Should bank be reported for increasing salary on mortgage application?

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

It's not a question of getting away with it.

You think it's fraud. Guess what? We have a fraud squad. Report it to them.

I hope that given the limited resources, they are looking at people who are carrying out much bigger frauds much more recently.

In the greater scheme of things, changing the salary on an internal form so that a borrower could be given a loan which they applied for through their broker, is just not investigating.

The Fraud Squad would be very busy if they investigated every fraud.

If this is a fraud, it's a fraud perpetrated on the bank by an employee.

There were far more frauds perpetrated on the banks by their customers. And no, every fake P60 from 13 years ago should not be investigated.

Brendan
 
lets get involved in the precise meaning on fraud

3 random definitions of fraud, from dictionaries, would be "
"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"

All could apply to someone who deceives others ( by using the 160k figure rather than the 40k figure from the accounts ) to gain commission or bonus or reach a target or whatever. I assume that is why you think all suspected cases need to be investigated?

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.
Actually the Gardai disagree with you there. On their website say "it is better to err on the side of caution and report the matter to your local Garda Station". Not only that, but in answer to the question "I am not a victim of fraud however I believe a fraud may have been committed against another person or company " they replied "Section 19 Criminal Justice Act 2011 places a legal obligation on anyone to report to An Garda Síochána, information relating to possible frauds which they may know or believe might prevent the fraud being committed, or secure the apprehension prosecution or conviction of a person involved in fraudulent activity."

The Fraud Squad would be very busy if they investigated every fraud.
Surely that is all the more reason to investigate all suspected fraud as cases arise, and punish the offenders. It would act as a deterrent to others in the future. Either you are for the law or you are not. You saying "The Fraud Squad would be very busy if they investigated every fraud." is like saying the sex crimes squad would be very busy if they investigated every sex crime.

I have seen people in local papers (a supermarket employee) prosecuted for stealing a bar of chocolate from his employer. That sent a message to other supermarket employees. And you think the Gardai would or should not be interested in a bank employee deceiving others, perhaps on different occasions, resulting in a vastly greater financial gain? Who knows what other cases may be unearthed? Would it not be in the public interest, as there is no such thing as a victimless crime?

Anyway, thanks for all your help, I think for peace of mind it should be reported and the Gardai can decide to investigate or not.
 
Your relative applied for a loan to buy a parcel of land she planned to flip in 12 months.
She knew she could not service the loan with her income but was willing to risk her savings and inheritance to make a profit.
Amazingly she got the loan and progressed with her scheme but after 12/18 months realised her get rich quick plan had failed.

And now 14 years later it is all the bank fault. Hardly, she did not make good decisions and took on debt with no plan B or C.

I remember back in those days 2000-2007/8 it was easy to get money from the banks, pre-approved credit cards, calculators showing you could borrow €500K etc. We took out a loan to do up our house, we saw the offers of attractive money. We got out our calculator and did a few back of envelop calculations and laughed. There was no way we were going to commit to €2K a month loan repayment, we didn’t have to nerve, we were risk averse.

Your relative wasn’t, if this bank had said no, she would have gone to other lenders or brokers until she got her money. And yes it is sad that one bad decision cause her lifelong grief but she probably had multiple opportunities to say no from the time her application was made until the purchase was made. She is not the first or last person to make a bad decision.

The bank writing €160K in a box instead of €40K is not a fraud.
 
If this is a fraud, it's a fraud perpetrated on the bank by an employee.

It is possible that "an employee" acted as a lone wolf.

It is not certain that this was the case - so why present it so? [Remember in the mid noughties, a certain bank "lodged" billions in another bank to massage the finances and did so on the understanding the Regulator was, at the very least, potentially aware of this to and fro! So, forgive me, if I believe that the OP's version of events could well be true!]

I find the lack of qualification in the quoted line curious and, frankly, smacking of bias!

With the benefit of historical hindsight, the bank may have done things differently here or not at all?!

I accept that mine is a minority view!!
 
Last edited:
If this is a fraud, it's a fraud perpetrated on the bank by an employee.

I find the lack of qualification in the quoted line curious and, frankly, smacking of bias!

Sorry Widow, but your memory is either selective or biased.

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.
 
That's my point, Brendan!

You had already acknowledged the possibilities - prompted by my earlier post! But then choose to revert to the standard-type narrative! Curious.

Anyway, let the record show that it is possible that the bank acted inappropriately way back when.

Nice one skrooge - I was wondering whether anyone would spot the singular error in what I posted!

