriment of borrower / shareholders / insurance company / whoever, as they would have known it was not sustainable, that was not fraud? I am just after looking up online dictionaries as fraud is defined as "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain" or "the crime of getting money by deceiving people" or
"deceit or trickery perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage" What definition of fraud have you got?

 

[RedOnion]

I think what annoyed the borrower most was that someone in the bank slyly behind her back put down her annual salary at over 160k, and assessed the loan accordingly, and got a commission or bonus or promotion or big salary or whatever as a result

I am just after looking up online dictionaries as fraud is defined as "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain" or "the crime of getting money by deceiving people" or
"deceit or trickery perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage" What definition of fraud have you got?

You're ignoring the fact that the broker did alright out of it too! In terms of commissions, where a broker was involved, the commission went to the broker. They would have received about 1% of the amount drawn depending on the structure they agreed with the bank.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Had the bank acted properly and honestly in assessing her application, her life would have been very different.

Sorry Tim. That is nonsense.

Had she not borrowed the money, her life would have been very different.

It is not the bank's fault. It is her fault.

Brendan

 

[Bronte]

Of course she was very stupid. She was not a financial expert, far from it.

Of course she did and of course she was aware of how much she applied for. She was very stupid and did not think beyond the year her savings and inheritance would last in repayments, and like many others thought property was going to go up for ever, and if there was to be a landing it would be a soft landing.

If her income of €40K could not hope to make repayments why on earth did she apply for a loan in the first place.

Did she not have to use her savings and inheritance to purchase the bit of land.

What would have made the land go up in value. Was it farmland, a site, what?

 

[Bronte]

I am just after looking up online dictionaries as fraud is defined as "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain" or "the crime of getting money by deceiving people" or
"deceit or trickery perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage" What definition of fraud have you got?

Sounds to me it was your relative who was up to getting money she couldn't hope to repay (wrongful or criminal deception, plus deceipt or trickery) in a get rich mad scheme. (financial gain + personal gain + profit, to gain unfair or dishonest advantage). By committing fraud (false income) on the bank.

 

[Timjoe]

Sounds to me it was your relative who was up to getting money she couldn't hope to repay (wrongful or criminal deception,

Maybe she hoped to sell it after a year? No law against that.

By committing fraud (false income) on the bank.

She did not commit "fraud (false income) on the bank". She submitted her audited accounts with a letter stating her income was €40k a year. She only discovered years later the bank stated it was over €160k. The income box was left blank on the application form, and was still blank on the copy received from the bank years later.



"Had the bank acted properly and honestly in assessing her application, her life would have been very different"

Sorry Tim. That is nonsense.

How is it nonsense? Do you think "the bank acted properly and honestly in assessing her application"?
Yes or No?
And if they had acted properly and honestly, do you really think they would have made the loan to someone on an income of €40k?

Had she not borrowed the money, her life would have been very different.

Correct. And well she knew that.

It is not the bank's fault. It is her fault.

It was her fault for asking to borrow the money, and she paid a heavy price for that. Given that records show she had no part in it, she cannot be blamed though for the "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain" on the part of the banker or bankers who changed her income from 40k to over 160k for his or their selfish gain.

Do you think suspected white collar fraud should be investigated or not, and what sentences if any would you envisage for anyone found guilty?

 

[Brendan Burgess]

It was her fault for asking to borrow the money, and she paid a heavy price for that.

Brilliant. Well done! She was the sole cause of her own problems. She made a speculative investment. She borrowed the money. It didn't turn out the way she hoped. She ruined her own life.

Brendan

 

[Pinoy adventure]

Tim if the bank put any figure down on any paperwork which did not match what was provided by the borrower there is a real concern,as if they don't it on 1 rest assured they done it on many.
Is it fraud maybe not but it should not of happened in the first place.
Im guessing back then things got passed so quickly small things like this may have being overlooked by brokers/banks.
As some describe it as the Wild West back then,being on the receiving end of it is never nice (I lost thousands via BoI ) but that's a whole other matter but I did in fact call the guards about it which I made made too look like I was the bad guy.
I was told I signed up for sumthing but they could not provide me or show me where I had signed on the application form so what they told me was incorrect.

The bank should find out who put the figure down but that person could be long gone.

 

[SGWidow]

I think it needs to be recognised that based on OP's statements, there is the possibility that the bank acted inappropriately here. Let's not, for now, get caught up on the precise meaning of fraud. It's interesting how many posters have not acknowledged this possibility.

Let me ask a question. Suppose the bank did adjust the income figure, what do people make of that? Specifically, should the bank be sanctioned?

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Hi SG

It is possible that an employee of the bank acted inappropriately. The bank should sanction that employee.

If it was a systemic behaviour approved by the management, the management should be sanctioned.

But it's a bit late now.

Brendan

 

[Pinoy adventure]

Hi SG

It is possible that an employee of the bank acted inappropriately. The bank should sanction that employee.

If it was a systemic behaviour approved by the management, the management should be sanctioned.

But it's a bit late now.

Brendan
[/QUOTE]


Brendan do you know of any cases apart from the Anglo case/s that had any staff or management sanctioned for wrong doing ?

 

[SGWidow]

Thanks Brendan,

It is convenient for banks to espouse the LHOswald lone wolf approach. Reminds me of Soc Gen's reaction when the Kerviel story broke - you'd have almost sworn that he never actually worked for them.

Truth is that for the loan wolf to doctor a file to such an extent, the pack aided by action or inaction. For it to have happened, there certainly would not have been sufficient controls.

 

[Timjoe]

It is possible that an employee of the bank acted inappropriately. The bank should sanction that employee.

If it was a systemic behaviour approved by the management, the management should be sanctioned.

But it's a bit late now.

A bit late now? Surely all suspected white collar fraud should be investigated? If one case was investigated properly, it may unearth other cases. Peoples lives were affected, and the sums of money were not small.
Banks, Teachers, the Church were once all respected and trusted to act properly and honestly; if instances are discovered where they did not, or if they falsified figures to the detriment of others in the long run, surely they should be investigated and punished, no matter how long ago? Otherwise history repeats itself?

The bank failed to explain the discrepancy between the 40k and the over 160k. Should they be allowed get away with that?

 

[Jim2007]

I think it needs to be recognised that based on OP's statements, there is the possibility that the bank acted inappropriately here. Let's not, for now, get caught up on the precise meaning of fraud. It's interesting how many posters have not acknowledged this possibility.

Let me ask a question. Suppose the bank did adjust the income figure, what do people make of that? Specifically, should the bank be sanctioned?

No, lets get involved in the precise meaning on fraud and criminal acts. It totally unacceptable to expect that you can go around accusing people of wrong doing base on whatever definition suits you and expect not to be called out on it.

If you want a serious discussion, then you need to be serious.