Have a nice weekend everyone!
 
Last edited:
It would act as a deterrent to others in the future. Either you are for the law or you are not.

Anyway, thanks for all your help, I think for peace of mind it should be reported and the Gardai can decide to investigate or not.

Good luck with wasting the time of the Gardai.

Sounds to me there was nothing going to deter your relative from deciding to try and make a fortune based on income she didn't have, to purchase land she shouldn't have bought, in a get rich scheme, based on borrowings she couldn't afford, and crying afterwards while seeking to blame everybody else.

Despite being asked many times you have not once told us whether she put her savings and inheritance into the original purchase.

There is no difference in what she did than those involved in Pyramid Schemes. Or going into Paddy Power with borrowed money to put it on a sure thing. (that's a story I posted on here at the height of Celtic Tiger madness when a friend of my husband borrowed 45K off the Credit union to go betting.). Your relative gambled, she knew exactly what she was doing and she cried when it didn't work out for her. The country is littered with such people. One thing most of them have in common is they never own up to the truth of their own culpability.

You are doing yourself no favours here, nor are you doing your dead relative a favour. She needed to own her mistake and so do you. Get over it.

There is no legislating for stupid.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, let the record show that it is possible that the bank acted inappropriately way back when.
This website is full of such acknowledgements. It's true, banks acted inappropriately. The Irish people were let down by the politicians, the banks, the Central Bank, the regulators. Banks allowed fake P60's, inflated figures you name it they did. What they did not do was march people into brokers to demand money.
 
For the avoidance of doubt, let me qualify so, Bronte.

Let the record show that it is possible that the bank acted inappropriately way back when in relation to this particular case!
 
The Central Bank lending rules weren’t there in 2007. People didn’t necessarily need income to get a loan.
 
I'm struggling to understand the reticence of posters to accept that there was potentially wrong-doing by the bank. That is all I'm saying.

Take Gordon's latest post.

The implication of it seems to be that the doctoring of the income had negligible, if not zero, materiality. I am not convinced by that!

My question to Gordon is - why would a career banker falsify the records / accept unsupported income without any benefit?
 
The Central Bank lending rules weren’t there in 2007. People didn’t necessarily need income to get a loan.
People with no income did not get big loans to buy property or land either. The banks were answerable to their shareholders and only lent money, or were supposed to lend money, when they thought there was a good chance of getting it back. I put it to you that the unscrupulous person or persons who changed the borrowers income from 40k to over 160k, and wrote that the borrowers income of over 160k would service the loan, must have had a short-sighted selfish reason why he, she or they deceived others - probably commission, bonus, reaching target or promotion?

Exactly, an investigation is needed to establish is this practice was widespread, or if the employee acted alone as a lone wolf. The bank remaining tight lipped and not offering any explanation for the huge discrepancy is worrying and suspicious, to say the least. A bit like sex abuse cases, was the abuse widespead or not?


Despite being asked many times you have not once told us whether she put her savings and inheritance into the original purchase.
She lost all. She may still be alive if someone in the bank put down her true income instead of over 160k, as it seems probable higher up people in the bank would not have approved the loan if they knew she only earned 40k or took the time to study the accounts she provided. Anyway her case is over, the bank got the land back and all she had, the insurance company covered the balance.

Good luck with wasting the time of the Gardai.
So say if someone deceived someone else say 20 times, by changing figures on forms from what they were supposed to be, and pocketed say 5k as a result each time, that is €100,000. Do you not think white collar fraud in general should be investigated, or any type of crime should be investigated?


The bank writing €160K in a box instead of €40K is not a fraud.

So why did someone write the borrowers income as being over €160,000 so, when the accounts and documentation she provided showed it was only €40,000 a year? It is reasonable to assume the borrower would not have got the loan at 40k salary, as there were no plans on how that could or would be repaid. The banker or their agent wrote her income of over €160,000 would repay the loan. Did the person who deceived others by writing the over €160,000 get a commission, bonus, reach target or whatever? Fraud is deceiving others (could be higher management, shareholders or whoever) for personal gain. The bank will not explain the huge discrepancy.

But the bank is a victim of any fraud that has taken place?
As explained earlier, the person or people who deceived others by greatly overstating the borrowers income and therefore making the sale of the loan, more than likely did so for commission, bonus, to reach a target, get promotion or whatever. They did not care who was the victim, if they got away with it. In the long run, of course, they should have known such lending was not sustainable, and would end in tears for the borrower, the bank shareholders etc - as did happen.

The bank actually did not lose money on it, as they got all of the borrowers savings, inheritance etc, everything she earned, the bank got the land back, sold it, and the insurance company paid the balance. So neither the wrong doers in the bank, or the bank itself, lost out. Hence why it could happen again in the future if the individual or individuals concerned are not investigated and punished if necessary.
 

Are you saying she committed suicide because of this? The reason it shouldn't be investigated now is there is no case, the 'victim' is dead, the bank doesn't want to know, there is no way to prove who did what in relation to the forms and the broker probably emigrated in 2008. Also it's probably statute barred.

Why is this such a big issue for you now in 2021?

The bank got what was signed for. By your relative. She an adult, willingly went to a broker, willingly didn't check the forms, willingly signed the forms, willingly signed the banks letter of offer with it's

- outrageous amount borrowed
- for an outrageous price
- with repayments marked out which clearly the borrower could not pay
- with it's clause that if she didn't repay she would be on the hook

So she knew exactly what she signed up for. She also had the advice of a solicitor. Because of her actions borrowers in Ireland paid higher interest rates to this day. (and yes the banks are largely to blame for reckless lending).
 
Most of these cases of overstatement of income was done with the connivence of the borrowers. That's my experience of what went on.
 
The reason it shouldn't be investigated now is there is no case
According to the definition of fraud, and what is in the file in black and white, it seems there is a case, but would not the Garda Fraud dept be the best people to decide if there was a case? Why are you so afraid of them investigating?

there is no way to prove who did what in relation to the forms
It is in the file / let the Gardai find out. I have very high respect for the Gardai. I have seen them go back 30 and 40 years in some cases, very impressive work.

and the broker probably emigrated in 2008.
No the broker did not emigrate. It seems you are scraping the bottom of the barrel with excuse for there to be no investigation. Why is that?

Most of these cases of overstatement of income was done with the connivence of the borrowers. That's my experience of what went on.
So you have experience of fraud inside the banking system? Would you care to share your experience with the relevant authorities? Again I ask you, do you think suspected white collar fraud in general should be investigated?
 
Last edited:
Hi Bronte

I agree fully with the overall thrust of what you say, but just on a point of order...

Also it's probably statute barred.

If the victim wanted to sue the bank, it would be statute barred.

But there is no statute of limitations for a criminal offence and fraud would be a criminal offence.

So if the bank wanted to take this further, they could report it to the Garda that an employee had defrauded them. However, as fraud is very very difficult to prove and prosecute and as a key witness is dead, the Garda would not pursue it.

Brendan
 
I knew about how banks operate way before the Celtic tiger. That’s why I loath them. You’ll not find me defending them. But I’m not accepting some people are not culpable in their own financial downfall. You have no skin in this, you’re wasting your time, but by all means pop off to the Gardai who will laugh at you.

No broker or banker will admit they put fake figures, you don’t know of they did or didn’t, a figure on tge firm is to riff of fraud, it certainly isn’t proof of who out the figure there. But your relative signed the documents, so she accepted what was in the documentation.
What ‘evidence’ do you have of fraud?
 
No broker or banker will admit they put fake figures, you don’t know of they did or didn’t, a figure on tge firm is to riff of fraud
?? Are you trying to say the Gardai would not be capable of finding out who was possibly guilty of "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain" by stating the borrowers income was over 160k, when the evidence and proof was it was only €40k? I have seen the Gardai in an abuse case go back many decades and the amount of people they interviewed and the details they cross checked was incredible. In my opinion there was less evidence in that case, and the wrong doer got jailed.

It should be quite easy for the Gardai Fraud dept to ask the bank why did someone in the banking system state the borrowers income was over 160k, when in the accounts it was 40k. Life changing decisions were made on the basis of someone in the banking system deceiving others (higher up in the banking system, or shareholders) by stating the borrower could repay the loan from her income of over 160k. The bank would not give a explanation to the borrower, maybe they will to the Gardai. Let the Gardai decide and find out who it was, and why they did it, and if they did it to others, it should be fairly simple.

But your relative signed the documents, so she accepted what was in the documentation.

My relative did not see the documentation which mention the over 160k figure until years after taking out the mortgage. On the form she signed, the income box was not filled in, only her 3 years accounts were attached and a statement saying her income was 40k. She accepted her income was 40k, as did the broker whenever she met the broker.

Do you think if white collar fraud is found, those guilty should be punished?